Renewable energy in the West on track to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels — without subsidies

Bob Berwyn had this post which I found interesting..being from Golden, it’s hard for me not to be optimistic about transitioning to a low carbon economy in the next couple of decades.

Here’s a link.

Energy is related to our usual business for a number of reasons; can occur on public land, climate change is ultimately related, and possibly that if this kind of development led to cheaper power than hydropower dams (I don’t know much about relative pricing) it seems like it might be a good thing for salmon. More important than keeping timber harvesting with appropriate BMPs from O&C lands, for example.

Below is an excerpt:

“Renewable energy development, to date, has mostly been in response to state mandates,” Hurlbut said. “What this study does is look at where the most cost-effective yet untapped resources are likely to be when the last of these mandates culminates in 2025, and what it might cost to connect them to the best-matched population centers.”

The study draws on an earlier analysis the lab conducted for the Western Governors’ Association to identify areas where renewable resources are the strongest, most consistent, and most concentrated, and where development would avoid protected areas and minimize the overall impact on wildlife habitat.

Other findings include:

Montana and Wyoming could emerge as attractive areas for wind developers competing to meet demand in the Pacific Northwest.
The challenge for Montana wind power appears to be the cost of transmission through the rugged forests that dominate the western part of the state.
Wyoming wind power could also be a low-cost option for customers in Utah, which also has its own diverse portfolio of in-state resources.
California, Arizona, and Nevada are likely to have surpluses of prime-quality solar resources. None is likely to have a strong comparative advantage over the others within the three-state market, unless environmental or other siting challenges limit in-state development. Consequently, development of utility-scale solar will probably continue to meet local needs rather than expand exports.
New geothermal development could trend toward Idaho by 2025 since much of Nevada’s resources have already been developed. Geothermal power from Idaho could be competitive in California as well as in the Pacific Northwest, but the quantity is relatively small. Reaching California, Oregon, and Washington may depend on access to unused capacity on existing transmission lines, or on being part of a multi-resource portfolio carried across new lines.

The study notes future electricity demand will be affected by several factors including: trends in the supply and price of natural gas; consumer preferences; technological breakthroughs; further improvements in energy efficiency; and future public policies and regulations. While most of these demand factors are difficult to predict, the study’s supply forecasts rely on empirical trends and the most recent assessments of resource quality.

10 thoughts on “Renewable energy in the West on track to be cost-competitive with fossil fuels — without subsidies”

  1. Sharon
    Interesting subject but what we did not know before was that supply of pellet is more
    than demand and the producers could produce even more from sawdust and green chips
    which are far cheaper than dueto the high ehergyconsumption inthe drying and the pelletizing. Today most chip carriers will chargetheasmetarrif for green chips as they charge for pellts, because the full volumetric capacity . might have when these bigger ships are built wirh dry chips THE IDEA BEING THAT ALL POWER PLANTSWASTE HEAT INTHE PROCESS and use it to ddy dry the geen wet chips. before entering the boiler
    there is no doubt that biomass is a morecompletesystem that can be used 24hours a day
    whjle wind and solar you canonly use a part of theday.
    Anyway the ultimate in favor of Biomass is that we canuseit all thetrime like Geothermic energy
    Pablo

    Reply
  2. I see lots of pictures of modern windmills in North Europe on Flickr – UGLY – 🙁 🙁 :-(. I can’t think of anything more ugly than to have a viewshed marred by a line of windmills on the ridge. That says a lot since I don’t mind clearcuts in a viewshed. Just picture the tops of Yellowstone Falls and El Capitan with a couple of 300′ tall towers with 100′ blades on them.

    Put them in the desert where they will improve the view.

    Reply
  3. Gil: My daughter-in-law took a picture of the entrance to Palm Springs with dozens of windmills in the background — a horrible sight that I would post here, if the Comments would allow it. Even worse are the windmills that have blighted the view along the Columbia River in eastern Oregon. These bird and bat killers are ugly in the desert, too. My ex-wife was from South Dakota and was always kind of embarrassed to admit that she liked the appearance of clearcuts (my normal working environment during those years) because “you could see the land.”

