Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[NTL2009]

If this lid is real then the short term solutions would be:

- Concentrate on bringing solar power to markets that are not yet near the usage limit.
...

That is exactly what the graph shown in post #575 by @mheslep is showing.

- Install other forms of clean power. For example, the windiest days tend not to be the sunniest.
- Encourage industry to schedule its most energy intensive activities for when power is most available. This is a basic free market response.

Those countries also have a lot of wind power, and I would imagine are engaging in energy shifting as well. But how many industries can schedule their power usage like that? Again, many industries are capital intensive, and need to run as much as possible, even 24/7, to be competitive.

- Restore and improve long distance power distribution. Wind and sunlight very locally, but less so from region to region.

Expensive. Subject to Mother Nature or other attacks.

- Continue to improve storage techniques of all kinds.

Sure, and while I try to be optimistic on this, I just don't see anything on the horizon. We should keep looking, but I keep seeing costs that just say - it's cheaper to just waste the power.

Note that the first three options here cost nothing beyond what we are already spending, the 4th is needed regardless of whether or not we add renewables, and the fifth is largely driven by cell phones and consumer electronics.

Option #3 does have costs. Shifting energy usage in a major way does not come free. You either lose production, or you are doing some sort of local storage (like making ice now to keep things cool later), and there are always losses with storage, and/or capacity issues (we need more ice makers if we don't run 24/7!).

 

[NTL2009]

And when comparing costs of fossil fuels to renewables, remember that the war in Iraq is basically a six trillion dollar oil subsidy. The hidden costs of renewables pale in comparison.

Red herring.

There is simply no way that we have so much renewable that we replace all our oil demands such that we don't care about protecting oil shipments in that region. And even if we did, I don't think oil alone is the reason for our involvement in the Middle East, but that is outside the scope of this technical discussion I think.

 

[Algr]

Red herring.

There is simply no way that we have so much renewable that we replace all our oil demands such that we don't care about protecting oil shipments in that region.

.

I did this calculation. One trillion dollars in wind turbines generates about as much power in watts as the US gets from the Middle East. Spend the other 5 trillion on batteries and power lines and the US can stop buying oil from ISIL forever.

 

[NTL2009]

.

I did this calculation. One trillion dollars in wind turbines generates about as much power in watts as the US gets from the Middle East. Spend the other 5 trillion on batteries and power lines and the US can stop buying oil from ISIL forever.

Please show your work. It's not just a matter of power, it's having that power in a usable form. I don't think a 747 can be battery powered.

And again, outside the technical range of this thread, but something tells me that if the US no longer imported any oil, that would not change the some of the issues in the ME that affect us. It may make them worse?

 

[russ_watters]

I did this calculation. One trillion dollars in wind turbines generates about as much power in watts as the US gets from the Middle East.

I'd like to see your work as well because we don't really buy power from the Middle East, we buy energy. Mixing and matching the two is a common way solar/wind's viability are over-estimated by several times.

And when comparing costs of fossil fuels to renewables, remember that the war in Iraq is basically a six trillion dollar oil subsidy. The hidden costs of renewables pale in comparison.

Actually, doing that math gives me $57 a barrel, or about a 100% subsidy on oil (wholesale) if we consider the $6T to be a reasonable estimate and that it was spent only for oil and that it had no other economic benefit (none of which seem reasonable to me). Hidden or otherwise, that puts it on a similar level with many renewable energy subsidies, particularly when it comes to solar.
http://consumerenergyalliance.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Solar-incentive-report-FINAL.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

The oil companies sell finished fuel products, if there are greater profits from making their own feedstock,
well they are in business to make profits.

Oil companies make money by selling energy. They can't make money by buying energy from their customers and then re-selling it back to their customers in another form. That's like me buying a house from you and then selling it back to you and both of us profiting from the sequence of transactions. Since it is circular, it must be zero sum.

 

[rootone]

We need to put more of effort into power storage.
Some of that could be simple in easy locations, just pump water uphill when availabe energy is exceeding demand.

 

[NTL2009]

We need to put more of effort into power storage.
Some of that could be simple in easy locations, just pump water uphill when availabe energy is exceeding demand.

That's been discussed, maybe in this thread. Yes, sounds easy, until you do the math. Gravity is a weak force, it takes a lot of mass and a lot of height to store the kind of energy we are talking about.

The tech is well understood (same as hydro power), it's pretty efficient, there really are no barriers to implementing. The above reasons are why you don't see much of it in place today.

