Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[Ken Fabos]

Who claims that?

Nuclear power doesn't need future advances to be competitive. It might have them - that would be great - but it is purely optional.

I was responding to this, and perhaps reading more into it than I should have -

Better to innovate a replacement tech better than fossil fuels (nuclear), and then like the car replacing the horse, the superior solution takes care of itself, no taxes on manure required.

If you are saying that nuclear is competitive now and needs no advances I would say that is not reflected in it's relative uptake - even if the competitive disadvantages nuclear struggle with are not due to lack of technological maturity they still exist. This industry's capability for rapid, global expansion seems like an unwarranted assumption. Meanwhile I suggest that RE is competitive now, under the circumstances that exist now even if further advances are needed for the circumstances we can foresee in the future. Some of those advances are proceeding as we discuss this.

 

[russ_watters]

I see no reason to expect R&D applied to nuclear will produce superior results but when applied to renewables and storage it won't or can't.

I don't think that is a well framed problem because I agree with others that nuclear is viable now and the research needed is relatively minor (basically turning proof of concept ideas into commercial implementations). There are ripe ideas that for political reasons haven't been turned into commercial realities. Renewables and storage on the other hand, have been researched extremely heavily already while at the same time having a much steeper road to climb to reach viability. That makes the R&D problem much larger for renewables and storage.

If you are saying that nuclear is competitive now and needs no advances I would say that is not reflected in it's relative uptake - even if the competitive disadvantages nuclear struggle with are not due to lack of technological maturity they still exist. This industry's capability for rapid, global expansion seems like an unwarranted assumption.

As someone stated earlier, if the problems with renewables and storage were just political instead of technical and economic, renewable advocates would be screaming bloody murder at the injustice of the situation -- indeed, they already often do (see the many conventional energy mocumentaries). Regardless, as hard as it may be to change attitudes, it's just a choice (see: France). Choices are free, can be made instantly and have a guaranteed outcome. None of that can be said of R&D.

Meanwhile I suggest that RE is competitive now...

Well, that contradicts your earlier implications that renewables need R&D -- and you were right the first time: The reason they get massive subsidies and are still a tiny fraction of total energy production is because they are not viable on their merits.

[edit] BTW, not aimed at you in particular, but I don't like the term "Renewable Energy" because in my opinion it misses the point of what we're all after. We're all after "clean energy" and for those who want new sources of clean energy, "alternate energy". I think this matters because using misleading terms causes the problems and potential solutions to be framed incorrectly.

More on point, conventional hydro is "renewable", but it is pretty much tapped-out and therefore doesn't provide an opportunity to replace fossil fuels. So I don't included it in most conversations about "renewables" -- and I want to make sure that isn't misunderstood here. Here, we're primarily referring to solar and wind as the alternatives chosen by that side of the argument.

 

[russ_watters]

Mod note: I'm re-locating this thread to General Engineering, which I think is more appropriate for the topic and would like to remind no one in particular that the thread and its posts need to comply with our rules regarding the quality of technical content.

 

[mfb]

If you are saying that nuclear is competitive now and needs no advances I would say that is not reflected in it's relative uptake - even if the competitive disadvantages nuclear struggle with are not due to lack of technological maturity they still exist. This industry's capability for rapid, global expansion seems like an unwarranted assumption. Meanwhile I suggest that RE is competitive now, under the circumstances that exist now even if further advances are needed for the circumstances we can foresee in the future. Some of those advances are proceeding as we discuss this.

Renewable energies are installed because they receive subsidies - hundreds of billions. Meanwhile nuclear power is politically not wanted in multiple countries, it doesn't even get the chance to compete.

With the subsidies Germany spent/commited to spend to produce less than 10% of its electricity from photovoltaics (and that with fluctuating and uncontrollable time-dependence), we could probably have replaced all coal power plants (~40% of the electicity) by nuclear power plants. That is not even taking into account that these power plants would have an income.

 

[CWatters]

Renewable energies are installed because they receive subsidies - hundreds of billions. Meanwhile nuclear power is politically not wanted in multiple countries, it doesn't even get the chance to compete.

The UK is committed to both Nuclear and Wind/Solar.

However wind and solar now appear to be cheaper. The strike price for onshore wind and solar is now down to around £80 per MWh. The strike price agreed for the only new Nuclear power station being constructed in the UK is £92.

