News Section
Stories from Climate Central's Science Journalists and Content Partners

Renewables Revolution Could be in Management, Not Tech

Cutting-edge renewable energy technology as a way to tackle climate change may be a sexy topic, but the next 15 years are likely to bring few revolutionary changes in how we generate our electricity.

Instead, any revolution is more likely to be in how U.S. power grids are managed and how utilities do business, scientists say.

A solar photovoltaic array.
Credit: Russ Ferriday/flickr

The next 15 years in the electric power industry are critical because the Obama administration has proposed goals for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants that rely on fossil fuels.

The general idea is to improve the efficiency of coal-fired power plants and rely more heavily on natural gas, renewables and other alternatives as ways to reduce existing power plants’ CO2 emissions to about 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Though research and development in electric power storage technology, more advanced solar photovoltaic cells and other renewables are ongoing, new renewables technology isn’t the most likely path to a less carbon-intensive electric power sector.

Scientists aren’t seeing the need to deploy cutting-edge renewable energy technology just yet, making the field, “kind of boring right now,” said Paul Denholm, a member of the Energy Forecasting and Modeling Group in the Strategic Energy Analysis Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colo.

What they are seeing is the need to use the country’s existing power plants, power lines and renewable energy sources more intelligently so more people can get their electricity from wind, solar and other less carbon-intensive energy sources.

Part of that means managing the grid more efficiently so more wind and solar power are able to get onto power lines and into people’s homes, something called “grid penetration.”

“You’re going to be able to get a lot of renewables on the grid with kind of boring institutional changes — operating plants more efficiently,” he said.

One of those innovations will be in how the electric power industry adapts to a movement toward distributed power generation, such as rooftop solar, said Kevin Doran, a University of Colorado-Boulder research professor and co-director of the Carbon Management Center of the Colorado Renewable Energy Collaboratory.

That is most likely to occur with changes to traditional utilities’ business models, which so far, have shown some resistance to customers installing solar panels and small wind turbines, he said.

Oklahoma, for example, passed a “solar surcharge” law this year, permitting utilities to charge an extra fee for any customer installing solar panels on their roofs. Rooftop solar customers don’t pay for grid maintenance costs because they feed their own power onto the grid and receive credit for it, according to the law.  

“Even here in Colorado, we have utilities pushing back against a lot of the solar PV (photovoltaics) in the sense they don’t get a percentage of that money for system reliability,” Doran said.

Despite the resistance from some utilities, acceptance of rooftop solar is gaining ground as more and more people look to solar panels as a way to generate their own power.

The biggest factor in the growth of renewables may come as utilities get better at forecasting — figuring out when people are going to use large amounts of electricity, and when the wind is going to blow and the sun is going to shine. Denholm said we're already starting to see that, which means electric companies are getting better at managing the power grid.

Such variability is difficult to manage because utilities have to have other traditional power plants ready to ramp up and down as both the demand for electricity fluctuates and the flow of renewables ebbs and flows in order to provide a steady stream of electricity to customers.

Transmission lines are an important part of any power grid.
Credit: Oran Viriyincy/flickr

The inherent variability in wind and solar power generation has had many scientists looking toward research in advanced batteries and other technology that would allow wind and solar electricity to be stored and used by utilities when they need it, thereby making the availability of renewable power more predictable.

In April, Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasted that about 2,660 megawatts of electricity storage capacity will be online in the U.S. by 2020.

But Denholm said better management of the grid is showing that power storage for renewables may not be as necessary as soon as previously thought.

Initially, scientists thought that only 10 to 20 percent of the power flowing onto the grid could come from renewables without the grid breaking down. But recent events have proven them wrong.

For example, wind power flowing onto the Excel Energy grid in Colorado reached 60 percent at one point in May 2013. “Grid operations have been really good at integrating larger amounts of renewables, and the things we used to think 10 years ago really don’t apply anymore,” Denholm said.

As utilities have been able to better forecast fluctuations in wind and solar generation, it has slowed the need for power storage technology, which has not advanced to the point where it’s both inexpensive and widely available for utilities to use.

There are lower-cost alternatives to storage that can be employed now with the use of existing technology, said Chuck Kutscher, director of the Buildings and Thermal Systems Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

“One of the things I try to emphasize is we’re beyond the point of hoping for some breakthrough technology,” he said. “We have the technology we need now to reduce carbon emissions.”

There are various ways utilities can structure their electric rates, including offering corporate incentives to reduce electricity use at certain times, providing those large power customers with a break on their electric bill for cutting back, Kutscher said.

“There are various things utilities can do short of building storage on the grid,” he said.

And, while some utilities may be resistant to rooftop solar and other forms of distributed generation in favor of centralized power plants that produce electricity for the masses, the near future is going to involve both centralized generation and distributed generation — both involving existing technology, Kutscher said.

“We basically need to reduce carbon emissions as rapidly as possible,” he said. “Centralized generation can do that and distributed generation can do that. We need all those means at our disposal.”

In other words, it may not be best for the climate to wait for cutting-edge technology to become available. It may be best to manage the technology we have today more wisely so more people can have more access to clean energy sooner rather than later.

You May Also Like
Six Months In and Sizzling California Sets Record 
So You Think You Know Renewables? Take the Quiz 
Weather Disasters Have Cost the Globe $2.4 Trillion  
Interactive: 1,001 Blistering Future Summers


By Robert Marston
on July 21st, 2014

Just focusing on efficiency is a very bad idea at this time. We should be pushing for greater than 30 percent carbon emissions reductions. Saying that renewable energy isn’t sexy feeds into the fossil fuel agenda as well. Somewhat disappointed by this article.

Reply to this comment

By Dave (Basking Ridge, NJ 07920)
on July 22nd, 2014

No disrespect Robert but I recommend that you re-read the article. It is not just about improving the efficiency of energy utilization – which by the way is indeed very important and is in this case the next tier above the low hanging fruits in the US regarding national CO2 emissions reductions. This is also about the immediate key challenge of integrating new installations of renewable energy sources such as distributed solar micro-grids into the national grid. It is basically the challenge of creating a whole new set of practical ground rules for the associated renewable energy market / business structure. This “management” hurdle has to be broadly overcome so that we are not slowed down and restricted from accommodating and growing renewable energy deployment in a rational and much needed way.

A greater appreciation of the broad topic of energy supply distribution can be gained by a careful consideration of the essential infrastructure role of the national power grid and its relevance to climate change and energy. This area is below most people’s radar and in detail it can be jargon heavy. So most people don’t have an incentive to invest even time thinking about it unless there’s a power outage. But consider this. The relevant papers I have seen all tend to conclude that in engineering-speak a smart, adaptable, flexible and resilient national electrical grid is absolutely essential if the US is to ever make the eventual transition to a largely carbon free energy infrastructure. That is an infrastructure that can withstand severe weather (as well as terrorist and hacker attacks); one that can seamlessly and intelligently route power from any of a range of regionally available power source types, whether they are diffuse or centralized power plants, so as to meet on-the-fly changes in demand while maintaining power quality, domestic and essential services and network stability; one that can communicate with smart domestic appliances and so on and so on. Currently the overall technical and physical state of the US national grid is quite a long way from actually being describable as anything close to smart, adaptable, resilient and so on in the way this is all meant and as required. So the US is basically unprepared in that respect… That’s a big deal.

Reply to this comment

By Bob Bingham (Kerikeri)
on July 22nd, 2014

What worries me is that the utilities, world wide, have reached a plateau in customer consumption due to more efficient appliances and solar panels and have absolutely no idea what to do about it. The last big market for electricity is transport which is currently powered almost exclusively by oil. Oil is a diminishing resource, no matter what they say about fracking or shale oil, and it has a volatile price. The world is not short of energy but it just concentrates on fossil fuels. If we had put the resources into electricity that we have put into coal and oil we would have a much cleaner and safer world.

Reply to this comment

By Robert Youngberg (Littleton Colorado 80122)
on July 23rd, 2014

As pointed out in the article, management of the technical infrastructure is critical, particularly major improvements in the transmission grid, distribution grid, smart meters etc.  But even more important is the business management of the utilities.  They must ‘join the party’, become active partners with the renewable energy industry, and the renewable energy industry must welcome them as productive partners, not ‘the dark side’. 
Specifically, it is unrealistic to expect the utilities to lose major revenue and continue to provide all the system infrastructure, and back up power, particularly for ‘net zero energy’ homes and commercial areas.  The utilities must change their financial model and stop ‘net metering’ - giving credits for renewable energy in the retail side which results in loss of revenue, solar in particular.  And instead directly pay for the energy produced on the wholesale side, just like any other wholesale electrical source.  This maintains revenue, fully utilizes and optimizes the renewable energy produced, and many other benefits including much lower renewable development costs. 
Almost all other (at least 60) countries in the world that do it this way - ‘Pay for Production’ - the U.S. is the only developed country that is stuck in the ‘net-metering’ dead end model.

Reply to this comment

By Jan Peterson (80526)
on July 23rd, 2014

“Rooftop solar customers don’t pay for grid maintenance costs because they feed their own power onto the grid and receive credit for it, according to the law.” 

This statement may be true (but not just for solar owners) if all utility costs are embedded in the cost of power charges.  However, it is untrue for utilities that have instituted a maintenance charge (on ALL customers) to cover O&M expenses,  separate from the power consumption charge. 

For those that have not, the unfairness is not limited to solar owners, but applies also to any and all who do not use power consistently (i.e. vacation cabin owners, irrigators, etc.):  they all rely upon other paying customers to handle the operations & maintenance costs for the entire system when they are not using power, getting a “free ride” on the backs of continuously-paying customers.

Which is precisely why a separate maintenance charge is the fairest way for all to pay for O&M.  And it still makes sense for rooftop solar owners because the distribution system operates as a virtual battery system, saving them the cost of installing an individual battery system and budgeting to replace it every 10 years or so (not to mention the waste of resources embedded in many such duplicate systems).

Reply to this comment

Name (required):
Email (required):
Enter the word "climate" in the box below:

[+] View our comment guidelines.

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment will not appear until reviewed by Climate Central staff. Thank you for your patience.