Oh, and it isn't waiting for renewable energy to produce excess, grid operators would use this today (and do in a few limited cases) to provide some load leveling. So unfortunately, I don't think this is an answer either.

 

[mfb]

- Concentrate on bringing solar power to markets that are not yet near the usage limit.

In other words, go to suboptimal places (less sunshine, worse infrastructure, ...). That makes solar more expensive.

- Install other forms of clean power. For example, the windiest days tend not to be the sunniest.

That doesn't increase the fraction of solar power.

- Encourage industry to schedule its most energy intensive activities for when power is most available. This is a basic free market response.

That needs an overcapacity in the industry. That is not free, you have to give the industries a motivation via lower electricity prices if there is excess solar power. That makes solar power less attractive.

- Restore and improve long distance power distribution.
- Continue to improve storage techniques of all kinds.

That is done already.

In a country like Germany, you get an availability factor of at best 20%, which means 8% of annual consumption corresponds to a peak capacity of 40% of peak load.

20%? Most of the country gets 11-13%. Here is a map. The installed capacity is 40 GW, while the total average demand is 66 GW (higher during the day).

 

[johnbbahm]

You're making the same conservation of money and energy mistake another member made earlier. It can't possibly ever be more economical to store energy as fuel than you can use it outright because by storing it you lose some, which means you have to make/buy more than if you didn't store it.

...even if we go with that unreasonably low price per kwh...

...aso, That's just the energy; it doesn't include the cost of the technology or facilities; It's the "solar is free" fallacy.

I have already said the process is between 60 and 70% efficient, which means you use 30 to 40% of the energy to store it,
As to the using it outright, the wall being discussed is because demand is low when supply is high, so there is no outright demand
for the electricity to be used. Storing the surplus at 60% makes more sense than dumping it at 100%.

As to the low wholesale price of electricity, that is published data.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/
When Audi started doing this research, they purchased an old refinery, from what I have read
the processes are very similar to current olefin cracking done at most refineries.
Solar is not free, but neither is oil, both have a very real cost of goods sold.
Oils price will only increase in the long term, where as the price for solar electricity is declining.

 

[johnbbahm]

OK, but that cost is just the electricity cost. This process, while likely achievable technically, appears fairly complex, and likely relatively expensive equipment. So again, amortize the capital costs across a part-time application of excess solar, and I still think it will be very tough.

Military applications are often "we need to do this, cost is not a primary concern". There is a benefit from making fuel while at sea, even if the cost is very high.

I think the process is something a modern refinery could transition to is short order, The carbon capture, and electrolysis of water for hydrogen,
are where the electricity is used.
The is a decent breakdown of the different research efforts is EE.
http://www.ee.co.za/article/power-liquids-power-gas-closing-carbon-cycle.html

 

[mfb]

Storing the surplus at 60% makes more sense than dumping it at 100%.

It makes more sense than dumping it, but it is still worse than using it as electricity.

As to the low wholesale price of electricity, that is published data.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/wholesale/

It doesn't apply to solar power which receives large subsidies basically everywhere.

Oils price will only increase in the long term, where as the price for solar electricity is declining.

They are so far away from each other that it will take a very long time until "oil from solar" is competitive.

 

[NTL2009]

... Storing the surplus at 60% makes more sense than dumping it at 100%. ...

No, you aren't using words properly. We can say "Storing the surplus at 60% is more desirable than dumping it at 100%." But it only makes sense if it is practical and cost effective.

A parallel - about 30% of the energy of an automotive ICE is wasted as heat. It would be desirable to capture and use/store that wasted energy. But it doesn't make sense to capture and use/store that wasted energy, because we just don't have a practical and cost effective means to do it. Is there research into it? Yes. But just like solar storage, nothing that appears to have a path to practicality on the horizon.

 

[johnbbahm]

No, you aren't using words properly. We can say "Storing the surplus at 60% is more desirable than dumping it at 100%." But it only makes sense if it is practical and cost effective.

A parallel - about 30% of the energy of an automotive ICE is wasted as heat. It would be desirable to capture and use/store that wasted energy. But it doesn't make sense to capture and use/store that wasted energy, because we just don't have a practical and cost effective means to do it. Is there research into it? Yes. But just like solar storage, nothing that appears to have a path to practicality on the horizon.

There is a big difference between using using electricity for which there is no demand, and trying to improve the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine.
FYI I think most car ICE are only about 25% efficient so 75% of the energy is wasted as heat.
Practical and cost effective, if a refinery can buy electricity and make feedstocks, for cheaper than they can buy oil,
it does not get more practical than that.
If the un demanded electricity were not used, it would have to be dissipated heat, which could harm the grid.

 

[NTL2009]

There is a big difference between using using electricity for which there is no demand, and trying to improve the Carnot efficiency of a heat engine.
FYI I think most car ICE are only about 25% efficient so 75% of the energy is wasted as heat. ...

Yes, I was thinking ~ 30% as heat but it is ~ 30% lost as heat through the cooling system, and 30% lost as heat through the exhaust system.
But the actual number was not the point, it was the concept of waste in general, and what is practical. Of course an ICE is different - but the concepts of "practicality" are the same.

... Practical and cost effective, if a refinery can buy electricity and make feedstocks, for cheaper than they can buy oil,
it does not get more practical than that. ...

Again, you confuse "wishes" and "practical". Your argument is circular - "if" it can be made practical, then it is practical?

... If the un demanded electricity were not used, it would have to be dissipated heat, which could harm the grid.

Not true. The inverter of a solar panel with no load on it simply does not supply power to the load. It goes "open circuit" and it doesn't get hot from that, any more than the sockets in your home with nothing plugged in need something to absorb the power there - they don't. In fact, with near zero current, it will e cooler than if it had a load on it. Wind turbines are turned at an angle to reduce output. Gas turbines are fed less fuel.

I'm not certain about what happens in a steam plant if demand drops below supply. It would seem to me that an unloaded generator would use little energy in, so less steam energy would be drawn down from the source. Does this result in over-pressure conditions? Does the steam just need to be released? Hopefully one of the power plant experts here can explain. Though maybe this doesn't happen in practice, as the peaker plants are adapting in time.

 

[NTL2009]

.

I did this calculation. One trillion dollars in wind turbines generates about as much power in watts as the US gets from the Middle East. Spend the other 5 trillion on batteries and power lines and the US can stop buying oil from ISIL forever.

I (and others) would like to see your calculations.

 

[johnbbahm]

Yes, I was thinking ~ 30% as heat but it is ~ 30% lost as heat through the cooling system, and 30% lost as heat through the exhaust system.
But the actual number was not the point, it was the concept of waste in general, and what is practical. Of course an ICE is different - but the concepts of "practicality" are the same.
Again, you confuse "wishes" and "practical". Your argument is circular - "if" it can be made practical, then it is practical?
Not true. The inverter of a solar panel with no load on it simply does not supply power to the load. It goes "open circuit" and it doesn't get hot from that, any more than the sockets in your home with nothing plugged in need something to absorb the power there - they don't. In fact, with near zero current, it will e cooler than if it had a load on it. Wind turbines are turned at an angle to reduce output. Gas turbines are fed less fuel.

I'm not certain about what happens in a steam plant if demand drops below supply. It would seem to me that an unloaded generator would use little energy in, so less steam energy would be drawn down from the source. Does this result in over-pressure conditions? Does the steam just need to be released? Hopefully one of the power plant experts here can explain. Though maybe this doesn't happen in practice, as the peaker plants are adapting in time.

I am not sure how the demand is regulated between the grid and the inverter. The point of storage is that if the supply is available,
the energy can be stored for later or alternate use.
The big problem with solar and wind is energy density and poor duty cycle.
Viable storage would solve both of those problems, creating hydrocarbon fuel would allow the energy to be
accumulated in a high density package, compatible with existing demands and infrastructure.

 

[NTL2009]

... The point of storage is that if the supply is available, the energy can be stored for later or alternate use.
The big problem with solar and wind is energy density and poor duty cycle.
Viable storage would solve both of those problems, creating hydrocarbon fuel would allow the energy to be
accumulated in a high density package, compatible with existing demands and infrastructure.

You just keep stating and re-stating the obvious. "Viable storage" is desirable.

But desire doesn't make it "viable".

Let's go back to the post that started this recent conversation - the one showing that solar is maxing out at 8% on grids around the globe. Sure, practical, affordable storage would allow more solar to be used, no one is arguing that.

But where is this practical, affordable storage? It doesn't exist, and today there is no pathway for them to exist. Hopefully someday, but as of now, proposals (even after assuming future development of the ideas) are expensive and/or limited, and/or vaporware. I use the term "pathway", as I don't want to rule out advances, but I simply don't see anything that even shows realistic promise of being practical and affordable within decades.

For example, hydro storage was mentioned. But this is already pretty efficient, so the future does not hold "game changing" advances in efficiency. And it takes a combination of large amounts of mass and height deltas, that is dictated by gravity. There is no "pathway" to change that. And that is true of all the plans I've seen, there are physical and practical limits to how far it can be advanced. We can even apply this to ideas that are in development, they can't break the laws of physics, so we can estimate a 'best case' for them, and that 'best case' is not all that attractive.

Storage is a tough nut to crack.

 

[mheslep]

What is causing the "wall"? Political resistance? Lack of panel availability? Splitting up the sun between too many cells?

Cost. The system cost of intermittent power quickly becomes expensive with rising share of generation.

 

[mheslep]

Germany and Japan are not particularly sunny countries and population density is high. They don't have huge unpopulated areas, and no deserts.

The Tabernas barely counts as the only real desert in Europe. Germany is ~60% more population dense than China. Land is not the problem. A more southern latitude helps, as indicated by Italy, Greece, Spain, but not much in avoiding an inevitable economic cliff.

 

[mheslep]

addition, solar still has to be fully backed up by conventional sources, which means the more solar you put in, the more expensive the backup gets (because it is used less).

Yes, this. Today Germany has 49 GW of coal fleet capacity. In 2002, Germany had ... 49 GW of coal capacity. Gas fired electric increased 50% over the same period. Germany runs the fossil fleet at a bit lower rate than it did 15 years ago, but that doesn't reduce cost much as you indicated.

 

[johnbbahm]

You just keep stating and re-stating the obvious. "Viable storage" is desirable.

But desire doesn't make it "viable".

Let's go back to the post that started this recent conversation - the one showing that solar is maxing out at 8% on grids around the globe. Sure, practical, affordable storage would allow more solar to be used, no one is arguing that.

But where is this practical, affordable storage? It doesn't exist, and today there is no pathway for them to exist. Hopefully someday, but as of now, proposals (even after assuming future development of the ideas) are expensive and/or limited, and/or vaporware. I use the term "pathway", as I don't want to rule out advances, but I simply don't see anything that even shows realistic promise of being practical and affordable within decades.

For example, hydro storage was mentioned. But this is already pretty efficient, so the future does not hold "game changing" advances in efficiency. And it takes a combination of large amounts of mass and height deltas, that is dictated by gravity. There is no "pathway" to change that. And that is true of all the plans I've seen, there are physical and practical limits to how far it can be advanced. We can even apply this to ideas that are in development, they can't break the laws of physics, so we can estimate a 'best case' for them, and that 'best case' is not all that attractive.

Storage is a tough nut to crack.

No one is violating the laws of physics, It would take roughly 50 Mwh of electricity to store the 35 Mwh of energy in a gallon of gasoline,
but the processes are working, the Navy has received patents,
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2016/NRL-Seawater-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent
Sunfire's system is producing fuels.
The hard work is done, the scale up engineering is still ahead, but is possible.
We already know that grid tied solar under the current conditions starts slowing down at about 8%,
so we change the conditions by adding hydrocarbon storage.

 

[NTL2009]

No one is violating the laws of physics, It would take roughly 50 Mwh of electricity to store the 35 Mwh of energy in a gallon of gasoline,
but the processes are working, the Navy has received patents,
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2016/NRL-Seawater-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent
Sunfire's system is producing fuels.
The hard work is done, the scale up engineering is still ahead, but is possible.
We already know that grid tied solar under the current conditions starts slowing down at about 8%,
so we change the conditions by adding hydrocarbon storage.

I didn't mean to imply (and did not say) that the linked process violated the laws of physics, it clearly doesn't. I mentioned that as a means to estimate the "best case" limits of any proposed solution.

Regarding Sunfire, it seems to be as said earlier, a military solution where cost is not near the top of the priority list. From your link:

“A ship's ability to produce a significant fraction of the battle group's fuel for operations at sea could reduce the mean time between refueling, and increase the operational flexibility and time on station,” said Cmdr. DiMascio. “Reducing the logistics tail on fuel delivery with the potential to increase the Navy's energy security and independence, with minimal impact on the environment, were key factors in the development of this program.”

Nowhere in there did I see any reference to this fuel being anywhere near cost-competitive with fossil fuels. So it simply is not reasonable to assume this process would be applicable to large scale use of any excess grid energy.

I would be very interested if you could find a reputable source that shows a process like this has the potential to convert solar energy to gasoline to power my car, at a competitive $/gallon retail price, with all costs factored in.

And their plans (as of a year ago), called for scaling this up to... one gallon a day. So this is still very small scale demonstration level. The question is cost. We have plenty of storage options today, if you ignore cost.

Sunfire's system is producing fuels.
The hard work is done, the scale up engineering is still ahead, but is possible.

Please don't make me laugh, this is a serious subject. I will assume you have never brought a product from prototype to commercialization. I have, and trust me, there is still plenty of "hard work" to be done after your proof-of-concept has been shown to work in the lab. Often, it is the commercialization that is the hardest part, and often where the failures occur.

Even Edison said it: "Invention is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration".

 

[OmCheeto]

I found the following analysis interesting:

NREL Report Shows Utility-Scale Solar PV System Cost Fell Nearly 30% Last Year
September 12, 2017

...The report shows that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) benchmarks without subsidies for the first quarter of 2017 fell to between 12.9 and 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for residential systems, 9.2-12.0 cents a kWh for commercial systems, 5.0-6.6 cents a kWh for utility-scale fixed-tilt systems, and 4.4-6.1 cents a kWh for utility-scale one-axis tracking systems.​

So all but the residential systems are generating power at less than what I pay for electricity. (12.2¢/kwh)

And the breakdown of residential costs are really interesting.
A visual snippet from the full technical report:

Residential cost breakdown​

As a lifelong, pauperish DIYer, the "Soft Costs*" kind of irk me.

*Soft Costs

Net Profit
Overhead (General & Admin.)
Sales & Marketing (Customer acquisition)
Permitting, Inspection, Interconnection (PII)
Sales Tax
Install labor​

I suppose though, if I had cash to spare, and was not a DIYer, then I'd not be irked, as, well, that's just how things work.

 

[OmCheeto]

I really like this "Mark Jacobson" fellow.

AAAS posted this a couple of days ago:

WORLDWIDE RENEWABLES
September 12, 2017

How practical is a worldwide switch to 100% renewable energy?

BOB HIRSHON (host):

Practical renewables. I’m Bob Hirshon and this is Science Update.

Ask someone about making the world run on 100% renewable wind, water and solar energy, and they might say “can’t happen; just doesn’t add up.” But in the journal Joule, Stanford climate scientist Mark Jacobson and his colleagues report that most countries could convert to 100% renewable energy by the year 2050 and actually save money. ​

I posted some thoughts on Facebook the other day, regarding his (Jacobson's) naysayers:

Note to self; "Stanford professor Mark Jacobson is being negatively targeted by sciencey people for this idea, as it will put A LOT of sciencey people out of work." #DisruptiveInnovation #WithoutHotAir

Note to self; "Look into background of all people denigrating Professor Jacobson's idea. Guessing they all have a financial interest in seeing his idea fail." ​

#everyonewantstoberichpsevenom

 

[NTL2009]

I found the following analysis interesting:

NREL Report Shows Utility-Scale Solar PV System Cost Fell Nearly 30% Last Year
September 12, 2017

...The report shows that the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) benchmarks without subsidies for the first quarter of 2017 fell to between 12.9 and 16.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for residential systems, 9.2-12.0 cents a kWh for commercial systems, 5.0-6.6 cents a kWh for utility-scale fixed-tilt systems, and 4.4-6.1 cents a kWh for utility-scale one-axis tracking systems.​

So all but the residential systems are generating power at less than what I pay for electricity. (12.2¢/kwh) ...

Very interesting, and encouraging to see prices dropping.

However, relative to the recent discussion of the ~ 8% limit we see for solar on grids, these costs go out the window at that point. If your grid presently is on the edge of excess solar on 4 out of 5 days, an added panel will only be able to sell 80% of what it produces, making the effective payback for that panel 25% longer, or requiring 25% more panels for the same revenue stream.

Note to self; "Look into background of all people denigrating Professor Jacobson's idea. Guessing they all have a financial interest in seeing his idea fail."

I'm not a fan of that thinking. While it is a consideration, I like to see the facts and numbers speak for themselves, regardless who's mouth they come from. Facts and numbers represent science, pre-judging something based on who said it is a logical fallacy. Sometimes, someone who I dislike says something I learn from. If I discounted the source, I'd be the worse off for it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Very interesting, and encouraging to see prices dropping.

However, relative to the recent discussion of the ~ 8% limit we see for solar on grids, these costs go out the window at that point.

Not if you have appliances that merge old school with new school technology.
I'm fascinated by the non-chemical batteries of old, and how new tech makes them even better.
I admit, that these devices don't yet exist. But it's only a matter of time, before they do.

If your grid presently is on the edge of excess solar on 4 out of 5 days, an added panel will only be able to sell 80% of what it produces, making the effective payback for that panel 25% longer, or requiring 25% more panels for the same revenue stream.

This is why I was so upset that Zooby couldn't sell his energy to me, when I needed it. The US grid should be totally integrated.

...pre-judging something based on who said it is a logical fallacy. ...

I don't know who his detractors are, so I don't understand your logic.

 

[russ_watters]

No one is violating the laws of physics, It would take roughly 50 Mwh of electricity to store the 35 Mwh of energy in a gallon of gasoline,
but the processes are working, the Navy has received patents,
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2016/NRL-Seawater-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent
Sunfire's system is producing fuels.
The hard work is done, the scale up engineering is still ahead, but is possible.

You keep repeating this over and over again without responding to the points people are making about its irrelevance. Let me reformulate @NTL2009 's point with an example: we figured out the physics behind space travel 50 years ago and used it to put men on the moon. After that, "the scale up engineering" to build a colony on the moon "is possible". So why hasn't it happened? Because the laws of physics still dictate how big of a rocket it takes to get to the moon, which thereby dictates how much it costs. So a colony won't happen without a game-changer technology because the laws of physics drive the economics and prevent the idea from being affordable.

Closer to home, the laws of physics dictate the size and height of reservoir needed, size of piping, size and power of pumps/turbines, etc required for a certain amount of storage, which therefore dictates the cost. That's why pumped-storage is a difficult proposition.

You're completely ignoring this issue with the technology you are discussing (not necessarily your fault: it is generally glossed-over in the media hype of new inventions), but it is certainly there and it is unlikely to allow the technology to become viable.

As to the using it outright, the wall being discussed is because demand is low when supply is high, so there is no outright demand
for the electricity to be used. Storing the surplus at 60% makes more sense than dumping it at 100%.

It may "make sense" but the reason it hasn't happened yet in a scale needed to save solar is because it costs more money than it saves. I doubt the solar-to-gas idea will fix that.

The choice is essentially this for places that haven't maxed-out their solar without storage:
Option 1. [do nothing] Keep an existing gas/coal plant (zero capital cost, a certain production cost).
Option 2. Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before.

Right now, Option 2 isn't too painful, so people are doing it some.

For Germany and several other countries, Option 2 doesn't really work anymore because above 8% some of the output of a solar plant gets wasted if there is no storage. So now we have:

Option 3: Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before. Build a storage or conversion plant.

Since Option 3 incorporates Option 2, it *must* be more expensive than Option 2.

 

[mheslep]

If this lid is real then the short term solutions would be:

- Concentrate on bringing solar power to markets that are not yet near the usage limit.
- Install other forms of clean power. For example, the windiest days tend not to be the sunniest.
- Encourage industry to schedule its most energy intensive activities for when power is most available. This is a basic free market response.
- Restore and improve long distance power distribution. Wind and sunlight very locally, but less so from region to region.
- Continue to improve storage techniques of all kinds.

Note that the first three options here cost nothing beyond what we are already spending, the 4th is needed regardless of whether or not we add renewables, and the fifth is largely driven by cell phones and consumer electronics.

Installing solar to <10% limit suggested by the data is i) expensive and ii) not remotely good enough as an end point to avoid the possibly severe warming scenarios from emissions. The <10% limit required 10-15 years in those countries. By contrast, France used nuclear to go from 60% fossil to under 10% in 12 years.

The countries that are least able to subsidize solar or wind have been installing coal instead. India is now the world's 2nd largest consumer of coal and growing fast. Other countries are chasing them to the top of coal heap, Indonesia, Vietnam, Turkey.

Wind does tend towards more output at night, but it also nonetheless goes to zero occasionally, meaning the entire conventional fleet must be maintained; again, an expense many countries will not tolerate.

Demand shift does not have zero cost, but is quite expensive. Many utilities have programs in place, have had for decades, with peak load seldom moved more than ~5% or so. See for example aluminum production, which has notoriously high electricity consumption. If these plants loose power for many hours, they freeze up, requiring expensive restarts.

Nobody wants HV transmission through their backyard, and it too is expensive.

Battery storage at utility scale is an order of magnitude two short, both in production and cost. While utilities have for years used batteries to aid in momentary transients, there is no battery storage project in the world that could back up a middling 500 MW solar or wind farm for a day, much less the seasonal outages, nor are there any serious plans (ie financed) to build one.

 

[mheslep]

So all but the residential systems are generating power at less than what I pay for electricity. (12.2¢/kwh)

About 3/4 of that residential rate charged by your utility is for the grid itself (transmission and many generating plants) and your connection to it, available 24/7. The cost for the utility to actually flip a switch and generate electricity through that grid from one of it's many sources is 1 to 5¢ per kwh, 95% of the time. Cutting loose of the grid and going it alone with some solar and a combustion generator behind the curtain has a far higher cost than the residential rate charged by the utility.

As for off grid solar and batteries, it's done for the like of part time cabins and boats, but I'm unaware of any examples of full time, full size, off grid residences in the US by means of solar and batteries. Even long time 100% renewable power advocate Amory Lovins has a grid connection to his mountain home.

 

[russ_watters]

So all but the residential systems are generating power at less than what I pay for electricity. (12.2¢/kwh)

You're not comparing their generation cost to your total cost, are you?

 

[Algr]

Re: Trillion Dollars of windmills/solar = Middle East:

I can't find my original sources So I have to redo this calculation. I did the conversion based on how many watt/hours were in a barrel of oil, and what was the realistic long term output of a windmill.

An important factor in this is that we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East, so replaceing it with windmills still leaves us with plenty of oil for 747s. We are going to see a big upswing in electric cars in the next few years, as they will soon be cheaper then gas. They tend to charge at night, thus evening out demand spikes.

Remember that cars get replaced regularly, so the cost of switching to electric is only ADDED cost of the new car that you were going to buy anyway. People who actually need to drive cross country already know not to buy electric yet, there is no need for you to make that decision for anyone else.

 

[NTL2009]

Re: Trillion Dollars of windmills/solar = Middle East:

An important factor in this is that we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East, ...

I don't think that is a factor at all. Commodity products are fungible. In order to say we aren't importing any oil from the ME, we need to not import any oil (at all). Our demand for imported oil will be filled from world supplies. You can't segregate ME oil any more than you can segregate solar or wind driven electrons on the grid (I want those electrons!).

We are going to see a big upswing in electric cars in the next few years, as they will soon be cheaper then gas. They tend to charge at night, thus evening out demand spikes.

Remember that cars get replaced regularly, so the cost of switching to electric is only ADDED cost of the new car that you were going to buy anyway. People who actually need to drive cross country already know not to buy electric yet, there is no need for you to make that decision for anyone else.

OK, we can assume some % of EV adoption, but let's not overdo it. Not everyone has access to chargers, and range will be an issue for some people, and long haul trucks, trains, etc (not just 747's) will be petroleum based for the foreseeable future.

 

[Algr]

I don't think that is a factor at all. Commodity products are fungible. In order to say we aren't importing any oil from the ME, we need to not import any oil (at all). Our demand for imported oil will be filled from world supplies. You can't segregate ME oil any more than you can segregate solar or wind driven electrons on the grid (I want those electrons!).

The original quote was "One trillion in windmills and solar cells would generate more power then we get from the middle east." It doesn't NEED to be different oil or electrons. The point was to eliminate US dependence on the middle east so that radicals 1. Can't keep blaming the US for their problems, and 2) Have less money to fund terrorist activities.

Not everyone has access to chargers,

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

 

[NTL2009]

The original quote was "One trillion in windmills and solar cells would generate more power then we get from the middle east." It doesn't NEED to be different oil or electrons. The point was to eliminate US dependence on the middle east so that radicals 1. Can't keep blaming the US for their problems, and 2) Have less money to fund terrorist activities. ...

Something makes me think that they will blame us even more, if we were to effectively boycott their products - that usually makes the provider mad at you. And again, oil is fungible, others will buy from them. Unless we eliminate all our oil imports, a % will continue to be ME oil. Like I said, I'm not sure it is even meaningful to assign the entire cost of our ME involvement to oil, but if you are, we need to at least isolate ourselves from all imported oil.

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

Now you are being silly about a serious subject. I lived in the city of Chicago for some years. That is a large city, not a cave. Many people are in apartments, with no electricity at their parking space, many people park on the street. Of homes with garages, many/most are detached, and out in the "alley", and are wired for a single 115 V 15 A circuit (maybe less - they were electrified a long time ago when all anyone wanted was a single 60W light bulb - luxury!).

 

[mheslep]

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

The large majority of the world's vehicle owners don't have two car garages. They increasingly live here:

 

[Algr]

Solution: costs $239

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/to...gSl8AxXMOp358vGbIohl7ZfjbXofVcY4aAo0nEALw_wcB

Also if you park on the street, you probably aren't buying a 2018 model car for a few years. If the city can install street lamps, they can install outlets. And the latter will make them some money so there will be plenty of motivation to do so. I live in the suburbs and all the malls near my house have electric charging stations already.

