Texas wind-based power in February 2021:
The loss of wind power during the cold snap was well documented. Still, we are more interested in the power source's general volatility, shown below for February, and shown over a much longer time frame in the second point below.
Source: EIA and C-MACC Analysis, February 2021
A “best fit” line in the second chart below would show growth associated with new wind turbine investment, but the volatility is hard to ignore. Last week's power problems were not related only to wind, with many traditional power plants shutting down because of frozen water either at the plants themselves or their feedstock suppliers. Still, the wind charts are interesting to us as we think about increasing dependence on renewable power. The glaring conclusion is the need to over-build relative to average demand. The follow-on conclusion is the need to build a means of storing that overbuilt capacity for use either when the wind is not blowing, or the sun is not shining or when weather extremes occur, like last week.
While wind-based power generation has grown in Texas, the extreme volatility is evident
The problems last week pull us back to the debates around both hydrogen and CCS. We should not have a goal of building enough renewable capacity to replace coal and eventually natural gas capacity – we likely need to build 50% more than that at a minimum to allow for surges in demand. Is this even practical on a countrywide basis and over what timeline? Some thoughts:
- Do we need to be considering a longer life for the newer, or even new, more efficient combined-cycle natural gas power plants, and if so, we should be encouraging those units to pursue carbon capture for the long-haul?
- Should we be building a hydrogen-based storage and power generation capability now – starting in states that have occasional surplus power - as a long-term strategy for balancing electrical capacity and demand.
- This should probably take precedence over other potential uses for hydrogen, as power grid instability has more wide-ranging consequences for social (and political) stability than how quickly we can introduce hydrogen trains and buses.
- Broad adoption of blue hydrogen as an interim step (probably a 20 plus year interim) could accelerate many infrastructure investments that would be necessary while creating almost immediate investment and jobs.
- Once enough of a hydrogen buffer exists in storage, surplus production could be made available for other uses such as transport. A distributed power network with hydrogen-based back-up generators would spread hydrogen production throughout the country, making the logistics of providing a nationwide transport fuel system significantly less challenging.
- Or do we all need electric cars and battery back-up systems in our homes? This would accelerate power demand, and without addressing the power infrastructure, it does not necessarily solve the lack of sufficient surplus capacity needed last week. Without a power generation plan, more EVs could make things worse.