    Reply
    • I’ve spent some time in the So Cal desert the past few years and know those wind farms well. Actually, Bob, there are quite a few more windmills there than just dozens. A quick google search said the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm has 3,218 units.

      Here are dozens of images via google of those wind farms.

      Reply
      • Matthew

        Thanks for the wind farm overload – I’m sure that those images will have a traumatic effect on my sleep patterns. Every time that I see a modern windmill I wonder how much Mercedes Benz is paying them for the advertizing. 🙁

        Reply
          • Matthew

            Mountain top coal mining is generally reclaimed by refilling with the spoils and leveling. They green up eventually and certainly are not as ugly as windmills. I’m not going to sweat a couple of graves in the middle of nowhere.

            The one that bothered me was the whole mountain removal that I saw several times flying towards Denver from the east. However, people need coal, cooper and other metals so, what is important? We have that tradeoff again and will have it until there are enough windmills to kill every migratory bird in the world. There will always be tradeoffs as long as an insufficient number of humans are killed by wars and diseases. Its only going to get worse.

            Reply
            • Mountain top coal mining is generally reclaimed by refilling with the spoils and leveling. They green up eventually and certainly are not as ugly as windmills. I’m not going to sweat a couple of graves in the middle of nowhere.

              Wow, Gil, insensitive much? Perhaps if that was your great-grandma buried in the graves “in the middle of nowhere” you’d feel different.

              Also, regarding your somewhat pollyannish notion that Mountain Top Removal Coal Mining can simply be “reclaimed” with “refilling with the spoils and leveling,” I offer the following, which includes an interactive map where anyone can see for themselves how mountaintop removal sites are being “reclaimed.”

              Source: http://www.ilovemountains.org/reclamation-fail/

              Many wonder how coal companies justify blowing up the oldest mountains on the continent. Is it because it’s more profitable for them? Because it employs fewer miners? Nope, according to the coal companies, they are blowing up mountains because the Appalachians need more land for economic development.

              We put that theory to the test and found that the promise of “reclaimed” flat land for economic development is a big, flat lie. Two new studies by NRDC and Appalachian Voices reveal that 1.2 million acres, including 500 mountains, have been demolished by coal companies in Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia and Tennessee. Over 89% of sites are not currently being used for economic development.

              But don’t take our word for it. See for yourself how mountaintop removal sites are being “reclaimed” on our Reclamation Fail Map.

              ————–

              RECLAMATION — While reclamation efforts are required by federal law, coal companies often receive waivers from state agencies with the idea that economic development will occur on the land. In reality, most sites receive little more than a spraying of exotic grass seed, and less than three percent of reclaimed mountaintop removal sites are used for economic development. According to a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency impact statement on mountaintop removal in Appalachia, it may take hundred of years for a forest to re-establish itself on the mine site.

              Reply
              • Matthew

                Re: “Wow, Gil, insensitive much? Perhaps if that was your great-grandma buried in the graves “in the middle of nowhere” you’d feel different.”
                –> If I don’t control the property and don’t own or have access to it, I have no right to expect the owner to to accommodate me unless I purchase that right from the owner. I try not to live in the past and don’t believe the government should use my money to pay for anyone else to live in the past.

                I can’t worry about mountain tops that are privately owned. I’m not having any influence on implementing sound forest management in the national forests that I love and have a say in as a voter and lover of those resources. Why should I divert my attention from what I love to what I don’t care about and have no business caring about since it is private property. “less than three percent of reclaimed mountaintop removal sites are used for economic development”. Duh! I wonder why? You would think that the gov’t would be smarter than that but some of us who have been around a good long time aren’t too impressed with the wisdom of government as seen daily. That is the same gov’t that is spending hundreds of millions of citizen tax dollars to save a single bird from its more adaptable cousin – go figure.

                Is there anything that you don’t want to control with other people’s tax dollars? Insensitive much?

                Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply