A new study in Nature Energy finds storing rooftop solar can increase emissions and energy consumption.
My thoughts: Here’s the key statement for the finding in this report: “based on today’s Texas grid mix, which is primarily made up of fossil fuels.” If the either the marginal generation on the grid is low or no GHG (e.g., renewables overgeneration which is an increasing problem in California) or the connection to the grid is cut or restricted (e.g., in a microgrid), then this premise doesn’t hold.
This study relies on fossil fueled generation being the marginal energy source. It also focuses solely on operational changes with existing resources. The appropriate frame is looking at the change in generation investment with and without storage, so for example more renewables become cost effective with storage so the overall generation mix changes.
The second problem is that most of the production cost models are yet incapable of capturing reduction in flexible capacity use. That’s why the California Energy Commission has had DNV and LBNL working on modeling those resources. So the emission savings are underestimated.
The third problem is that savings in residual unit commitment (RUC) is underestimated in the models. These are gas units running on standby with no-load, to be available the next day for ramping, load following or reliability. Storage reduces the need for these resources as well. NREL recently released a study on the value of storage that captures this benefit.
If these findings are valid, then the existing Helms pumped storage plant is also increasing GHG emissions. One could go so far as to say that the value of pondage hydropower storage may be so diminished that relicensing conditions that require run of river operations may have little effect on costs and GHG emissions.
Source: Residential storage can undercut benefits of rooftop solar, says new study | Utility Dive
How big business and overconcentration jams the wheels of innovation in the U.S. This is particularly relevant to encouraging new distributed energy resources on the electric utility grid–the poster child for monopolies.
Source: Big Business Is Killing Innovation in the U.S. – The Atlantic
Much was made during the Presidential campaign of manufacturing jobs being “exported” due to unfavorable trade pacts. Yet when we look at the data since 1960, we don’t see evidence for this claim. If jobs were being exported, then manufacturing output associated with those jobs would be leaving to. Instead, as shown above, we see that manufacturing output (and value added which is the value added to production inputs, e.g., the car value after paying for the iron, aluminum, rubber and plastic) has grown steadily with momentary dips for recessions in 1981, 2001 and 2008. Meanwhile manufacturing jobs remained fairly stable from the peak in 1979 to 2001. And then the bottom fell out: employment fell one-third from 2000 to 2009.
So if those jobs weren’t exported (obviously since the output growth was largely unchanged), then what might have happened? The chart above provides one explanation: Technological innovation replaced those jobs. The chart compares a rolling five-year average of productivity gains (measured as output per job) to sector job growth. Productivity growth had an early peak in the 1970s that coincided with the flattening of job growth through the 1990s. Then in 2001 productivity growth begins to rise to a new peak just before the Great Recession and manufacturing job growth plunges to new depths. (Note that this contrasts with the decline in overall productivity cited by the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank that I posted.) Only in the last couple of years has the sector brought back jobs in the recovery.
Data from the countries where the U.S. has supposedly “exported” jobs in fact reinforces this point–they are also losing manufacturing jobs. The simple truth is that, as happened with agriculture at the turn of the 20th century, increased productivity means that fewer jobs are needed to make ever more goods. We could never feed everyone in the world if we had stopped innovation in farming in 1900; change was inevitable and largely beneficial. We can never return to the “good old days.”
Instead of trying to stop the future, we need to turn our attention to how we help those left behind by these changes. In 1900, farmers were able to move to the cities and find jobs that paid better than their farmwork. This time around, that doesn’t seem to be the case–we can’t just “leave it to the market.”
US productivity growth 1970-2015
A good overview of what drives productivity growth and why the U.S. is currently lagging compared to past periods. In essence, we have not had significant growth because we have not had technological innovations that translate into higher output. Bullard says that changes in monetary policy will not change productivity growth and suggests focusing on three areas (although he doesn’t have specific policy proposals.)
Source: Higher GDP Growth in the Long Run Requires Higher Productivity Growth
A detailed discussion about the successes, failures, and intent of these two federal programs.
Source: What Trump and Clinton miss about clean coal and renewables subsidies | Utility Dive