RELIABILITY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY: SOLAR
RELIABILITY OF RENEWABLE ENERGY: SOLARJordan Lofthouse, BS, Strata PolicyRandy T Simmons, PhD, Utah State UniversityRyan M. Yonk, PhD, Utah State University
The Institute of Political Economy (IPE) at Utah State University seeks to promote a better understanding of thefoundations of a free society by conducting research and disseminating findings through publications, classes,seminars, conferences, and lectures. By mentoring students and engaging them in research and writing projects, IPEcreates diverse opportunities for students in graduate programs, internships, policy groups, and business.
PRIMARY INVESTIGATORS:Jordan Lofthouse, BSStrata PolicyRandy T Simmons, PhdUtah State UniversityRyan M. Yonk, PhdUtah State UniversitySTUDENT RESEARCH ASSOCIATES:Camille HarmerJadyn NaylorZach HopkinsRyan TaylorDevin SteinGarrett WhiteBracken AllenMichael Palmer
TABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary . 1Introduction . 2Defining Reliability. 2How Solar Energy Works . 2Photovoltaic Panels . 2Concentrated Solar Power Systems . 3Economic Reliability of Solar Energy . 6The High Cost of Solar . 6Policies at the State Level . 6Incentives at the National Level . 9Verdict on Economic Reliability . 9Physical Reliability of Solar Energy . 10Variability of Solar Energy . 10Efficiency and Capacity Factor . 10Location . 10Implications for the Electric Grid . 11What is the Grid? . 11Intermittency . 11Grid Imbalances . 12Using Energy Storage. 13Net Metering. 14The Need for Long-Distance Transmission. 15Verdict on Physical Reliability. 16Environmental Reliability of Solar Energy . 17Water . 17Emissions . 18Manufacturing, Recycling, and Foreign Pollution . 19Wildlife Impacts . 20Verdict on Environmental Reliability. 21Case Study: Solar Energy in Germany . 22Exaggerated Claims of German Solar Power. 22Economic Reliability . 22Physical Reliability . 23Environmental Reliability . 24German Solar Power Analysis . 25Conclusion . 26
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYSolar power’s growth is driven mainly by government policies rather than market forces. Because policymakers continueto favor the solar industry with renewable energy mandates and subsidies, the reliability of solar power becomes amore pressing question. The Institute of Political Economy (IPE) at Utah State University examined the economic,physical, and environmental implications of solar power to determine its overall reliability. IPE determined that usingtax dollars to mandate and subsidize solar power is not a worthwhile investment because the high costs of overcomingsolar power's unreliability outweigh its limited environmental benefits.First, solar power is heavily dependent on government subsidies and mandates, and the solar industry is noteconomically viable without them. State mandates attempt to increase solar energy production by requiring utilities toprovide a certain amount of power from solar energy. Despite mandates and billions of taxpayer dollars in subsidies,solar power only supplied 0.4 percent of the United States’ electricity in 2014. Solar power would not exist even onthis small scale without government assistance.Second, solar power cannot effectively meet electricity demand because it is inefficient and variable. Solar plants aresome of the least efficient electricity generators of all major energy sources. Intermittent cloud cover requires solarplants to be backed up by traditional fossil fuel plants; solar is not able to supply power consistently without seriousassistance from fossil fuels. Because government policies are causing the solar industry to grow artificially fast, currentinfrastructure cannot keep up with solar power’s growth.Most solar is generated during times of the day when electricity is demanded least. Current solar facilities are generallylocated far from population centers, and costly transmission lines have to connect the facilities to distant consumers.Households that generate their own solar power and sell their surplus place mechanical stress on the electric grid aselectricity flows both to and away from homes, increasing maintenance costs.Third, hidden environmental costs make solar power less beneficial than most people think. Solar power reduces carbonemissions because it does not require a fuel source to burn for energy production. Solar power’s intermittency requiresit to be backed up by fossil fuel plants, so the emission benefits of solar power are reduced whenever fossil fuels needto be burned to maintain a constant supply of power. Chinese manufacturing of solar parts also reduces netenvironmental benefits because of destructive waste disposal processes.Utility-scale solar power plants also use large volumes of water in drought-stricken regions, and the facilities displacelocal endangered wildlife. While this report concedes the benefits of solar power’s carbon-free emissions, all of theaforementioned factors decrease solar power’s net environmental benefits, making it a less worthwhile investment.Governments are distorting energy markets and misallocating taxpayer dollars by mandating and subsidizing solarpower. Whether solar power will become reliable within the next few decades is an open question best addressed bymarkets, not subsidies or mandates.Reliability of Renewable Energy: Solar1
INTRODUCTIONMany Americans view solar energy as an environmentally friendly substitute for traditional energy sources. Governmentofficials reinforce this opinion by subsidizing and mandating solar energy production. It is primarily government policies,not market forces, that continue to drive the growth of solar power. The United States Energy InformationAdministration reported more than 5 billion spent on solar subsidies in 2013, yet solar power provided only 0.3 percentof U.S. electricity in 2013.1,2 If solar power is not reliable, it is illogical to mandate its use and to invest billions of taxdollars in it.DEFINING RELIABILITYThe term “reliability” is ambiguous and goes beyond an energy source’s ability to generate power consistently. To gaina more comprehensive understanding of solar power, IPE considered solar power’s reliability in terms of its economic,physical, and environmental implications.We first explore solar power’s economic reliability, which we define as the ability of an energy source to be selfsustaining and affordable without government mandates or subsidies.Second, we examine solar power’s physical reliability. For an energy source to be physically reliable, it must be able toconsistently meet electricity demands by supplying and transmitting its power without interruption.Finally, we examine solar power's environmental reliability. To be environmentally reliable, an alternative energysource must have fewer environmental impacts than traditional fossil fuels.HOW SOLAR ENERGY WORKSPHOTOVOLTAIC PANELSPhotovoltaic (PV) panels directly convert sunlight into electricity. The cells of a PV panel contain materials which absorbparticles of light and emit electrons, generating an electrical current. 3 The three main types of PV panels aremonocrystalline silicon, polycrystalline silicon, and thin-film.4Of the three panel types, monocrystalline silicon panels are made of the highest-grade silicon, making them the mostefficient type of panel. These panels convert 15-20 percent of incoming sunlight into electricity. Becausemonocrystalline panels are the most efficient type, they require the least surface area per unit of energy produced.They are the most expensive panel type.5U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015, March 12). Direct federal financial interventions and subsidies in energy in fiscal year 2013.Retrieved U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015, July). Monthly Energy Review. Retrieved y/pdf/sec1 7.pdf3Gil Knier. (2008, August 6) How Do Photovoltaics Work?. NASA Science. Retrieved from a/2002/solarcells/4SolarEnergy.net. Solar Panel Photovoltaic (PV) Systems. Retrieved from nel-photovoltaic-pvsystems/5Maehlum, M. A. (2015, May 18). Which solar panel type is best? Mono- vs. polycrystalline vs. thin film. Energy Informative. Retrieved lity of Renewable Energy: Solar2
Polycrystalline silicon panels contain lower-grade silicon than monocrystalline panels. The panels are less efficientthan monocrystalline panels, converting only 13-16 percent of incoming sunlight into electricity. These panels requirea larger surface area to generate the same amount of electricity produced by monocrystalline panels.6Thin-film solar cells consist of one or more ultra-thin light-absorbing layers.7 The thin-film manufacturing process issimpler than the monocrystalline or polycrystalline manufacturing process but results in panels with lower electricityconversion rates that range from 7-13 percent.8 Because of these lower conversion rates, even more surface area isneeded to achieve the same energy generation as either of the other