by Kevin Killough
“This study demonstrates that a wind-solar-battery policy to meet electricity demand is physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and unjustifiable on the basis of goals to reduce CO2 emissions,” the researchers conclude.
Renewable energy proponents often claim that the problem of intermittent generation from wind and solar power can be addressed with batteries. In an opinion piece on Friday, for example, a Reuters columnist heaped praise on batteries as the technology that would bring about "net-zero" – the amount of energy consumed being offset by the amount of renewable energy generated.
“In little more than three decades, batteries have moved from an afterthought in energy systems to one of the defining technologies of the transition away from fossil fuels,” Global Energy Transition columnist Gavin Maguire wrote.
Maguire makes no mention of the fact the globe has exponentially increased the volume of fossil fuels it consumes – a decades-long trend that shows no reversal – nor does he mention the amount of energy stored in batteries is measured in minutes.
Researchers with the National Center for Energy Analytics set out to find out if it’s possible to power the grid with wind, solar and batteries. Their report, which was released Thursday, casts considerable doubt on renewable energy proponents’ promise that batteries can resolve the problems of intermittency with wind and solar.
“This study demonstrates that a wind-solar-battery policy to meet electricity demand is physically implausible, cost-prohibitive, and unjustifiable on the basis of goals to reduce CO2 emissions,” the report concludes.
Staggering costs
Jonathan Lesser, senior fellow with the NCEA, and Mitch Rolling, director of research at Always On Energy Research, used the PJM Interconnection system, the nation’s largest grid operator, to evaluate the cost and feasibility of a system powered by wind, solar and batteries. The operator supplies electricity to 67 million people living in 13 states and the District of Columbia.
The researchers looked at three different scenarios. One evaluated the PJM grid running on wind, solar, batteries and existing nuclear power plants. Under this scenario, all coal and natural gas generation is retired. In the second scenario, batteries are used along with new and existing gas-powered generators, as well as new nuclear power plants. In the last scenario, battery storage is added to replace gas-fired generators during peak demand.
To compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar under the renewable-only scenario, the analysis found, PJM would need to add roughly 10 times the total generation capacity by 2045 than would be needed under the natural gas and nuclear scenario. That extra capacity would not only serve daily and seasonal variations in supply and demand, it would accommodate days in which there’s little to no wind or sunshine.
The study also found that to pay for this ideal net-zero grid with no new nuclear facilities, ratepayers served by PJM would need to fork over $4 trillion over the next 20 years. That figure accounts for savings on fossil fuels.
Low benefit for cost
The authors note that the rationale for such a grid is that it will reduce carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. The study estimated that the annual costs of avoided emissions comes to $771 per ton. Recent estimates of the social cost of carbon – an estimate of the economic damages caused by emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – range from $180a ton in 2025 to $320 a ton in 2045.
Even in terms of reducing emissions, the renewable-only scenario costs more than the benefits it produces, the researchers conclude.
Under the other two scenarios, the costs to ratepayers are still quite high.
With the natural gas and nuclear scenario, PJM customers would need to pay $668 billion over the next 20 years, and under the scenario in which battery storage is added to replace gas-fired generators during peak demand, PJM customers would need to pay $768 billion over 20 years.
Limited capacity
Pushed on by subsidies and state-level climate mandates, battery storage in the U.S. has grown rapidly. Despite that growth, Lesser and Rolling note, the total grid-scale battery storage at the beginning of 2026 could satisfy about 15 minutes of average U.S. demand.
California holds about one-third of the total U.S. battery capacity. Lesser and Rolling estimate that its capacity could satisfy about two hours of the state’s average demand. On a high demand day, batteries would supply less than one hour.
The researchers also looked at the electricity consumption on the PJM grid on July 29, 2025, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Supplying enough battery storage to meet that day’s demand, according to the report, would require 50% more battery capacity than currently exists in the entire country.
Safety concerns
One issue with battery storage the researchers didn’t look into is safety, which has become a significant concern for zoning boards following recent fires that took days to put out and released large amounts of toxic water and gases into the environment.
Firefighter organizations are growing concerned about the ability of local fire departments to have the resources and training to deal with such fires. Currently, it’s a challenge that most departments have never encountered.
While proponents of renewable energy are pinning their hopes on batteries to solve the intermittency problem, the report suggests this is another unworkable path to powering the U.S. without carbon emissions.
“The quantities of wind and solar generation and battery storage that are needed to meet existing reliability standards would cost trillions of dollars, cause electricity prices to skyrocket, and require vast amounts of land – all of which would adversely affect rural communities and agricultural production,” the report states.
Kevin Killough
Source: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/renewable-advocates-pin-hopes-batteries-solve-intermittency-costs-are
No comments:
Post a Comment