l'Actualité du Solaire

All too often, when it comes to energy transition, we talk in general terms, without really knowing the costs, the constraints and the advantages. This is the domain of convictions, assertions, and even beliefs. This attitude creates gaps between those who adhere and those who refuse. The energy transition is a good thing if it succeeds in eliminating_CO2 emissions and reducing global warming under satisfactory conditions! It is to be examined if it has to reduce the lifestyle of the population, for the sake of the climate. For once, a state, California, has lent itself to the game of implementing a programme to achieve net zero carbon emissions. That is the purpose of this text.

Summary

The energy transition is the concern of the universeGlobal warming is attributed to fossil fuels, hence the desire to move towards electric power.

California wants to achieve zero_CO2 emissions by 2040 California is a pioneer in this energy transition. It has just presented a programme to achieve zero emissions.

The programme It consists of increasing the volume of solar power plants, coupling them with storage systems and covering any shortfall with wind power.

Is it too broad or too narrow a programme? As a pioneer in this exercise of forecasting future needs, it is difficult to answer because there are imponderables such as electric vehicles that must develop. On the other hand, there are the residential installations that will contribute to the resources

The current situation and the 2040 target

The cost of energy generators. This is estimated by us to be around 100 billion dollars over twenty years

The cost of reorganising the electricity network. California puts it at 30 billion dollars

.

The text

The energy transition is the concern of the universe

The energy transition corresponds to the desire to abandon hydrocarbons and switch to renewable energies as quickly as possible. Solar and wind power plants have begun to be installed in various countries. These units are starting to produce electricity but the rate of contribution to consumption remains modest; it is around 2% for solar and 8% for wind in France. All renewable energies (taking into account hydroelectricity which contributes 13%) covered 25% of the gross final energy consumption in our country in 2020.

Other countries are much more ambitious, such as Germany. In the world, the state that is the most advanced in terms of generalising renewable energy is California, which for the past two years has imposed the installation of solar panels on all new buildings, a decision that has since been followed by many other countries

California wants to achieve zero_CO2 emissions by 2040.

To stay one step ahead of the rest of the world in implementing a successful energy transition, the Californian energy authorities have just published a report on the state of California.To stay ahead of the rest of the world in achieving a successful energy transition, California's energy authorities have just published a roadmap for the next twenty years, by which time all use of fossil fuels must be eliminated.

It is all well and good to want to achieve this goal, but the question is to determine how much energy the region needs; to evaluate the probable or foreseeable increase in electricity needs over the next twenty years, so that investments can be programmed. The process is difficult because it is the first state to draw up such a project and because there are many grey areas or unknowns.

The programme

California has established that in 2020 it will use 53 GW of power. Only 33% of this is supplied by renewable energy (some of which comes from outside California). It estimated that consumption would reach 64 GW in 2030 and 82 GW in 2040. He decided that 90% of domestic energy consumption must come from within the state, not from outside.

The most important resource is sunshine throughout the year, with the difference of winter and summer. The intermittence of this sunshine will be compensated for by the use of lithium batteries (for short periods, up to four hours; its power has been set at 37 GW). This programme has been designed to be conservative by also having a long-term energy reserve (for 4 GW). Assuming that for some reason the sun cannot provide the energy needed by users, it is planned to use geothermal energy (for 2 GW), and wind energy (for 24 GW) to replace solar energy should it fail.

Is this too broad or too narrow a programme?

In the unknown of this recourse to renewable energies, the California authorities have preferred redundancies rather than calculating the right amount. In fact, in addition to the usual uses, the energy needs of electric vehicles, which are difficult to predict at the moment, will soon be added, and probably later the needs of home automation, which also require a lot of energy.

The study does not say how and where distributed production fits into this picture. Have they been neglected on the grounds that too much energy is better than too little? Have they been counted in the above figures? There is no mention of this.

The authorities also noted that queued interconnection requests amounted to 80 GW of solar and 148 GW of storage. Nevertheless, the authorities recognise that the state faces an unprecedented need for renewable energy over the next decade or two.

The current situation and the 2040 target

The cost of energy generators

The planned energy generators are shown in the table below. We have added what was to be built (column C) and valued at a plausible cost (col D), in order to obtain an order of magnitude of the cost (col E), as the construction of this infrastructure has not been costed by the Californian authorities

If one were to approximate the cost of installing such equipment, the solar megawatt is perhaps comparable to that in France, at $1 million. The US onshore wind megawatt would cost at least €1.1m per MW (according to Observer), or $1.3m per MW. The cost of offshore wind can be estimated at $5m per MW. Battery storage could not be costed.

The total cost of generation facilities is $100 billion.

The cost of reorganising the electricity network

In addition, the cost of reorganising the electricity network, estimated by the Californian authorities at 30.5 billion dollars, in order to connect the solar and wind power plants and storage systems, as well as the other states in the region

This gives a figure, excluding storage, of 130 billion dollars of installations to be carried out over twenty years. This amount would be spread over the 40 million inhabitants of California, i.e. 3.2 billion to be invested over twenty years per inhabitant. To know the cost of the energy, one should add the operating and subscription costs of the electricity supplied to the consumer. It is therefore easier to understand why the Californian authorities have not put a figure on this energy transition programme.

Although carefully developed, this Californian project will be closely scrutinised by officials in other countries wishing to go all-electric. At this stage, it is difficult to assess whether the Californian project is redundant, or whether it is properly adapted to the supply of energy to the inhabitants. As renewable energy production rates increase, this first project can be further refined.

For further information:

http://www.caiso.com/InitiativeDocuments/Draft20-YearTransmissionOutlook.pdf

What happens to the networks if there is 55% annual solar, with peaks of 90%?