Image via Wikipedia
Susan Kraemer tells us that Idaho’s wind energy sector is flourishing. No, that’s not the good news… at least, not for those in power.
It is becoming an export market for the many states that do have an RES, and local utilities are taking issue with outside companies coming into the state and developing wind resources there.
Idaho’s three main utilities claim it is putting a strain on the Idaho grid, and have succeeded in getting the Public Utilities Commission to put an end to the legislation that helped put so much wind power on the Idaho grid.
According to the Boise Guardian one of the utilities in the state – Idaho Power claims it could have 1,100 MW of wind generation on its system in the near term, which exceeds the amount of power used in Idaho Power’s total system on the lightest energy-use days.
As a result, in February, the PUC clamped down with new limits on the size of projects that can be permitted.
Prior to the decision, large wind farms were eligible to be paid at “avoided-cost rate” for power, based on the cost the utility avoids by buying power from the small-power producer and, thus, not having to build the generation itself or buy power from another source.
The PUC in February cut that down to a 100 KW limit, effectively eliminating the program. (Even just one typical US wind turbine has a capacity of 1.5 MW – 2.5 MW – more than ten times the 100 KW limit.) And tiny projects at the kilowatt scale would never be cost-effective enough to compete with wholesale utility power prices from power generation at the megawatt scale.
Originally, the limit was 10 MW, and the wind developers would aggregate farms in 10 MW increments to qualify. But the utilities claim that the rapid expansion of these projects is causing a strain on utility transmission systems which can affect electric reliability.
The Northwest & Intermountain Power Producers Coalition (NIPPC) – a coalition of companies developing over 6.5 GW of non-utility (independent power) capacity across three wind states including Idaho, expressed deep disappointment with the decision.
Editor’s note: The title of the post comes from an observation by Bill Gates that renewable energy is cute, but what we really need is more Three Mile Island – Chernobyl – Fukushima power. Not to mention those coal trains to coal ships to Chinese coal plants to more atmospheric degradation, eh, William?
Oh, and the picture is of wind power in West Virginia, which is surely rubbing salt in the wounds… No, not the wounds in the Earth from the mountaintop mining, the fact that Massey Energy could get a surprise inspection of one of their mines.
Related articles
- Wind now on even playing field with gas (peakenergy.blogspot.com)
- Wind turbine prices fall to their lowest in recent years (peakenergy.blogspot.com)
- Petersen’s Wind Power Paradigm Paralysis (peakenergy.blogspot.com)
2 Comments
Speaking of how inopportune the success of wind power, Mat McDermott relays word that six Scottish wind farms have been paid the equivalent of $1.46 million to not operate last month.
Yes, you read that correctly, NOT operate. The reason given was the same as that for the Idaho wind farms: the Grid was unable to handle the power produced.
For Bob Morris, such events strongly indicate we need greater development of energy storage. Perhaps, and perhaps these events indicate that we need more effort toward a smoother transition off fossil fuels by better sharing, i.e., ensuring that the power produced can get where it’s needed.
In Bob’s defense, he observed before that our electrical grid was never meant to handle renewable energy.
Speaking of Three Mile Island – Chernobyl – Fukushima power, the pro-nuclear U.S. Secretary of Energy has been noticeable by his absence from the news stream.
Steven Chu was working hard on point for fossil fuels (conventional and unconventional). He basically disappeared from radar after the nuclear catastrophe at TEPCO’s Fukushima Dai-ichi plant. I wonder if that is so he is less available for some uncomfortable questions?
“Josh Wolfe at Forbes wrote that almost 25 percent of all Department of Energy dollars are spent on nuclear remediation and cleanup efforts.” This seemed so shocking to Dave Levitan that he decided to check out the DOE budget.
Levitan’s post for the IEEE Spectrum omits a key factor. This cost probably would be higher if the nuclear power industry was putting spent nuclear fuel rods into “dry storage”. U.S. nuclear power plants are as guilty, if not more so, of long-term “temporary” storage of spent nuclear fuel in pools on site. This practice contributed to the Fukushima catastrophe.
In his post Levitan notes, “Though firm estimates are still hard to come by, the cleanup costs for the ongoing Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan will be monumental. Some say it will cost as much as $150 billion, and take decades.”