panel types. Thin-film solar cells are the cheapestPV panel system.9CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER SYSTEMSConcentrated solar power (CSP) systems, also known as thermal solar power systems, do not directly convert sunlightinto electricity like PV panels. These systems consist of an array of mirrors or lenses that focus the sun's rays onto athermal receiver. The concentrated energy is used to heat water, and the resulting steam is used to drive turbineswhich generate electricity.10There are three main types of CSP systems. The first is a linear concentrator system, depicted in Figure 1. Long Ushaped mirrors focus sunlight onto fluid-filled tubes that run along each mirror. Once the fluid is heated, it flows to aheat exchanger where it is used to boil water into steam. The steam runs a turbine generator, producing electricity.11Ibid.Harris, W. (n.d.). How thin-film solar cells work. How Stuff Works. Retrieved July 7, 2015, /green-science/thin-film-solar-cell1.htm8Maehlum, M. A. (2015, May 18). Which solar panel type is best? Mono- vs. polycrystalline vs. thin film. Retrieved lm-solar-cells9Solar lease - Solar Panel Costs. (2015, May 8). Retrieved July 7, 2015, from lar-panels10National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2014, July 25). Concentrating solar power basics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nrel.gov/learning/re csp.html11National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2013, August 20). Linear Concentrator System Basics for Concentrating Solar Power. Retrieved ar-power67Reliability of Renewable Energy: Solar3
FIGURE 1. LINEAR CONCENTRATOR SYSTEM.12The second type of CSP system is a dish/engine system, as shown in Figure 2. Dish-shaped mirrors concentrate lightonto a power conversion unit. Inside this unit, a fluid-filled thermal receiver is heated to power a small electricitygenerating turbine.13FIGURE 2. DISH/ENGINE SYSTEM.14Yokogawa Corporation of America. (n.d.) Example of Trough Technology. Retrieved from athttp://c15181564.r64.cf2.rackcdn.com/image 3294.jpg13National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2013, August 20). Concentrating Solar Power Dish/Engine System Basics. Retrieved 4US Department of Energy. (2013, August 20). Concentrating Solar Power Dish/Engine System Basics. Retrieved 2Reliability of Renewable Energy: Solar4
The third type of CSP system is the power tower. A field of large, flat mirrors focus sunlight onto a thermal receiver ontop of a tower. The receiver heats a fluid that is used to boil water. The steam from this water turns electricitygenerating turbines.15FIGURE 3. POWER TOWER SYSTEM.16National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2014, July 25). Concentrating solar power basics. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nrel.gov/learning/re csp.html16Department of Energy. (1996). Concentrating Solar Tower Plant Illustration. Retrieved aphics/concentrating solar power tower plant illustration15Reliability of Renewable Energy: Solar5
ECONOMIC RELIABILITYFor solar power to be economically reliable, it must be a financially viable source of energy without governmentincentives. Federal and state governments encourage solar energy production through mandates, subsidies, andfinancial incentive programs. The cost of funding these incentives is borne by American taxpayers and places a heavierburden on the lower class through raised energy prices. In many states, electric utilities struggle to keep up withambitious renewable energy requirements set by their governments. Solar energy is not yet an economically viablesource of energy because it is expensive, relies heavily on government assistance, and is a burden to Americantaxpayers.THE HIGH COST OF SOLARSolar is a more expensive electricity source than traditional alternatives like coal or natural gas. Cost estimates forelectricity production are typically given in the form of a Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), which measures a powerplant’s average costs over its lifetime, including its construction, fuel, operations, maintenance, and efficiency. Thelevelized cost of solar power is 125.3 per megawatt-hour for a PV plant and 239.7 per megawatt-hour for solarthermal plants. In comparison, conventional coal plants cost 95.1 per megawatt-hour, natural gas combined cycleplants cost 75.2 per megawatt-hour, and advanced nuclear plants cost 95.2 per megawatt-hour.17 Solar power plantsmay have zero fuel costs, but their electricity still comes at a high price compared to other electricity sources whenlifetime costs are taken into consideration.Though LCOEs show that solar is an expensive form of energy, these numbers still underestimate the costs associatedwith solar. LCOEs are inaccurate assessments of intermittent energy sources because they do not include the costs ofbalancing intermittency. When intermittent power sources are added to a power system, conventional power plantshave to be held on standby so they can be ramped up when an intermittent plant is not generating enough power.Because the costs of ramping traditional power plants are not included in LCOEs,18 solar and wind power are portrayedto be more cost-effective than they actually are.POLICIES AT THE STATE LEVELRENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARDS AND SOLAR CARVE OUTSEven though solar power is expensive, states mandate its adoption. Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) are statebased policies that mandate certain portions of a state’s energy production come from renewable sources. Within thesestandards, some states mandate which renewable sources of energy they will use to accomplish their overall RPS goal.These specifications are called carve outs. New Jersey, for instance, has a carve out mandating that 4.1 percent of itselectricity must come from solar power by 2028.19Solar is a key feature of many states’ RPS mandates. Out of the 29 states with RPS mandates, 20 have set aside solarcarve outs or provisions for distributed generation.20 Distributed generation refers to energy that is produced near theU.S. Energy Information Administration. (2015, June 3). Levelized cost and levelized avoided cost of new generation resources in the annualenergy outlook 2015. Retrieved from http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity generation.cfm18Sun, wind and drain. (2014, July 26). The Economist. Retrieved from sive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and19U.S. Department of Energy. (2015, May 20). Renewable Portfolio Standard. DSIRE. Retrieved tail/56420U.S. Department of Energy. (2015, March). Renewable portfolio standards (RPS) with solar or distributed generation provisions. DSIRE.17Reliability of Renewable Energy: Solar6
place it is consumed. A large portion of distributed generation is produced by small scale PV panels. States’requirements for distributed generation and solar carve outs vary. North Carolina, for example, requires only 0.2 percentsolar generation by 2018, while Arizona requires 4.5 percent distributed generation by 2025.21Despite their efforts, many states have been unable to meet their general RPS mandates. According to the Institute forEnergy Research, California’s RPS mandated that by 2010 a full 20 percent of its electricity would be generated throughrenewables. By the end of 2009, California was only producing 13 percent of its electricity from renewable sources.22Similarly, New Jersey called for 6.5 percent of its electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2009, butachieved only 1.53 percent renewable generation.23States that have RPS mandates have seen significant economic damage since RPS implementation. A recent studyanalyzed state economies 48 months before and after a state adopted RPS. On average, states that enacted RPSexperienced a 10 percent increase in unemployment, a 14 percent decline in electricity sales, and nearly a 4 percentdrop in the state’s real income.24 RPS mandates may be contributing to these economic downturns by skewing marketincentives for electricity producers, encouraging expensive renewable energies like solar, and increasing electricityprices.STATE-BASED SUBSIDIES AND FINANCING FOR SOLAR POWERBecause solar power is an expensive energy source, it is expensive to subsidize. Some states, such as Connecticut andNew Jersey, have had to cut back incentive availability and rebates for solar installers.25 For California to achieve itsmandate of 33 percent renewable energy by 2020, an estimated 115 billion would need to be spent on infrastructurealone.26Even when states are able to fund their solar programs, the environmental benefits are minimal, making solar subsidymoney better suited for use in other sectors. A study from the George Washington Institute of Public Policy analyzedthe effects of solar incentive programs in ten states and estimated that existing solar incentive programs would save6.