At a recent auction two solar plants recently bid their strike price down to £50 per MWh while the wholesale price of electricity is around £45 per MWH.

 

[CWatters]

Google found this. It's a table of the unsubsidised cost of various energy sources. Looks like subsidies for wind in particular should be cut further as it's now cheaper than gas...

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2016/12/solar-energy-costs-wind-energy-costs-LCOE-Lazard.png

 

[nikkkom]

Meanwhile nuclear power is politically not wanted in multiple countries, it doesn't even get the chance to compete.

When it is allowed to build, it runs into multi-year schedule slips and multi-billion cost overruns.

EPR Olkiluoto is an epic trainwreck:
- It was initially scheduled to go online in 2009.
- Initial cost estimates were about €3.7 billion.
- In December 2006, TVO announced construction was about 18 months behind schedule so completion was now expected 2010–11.
- In September 2007, TVO reported the construction delay as "at least two years" and costs more than 25% over budget.
- As of May 2009, the station was at least three and a half years behind schedule and more than 50 percent over-budget.
- In December 2012 Areva's Chief Executive estimated costs to €8 billion.
- In December 2011, TVO announced a further delay to August 2014.
- In September 2014 Areva announced that operations would start in 2018.

EPR Flamanville is a trainwreck too.

AP1000: Vogtle and VC Summer are going so "well" that the company building them has declared bankruptcy.

Are there evil forces which prevent nuclear power construction from proceeding not this badly?

 

[russ_watters]

Are there evil forces which prevent nuclear power construction from proceeding not this badly?

Yes, it is pretty clear that start-up problems are what you get when you suppress an industry for decades and then try to restart it. If the resurgence builds steam, it will gain efficiency as experience comes back up.

And that's even setting aside the fact that there could scarcely be more mundane of a problem than a construction delay! You don't honestly think solar plants don't have construction delays and cost overruns, do you?

 

[mfb]

However wind and solar now appear to be cheaper.

If you ignore the trouble they bring to the grid, and the problem that you cannot shut down conventional power plants unless you have a reliable storage, then they are cheaper in some places.
The image doesn't seem to work.

 

[nikkkom]

Yes, it is pretty clear that start-up problems are what you get when you suppress an industry for decades and then try to restart it.

Last French reactor before EPR in Olkiluoto was Civaux 2, which went online April 2002. Olkiluoto start of construction was in July 2005. This wasn't "suppression for decades".

 

[russ_watters]

Last French reactor before EPR in Olkiluoto was Civaux 2, which went online April 2002. Olkiluoto start of construction was in July 2005. This wasn't "suppression for decades".

The nuclear industry has been under heavy attack for 50 years. In either case, it says in plain language in the wiki article that:
1. This is the first reactor of its generation - and many more are planned.
2. Inexperienced construction crews due to so few reactors being built recently led to much of the delays.

So it should be clear to you - if you aren't just bickering - that this problem was caused largely by successful anti-nuclear campaigns and can be corrected moving forward by building more reactors (gaining more experience).

 

[nikkkom]

There are good reasons to continue with RE - and push the pace rather than cut it back; imposing RE limits now would be a serious mistake in my opinion. Holding RE to levels that won't significantly impact the existing FF generators and don't put pressure on them to change will only impede the pace of change; it will not enable any supposed "better" options. Delay is not our friend in this.

I don't understand any need to either "push" or "slow it down". Aren't we supposed to be living in this "evil capitalist system" where economical forces and competition eventually result in near-optimal designs?

I belong to the school of thought that artificial, non-market interventions need to be minimized, and used only when there are strong reasons to think that some technology needs accelerated R&D, and won't be developed by market fast enough.

Photovoltaics by now definitely does not need a crutch. It can stand on its own. R&D is active and well-financed. Artificial incentives are not necessary.

 

[russ_watters]

Photovoltaics by now definitely does not need a crutch. It can stand on its own. R&D is active and well-financed. Artificial incentives are not necessary.

I'm very surprised to hear that you believe that. Why then, do you think that solar implementation has been so tiny despite massive subsidies? It looks to me like you are arguing against reality.

 

[nikkkom]

I'm very surprised to hear that you believe that. Why then, do you think that solar implementation has been so tiny despite massive subsidies? It looks to me like you are arguing against reality.

Here are results for PV, year over year:

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_01_02.html
US: Net Generation (Thousand Megawatthours) 2014
Solar: 17691 (that's 0.43%)
All sources: 4093606

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/pdf/epa.pdf
US: Net Generation (Thousand Megawatthours) 2015
All sources: 4077601
Solar utility: 24893 0.61%
Solar all (estimated): 39032 0.95%

There is no data for 2016 on www.eia.gov site yet (would be great, since data from same site likely to be more consistent), but other reports I saw say US solar in 2016 was at about 1.3% of all generation.

The "tiny solar implementation" is indeed small so far, grows quite well for my tastes. Only 10 years before, it was 50 times smaller!

 

[russ_watters]

The "tiny solar implementation" is indeed small so far, grows quite well for my tastes. Only 10 years before, it was 50 times smaller!

I don't see how this squares with what you said before or answers my question. Solar implementation has slowly improved from terrible to poor and you consider that success and proof of viability and reason to eliminate subsidies? This is all you want from solar? Or perhaps more to the point; this path does not lead solar to putting a significant dent in our power needs...and you are ok with that? This makes no sense - I thought you were a fan of solar power, but what you are suggesting now sounds a lot like opposition to it.

 

[nikkkom]

I don't see how this squares with what you said before or answers my question. Solar implementation has slowly improved from terrible to poor and you consider that success and proof of viability and reason to eliminate subsidies? This is all you want from solar? Or perhaps more to the point; this path does not lead solar to putting a significant dent in our power needs...

Sorry, but I think this is just wishful thinking on your part (as nuclear power advocate). I think solar will inevitably grow into some 20%-40% of US power production during next 20 years.

 

[russ_watters]

I think solar will inevitably grow into some 20%-40% of US power production during next 20 years.

How? Where in what you just said is there a path to achieve that? Specifically; after struggling to reach 1% and then eliminating subsidies that helped get there, how does that lead to a 20-40 fold increase in production?

 

[nikkkom]

How? Where in what you just said is there a path to achieve that? Specifically; after struggling to reach 1% and then eliminating subsidies that helped get there, how does that lead to a 20-40 fold increase in production?

Replace "struggling to reach 1%" with "grew 50-fold in 10 years" and think what does that mean for the future.

 

[russ_watters]

Replace "struggling to reach 1%" with "grew 50-fold in 10 years" and think what does that mean for the future.

I'm not asking you what *I* think, I'm asking you what *you* think. Having to pull teeth to get you to say explicitly what you are implying makes me question whether you really believe it.

Anyway: so your basis is assuming that solar PV can continue 150% per year average growth, even after subsidies are removed and scalability problems get worse and worse. Does it concern you that the growth rate has dropped each of the last 5 years and that this year (the first year of your projection), it is likely to drop below your required 50% growth rate? What, specifically, do you think will right that ship?

Edit: do you not understand that solar could only have such a fast growth rate because it is so small? The very first fully commercial nuclear plant was 250 MW, which is a little more than PV's 2014 average output. It didn't have a decade of scaling to get there because the very first plant was too big!

 

[mfb]

Replace "struggling to reach 1%" with "grew 50-fold in 10 years" and think what does that mean for the future.

The very first installation increased it by an undefined percentage. So what?
If I wire up the first hamster wheel to feed power into the grid tomorrow (I won't do it, don't worry), I increased relative hamster power more in a day than solar increased in 10 years. You can't power the grid with percentage increases.

If all subsidies would be removed globally the solar industry would struggle or collapse completely. A few specialized factories for space-grade photovoltaics would survive without problems, but that is not interesting for the mass market.

 

[CWatters]

According to The Guardian (a UK newspaper) Trump has just proposed adding solar panels to the Mexican wall. If that true I wonder if he's realized that the best side to put them would be the south facing Mexican side :-)

 

[Ken Fabos]

We can all wish things had played out differently, wishing we might be in a much different, "better" place now. We can blame politics, yes, as I do too, but my views on the hows and whys of how we got to where we are now - and who should be held responsible - are radically different to the views of some of the commenters here. I imagine the discussion was already pushing against the limits of the Forum's policies about discussing politics even before being moved out of General Discussion into General Engineering; decisive non-engineering factors that will affect the future of solar energy will, depending on where the line gets drawn, remain outside the bounds of this discussion.

[edited out para - just say I strongly disagree with mfb, russ_watters and others on why nuclear isn't what we are leading with. I don't feel like I can present what I think about why without crossing the policy on politics line.]

To say it is simply a choice to make nuclear the main thrust or renewables really doesn't do the complexities of these issues any justice; choice in this comes via the choices of affected industries, the choices of politicians, political parties and governments - most especially it comes via the choices of those in positions of trust and responsibility, including those in media in their role of essential informers, whom large parts of the public can largely be expected to follow.

Some points - RE can be both currently competitive (depending on circumstance) and not yet be mature; this is a good thing, as it means there remains room still for future improvements. Whilst improvements are essential over the longer term , especially with respect to the ways intermittency is dealt with, they are not essential immediately under the circumstances we have now - a point I have made before. It can be and is periodically and intermittently competitive and that can be enough to have significant consequences in energy markets.

As for subsidies, leaving aside questions of their appropriateness and effectiveness - how about starting with the elephant in that room? Fossil fuel based energy producers are being given ongoing amnesty on climate consequences. This de-facto "subsidy", not the subsidy to RE, ought to be the bigger concern for advocates of nuclear because it is not RE that nuclear needs to displace, it is fossil fuels.

 

[CWatters]

Sorry the image I posted earlier doesn't seem to be working.

The end 2016 Lazard report into the cost of energy here..

https://www.lazard.com/media/438038/levelized-cost-of-energy-v100.pdf

..has this table showing the "Unsibsidized Levelized Cost of Energy". Compare the cost of Utility scale solar and wind energy with that of a Gas, Coal and Nuclear. Note: It does not take into account the cost of managing the "intermittent" supply of solar/wind.

 

[nikkkom]

I'm not asking you what *I* think, I'm asking you what *you* think. Having to pull teeth to get you to say explicitly what you are implying makes me question whether you really believe it.

I already told you what I think. Solar will continue to grow and in 20 years, will generate 20-40% of US electricity.

Anyway: so your basis is assuming that solar PV can continue 150% per year average growth

Wrong. Had I assume that, I would be stating that in 10 years, PV would generate 50% of US electricity. That's what naive, optimistic interpolation of current trend results in. I am making *much* more conservative prediction, on account on needing developments in storage, and on subsidies being removed sooner or later.

Does it concern you that the growth rate has dropped each of the last 5 years and that this year (the first year of your projection), it is likely to drop below your required 50% growth rate?

Source for these claims?

The only year so far when next year's installations were not surpassing previous one is 2012. This is nothing new, growth is not perfectly linear, changes in regulatory regime and other factors cause this.
Year 2017 is predicted to be similar to 2012, it'll have growth not larger than 2016 because PV utility installations had non-market (tax) reasons to rush installations to be completed by 31 Dec 2016. (Amusingly, in the end, PV lobbyists managed to postpone tax incentives removal, but the plans to rush installations were already in motion).

What, specifically, do you think will right that ship?

There is no problem with the ship. It's only you wanting it to have problems. Sorry to be blunt.

 

[russ_watters]

I already told you what I think. Solar will continue to grow and in 20 years, will generate 20-40% of US electricity.

Wrong. Had I assume that, I would be stating that in 10 years, PV would generate 50% of US electricity. That's what naive, optimistic interpolation of current trend results in. I am making *much* more conservative prediction, on account on needing developments in storage, and on subsidies being removed sooner or later...

Source for these claims?

Enough: State your claim and it's historical basis and provide sources. Clearly and explicitly. I'm through guessing what you are after and then having you tell me I'm wrong without saying what you are really thinking and having the audacity to ask *me* for the source data behind *your* claim/prediction!

 

[mfb]

As for subsidies, leaving aside questions of their appropriateness and effectiveness - how about starting with the elephant in that room? Fossil fuel based energy producers are being given ongoing amnesty on climate consequences. This de-facto "subsidy", not the subsidy to RE, ought to be the bigger concern for advocates of nuclear because it is not RE that nuclear needs to displace, it is fossil fuels.

I support that.
It is not mentioned here so frequently because the topic is "the future of solar power".

Note: It does not take into account the cost of managing the "intermittent" supply of solar/wind.

In other words: It does not make sense to compare the numbers (even solar with storage - which is much more expensive - is typically only a 1-day storage). In terms of use for the economy, you have to compare solar and wind with marginal costs of conventional power plants. The marginal costs of nuclear power plants are tiny.

The small price range of solar power is suspicious. Which locations did they study? There is more than a factor 3 in power/(peak power) between some US desert and northern Germany, for example.

 

[CWatters]

I don't disagree with everything you say. We need a mix of generating capacity. In particular we need the base capacity that Nuclear provides but we do have a problem in the UK encouraging investment in new nuclear plant...

Capital costs:
In the UK the right to provide new generating capacity is auctioned off with the lowest bidder winning. Strike prices for new wind and solar capacity (circa £80/MWh) have been coming in below that of Nuclear (£90). In fact two solar farms recently agreed strike prices of around £50/MWh which might turn out to be a mistake.

Marginal costs:
We also have competition on minute by minute basis to supply the grid and solar and wind have been undercutting nuclear there as well. The World Nuclear Association complains...
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx

The negligible marginal operating costs of wind and solar mean that, when climatic conditions allow generation from these sources, they undercut all other electricity producers. At high levels of renewable generation, for example. as implied by the EU’s 30% renewable penetration target, the nuclear capacity factor is reduced and the volatility of wholesale prices greatly increases whilst the average wholesale price level falls. The increased penetration of intermittent renewables thereby greatly reduces the financial viability of nuclear generation in wholesale markets where intermittent renewable energy capacity is significant. The integration of intermittent renewables with conventional base-load generation is a major challenge facing policymakers in the EU and certain states in the USA, and until this challenge is resolved (e.g. by the introduction of long-term capacity markets or power purchase agreements) then investment in base-load generation capacity in these markets is likely to remain insufficient.

I think we're going to have to tax wind and solar and subsidise Nuclear or something similar.

We are also starting to see problems of over capacity. We recently had a day where wind and solar peaked at 50%. The grid seems to have survived but a warning has been issued that wind generation might have to be curtailed to maintain stability.

http://www.powerengineeringint.com/...-grid-issues-warning-on-uk-summer-demand.html

In a statement National Grid said, “Based on current information we anticipate that during some weeks there will be more inflexible generation on the system than is needed to meet demand. In order to balance the system, it may be necessary, during these weeks, for us to instruct inflexible generators to reduce their output. Wind generation may need to be curtailed this summer during minimum demand periods to help us balance the system.”

 

[mfb]

I think we're going to have to tax wind and solar and subsidise Nuclear or something similar.

We don't have to. Unregulated, and if fossil fuels are made less attractive, nuclear power plants will make their power more expensive. With a lot of solar power that would mean cheap electricity during sunny days and expensive electricity during other times. It would promote storage solutions and demand that follows supply where possible. Electricity providers would overall charge more because maintaining a stable grid would get harder unless some new storage solutions can be found.
Probably higher overall electricity prices, but it can work.

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think we're going to have to tax wind and solar and subsidise Nuclear or something similar.

I disagree. I suggest it would be more appropriate to tax coal and gas and oil to subsidise RE, with storage and other responses to intermittency given priority. It is not a matter of this being the best of all possible courses - too many of those seem to start with a wishful changing of recent history to make circumstances more to people's liking, like the old joke "If I was going to there I wouldn't start from here."

Addressing the storage/intermittency issue is, in my view, the course most appropriate to the circumstances we are in now, where solar and wind are the fastest growing new sources of generation and they are expected to get cheaper and their utilisation to increase. We know that the need to deal with the intermittency issues (as well as storage for transport) is becoming imminent; we should do what we can to keep ahead of it by prioritising it, not allow that to become the excuse used by interests that want to stop the growth of low emissions energy and insulate the fossil fuel generators from a need to change. Meanwhile, in places where there is no existing grid or it is very unreliable the value of solar with storage is even more stark.

As I said above - the huge ongoing subsidy fossil fuels get by avoidance of climate responsibility for emissions is the market distorting elephant in the room. Addressing that would be a big boost to nuclear's prospects. RE's prospects shouldn't be sacrificed to give a boost to nuclear; Fossil fuels are the ones to tax and ultimately to sacrifice.

We know that growing renewable penetration will not be good for nuclear in the same way it will not be good for the bottom line of fossil fuel plant - by demand becoming more intermittent, with wider swings in variability and longer periods of energy prices below profitability. There can be a case for special considerations being given to nuclear for it's emissions reductions, to insulate it from an open energy market with lots more intermittent RE.

 

[nikkkom]

Enough: State your claim and it's historical basis and provide sources. Clearly and explicitly.

www.greentechmedia.com

www.seia.org

cleantechnica.com

Can you substantiate your claim that "growth rate has dropped each of the last 5 years"?