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over a 20 year period.27 This 20 year reduction is less than what two coalRetrieved from /uploads/2015/01/RPS-carveout-map1.pdf21National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (n.d.) Renewable portfolio standards. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nrel.gov/tech deployment/state local governments/basics portfolio standards.html22Institute for Energy Research. (n.d.) The status of renewable electricity mandates in the states. p. 25. Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/url?sa t&rct j&q &esrc s&source web&cd 1&cad rja&uact 8&ved 0CB4QFjAA&url pdf&ei l32MVa3mAsTaoATN4azIAg&usg AFQjCNGiPd81QNVqWxAl2waz0UMzsdpxww&bvm bv.96782255,d.cGU23Institute for Energy Research. (n.d.) The status of renewable electricity mandates in the states. p. 50. Retrieved fromhttps://www.google.com/url?sa t&rct j&q &esrc s&source web&cd 1&cad rja&uact 8&ved 0CB4QFjAA&url pdf&ei l32MVa3mAsTaoATN4azIAg&usg AFQjCNGiPd81QNVqWxAl2waz0UMzsdpxww&bvm bv.96782255,d.cGU24Simmons, R. T., Brough, T., Sim, K., Fishbeck, J. (2015). Renewable Portfolio Standards: Kansas. The Institute of Political Economy, Utah StateUniversity. Retrieved from: inal-Report.pdf25Sarzynski, A. (2009, November). The impact of solar incentive programs in ten states. George Washington Institute of Public Policy. p. 34.Retrieved from http://gwipp.gwu.edu/files/downloads/GWIPP Impact10.pdf26California Public Utilities Commission. (2009, June). 33% renewables portfolio standard implementation analysis preliminary results. p. 4.Retrieved from PDF27Sarzynski, A. (2009, November). The impact of solar incentive programs in ten states. George Washington Institute of Public Policy. Retrievedfrom http://gwipp.gwu.edu/files/downloads/GWIPP Impact10.pdfReliability of Renewable Energy: Solar7
power plants emit in a single year. 28 These ten states are spending money that could be put to better uses toinefficiently reduce carbon emissions.Studies differ in their claims about how effectively state level incentives increase solar power adoption. A study fromthe University of Colorado Boulder estimates that the California Solar Initiative (CSI) and its associated rebates weredirectly responsible for 58 percent of all residential and commercial solar panel installations in California between2007 and 2012.29 Scientists from Vanderbilt University and Sandia National Laboratories, however, came to a differentconclusion after conducting an experiment comparing California’s solar market to a similar market without solarincentives. Their study found that the program had only a modest impact on solar adoption rates.30 While the studiesdisagree about the effectiveness of the CSI in solar adoption rates, they both agree that the CSI generally increasessolar installments. State level incentives can increase solar power adoption, but it is still unclear as to how effectivelythey do so.Not only is it unclear how effective the CSI was in solar adoption, but the emissions benefits gained from the programare small relative to the program’s costs. The Boulder study estimates that the CSI only reduced carbon dioxide andnitric oxide emissions by about as much as eliminating one small to mid-sized natural gas power plant.31 Essentially,California taxpayers have spent 437 million on the CSI to close the equivalent of one natural gas power plant (thecleanest burning fossil fuel plant) for 20 years. These small environmental benefits do not justify spending such anexorbitant amount of taxpayer dollars.NET METERINGNet metering is a state policy that allows residential solar producers to be compensated for surplus power they sendback into the electric grid. Electric utilities are required to purchase electricity generated by residential solar arrays.Forty-four states, the District of Columbia, and four U.S. territories have established net metering policies. 32 Netmetering benefits those who install residential solar panels, but increases the cost of electricity for regular consumersand expands costs to utility companies.Net metering inflicts mechanical stress on the electric grid and incurs other costs that fall disproportionately onAmerica’s poor. A study conducted by the California Public Utilities Commission estimates that by 2020, costsassociated with net energy metering in California alone would be 1.1 billion.33 Utilities are not allowed by most netmetering laws to charge solar producers for the added grid stress that results from feeding electricity back into thegrid. To compensate for increased costs, utility companies raise electricity prices for everyone. Energy consumers whoTo determine this, we used the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. We entered the 6,100,000 metric tons of CO2 into thecalculator’s emissions data. The calculator determined that this would be the equivalent of the emissions generated by 1.6 coal-fired powerplants in one year.United States Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.) Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. Retrieved es/calculator.html#results29Hughes, J. E. & Podolefsky, M. (2014, May 6). Getting green with solar subsidies: evidence from the california solar initiative. Retrieved fromhttp://spot.colorado.edu/ jonathug/Jonathan E. Hughes/Main files/PV Subsidies.pdf30Zhang, H., Vorobeychik, Y., Letchford, J., Lakkaraju, K. (2015, May). Data-Driven Agent-Based Modeling, with Application to Rooftop SolarAdoption. Retrieved from: http://vorobeychik.com/2015/abmsolar.pdf31Hughes, J. E. & Podolefsky, M. (2014, May 6). Getting green with solar subsidies: evidence from the California solar initiative. Retrieved fromhttp://spot.colorado.edu/ jonathug/Jonathan E. Hughes/Main files/PV Subsidies.pdf32U.S. Department of Energy. (2015, March). Net Metering. DSIRE. Retrieved from uploads/2015/04/Net-Metering-Policies.pdf33Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc. (2013, September 26). California net energy metering (NEM) draft cost-effe
needed to achieve the same energy generation as either of the other panel types. Thin-film solar cells are the cheapest PV panel system.9 CONCENTRATED SOLAR POWER SYSTEMS Concentrated solar power (CSP) systems, also known as thermal solar power systems, do not directly convert sunlight into electricity like PV panels.
4.0 Renewable Energy Market 4.1 Policy Framework for renewable energy 4.1.1 Policies and Strategies for Renewable Energy Promotion 4.1.2 Main actors 4.1.3 Regulatory Framework 4.1.4 Licensing Procedures for Renewable Energy 4.1.5 Feed-in-Tariff 4.2 Business Opportunities and Potentials of Renewable Energy Sources 4.2.1 Bioenergy 4.2.2 Solar energy
Mohave/Harper Lake Solar Abengoa Solar Inc, LADWP San Bernardino County 250 MW Solar Trough Project Genesis NextEra Energy Riverside County 250 MW Solar Trough Beacon Solar Energy Project Beacon Solar LLC Kern County 250 MW Solar Trough Solar Millennium Ridgecrest Solar Millenn
Abstract—In this paper, a solar tracking system for renewable energy is designed and built to collect free energy from the sun, store it in the battery, and convert this energy to alternating . This project focuses on solar energy, which is a renewable form of energy. On average the earth surface receives about 600 W/m2 of solar energy [2 .
ministry for renewable energy development, the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy Sources. India initiated its renewable energy program in 1981 with the . costs and improve efficiency in wind generation. Solar energy Solar energy is an attractive prospect for India, as the country receives solar radiation of 5 to 7 kWh/m² for 300 to 330 .
renewable resources (renewable energy) and sets the FiT rate. The DLs will pay for renewable energy supplied to the electricity grid for a specific duration. By guaranteeing access to the grid and setting a favourable price per unit of renewable energy, the FiT mechanism would ensure that renewable energy becomes a viable and sound long-term
However, the share of renewable energy in Algeria's generation mix is growing slowly. In 2018 according to IEA, installed renewable energy capacity was of 670 MW out of which solar energy represented 343 MW (2.5% of the total energy capacity). In Q4 2019, the country updated its Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Development Plan,
4. Overview of Options and Choices: Offsite Renewable Energy. Offsite Renewable Energy and Power Purchase Agreements: a long-term contract in which the buyer procures a portion of the output of a renewable energy project (e.g., wind and/or solar), including RECs. Common Price and Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) flow under a PPA (NREL) 16 .
National Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Alliance (UNREEA). Solar energy in Uganda has the highest adoption rate among all renewable energy options. The average solar radiation is 5.1 2kWh/m /day, with the current solar data showing that solar energy is high throughout the year with a variation (minimum