 

[mheslep]

Street lamps are typically 400 W, one or two per block, not 6000 W per parking space.

 

[Algr]

Street lamps are typically 400 W, one or two per block, not 6000 W per parking space.

So we are going to fight another gulf war because it's easier than installing a $239 cable? You guys seem really desperate to find obstructions here.

Something makes me think that they will blame us even more, if we were to effectively boycott their products - that usually makes the provider mad at you. And again, oil is fungible, others will buy from them. Unless we eliminate all our oil imports, a % will continue to be ME oil. Like I said, I'm not sure it is even meaningful to assign the entire cost of our ME involvement to oil, but if you are, we need to at least isolate ourselves from all imported oil.

Yes, they'll be mad at us, but what will they do, refuse to sell us oil? Reduced demand will make the price go down for everyone, and if they reduce supply they reduce their profits even more. And it's not like we'd be on our own doing this, Europe is already ahead of us. Or the rich oil sheiks will realize that terrorism is hurting their profits, and they will get serious about stopping it.

 

[NTL2009]

So we are going to fight another gulf war because it's easier than installing a $239 cable? You guys seem really desperate to find obstructions here. ...

Your cable "solution" is about as viable as all the other "solutions" that have been provided.

A semi truck won't get very far on a 100 foot cable.

Imagine all these EVs, charging at night (so as not to cripple the grid during daytime heavy loads). No solar w/o storage, still need fossil/nukes for low wind nights. Not as simple as a silly cable.

Solar has a place, but it's limited. Best to understand and work within those limitations than to count on unicorns to show up.

 

[Algr]

A semi truck won't get very far on a 100 foot cable.

Now you are just being obtuse. Read context above. Nobody parks a semi outside their apartment at night.

======================
So far I've got:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries.

1 barrel = 1.7 MWh.

2,958,000 MWh per day from the Middle East.

http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-energy-costs

$32-$62/MWh for windmills - But I'm still missing the context for this one or the price comes out absurdly low.

 

[johnbbahm]

I didn't mean to imply (and did not say) that the linked process violated the laws of physics, it clearly doesn't. I mentioned that as a means to estimate the "best case" limits of any proposed solution.

Regarding Sunfire, it seems to be as said earlier, a military solution where cost is not near the top of the priority list. From your link:
Nowhere in there did I see any reference to this fuel being anywhere near cost-competitive with fossil fuels. So it simply is not reasonable to assume this process would be applicable to large scale use of any excess grid energy.

I would be very interested if you could find a reputable source that shows a process like this has the potential to convert solar energy to gasoline to power my car, at a competitive $/gallon retail price, with all costs factored in.

And their plans (as of a year ago), called for scaling this up to... one gallon a day. So this is still very small scale demonstration level. The question is cost. We have plenty of storage options today, if you ignore cost.
Please don't make me laugh, this is a serious subject. I will assume you have never brought a product from prototype to commercialization. I have, and trust me, there is still plenty of "hard work" to be done after your proof-of-concept has been shown to work in the lab. Often, it is the commercialization that is the hardest part, and often where the failures occur.

Even Edison said it: "Invention is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration".

The Navy states that their man made fuel will cost between $3 and $6 a gallon, but Sunfire which is commercial
spinoff from Audi, states they can make fuel from between $1.10 and $1.30 per liter.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/technology/audi-diesel-air-water/index.html
What we do not know in all of this, is what the Exxon and Shells of the world have been doing.
The oil related companies have a long history of leading edge research.
(Texas Instruments, was founded from the geophysical company GSI)

 

[William Adams]

Yes, it can. I agree with the fact that it can overtake in future.

 

[johnbbahm]

You keep repeating this over and over again without responding to the points people are making about its irrelevance. Let me reformulate @NTL2009 's point with an example: we figured out the physics behind space travel 50 years ago and used it to put men on the moon. After that, "the scale up engineering" to build a colony on the moon "is possible". So why hasn't it happened? Because the laws of physics still dictate how big of a rocket it takes to get to the moon, which thereby dictates how much it costs. So a colony won't happen without a game-changer technology because the laws of physics drive the economics and prevent the idea from being affordable.

Closer to home, the laws of physics dictate the size and height of reservoir needed, size of piping, size and power of pumps/turbines, etc required for a certain amount of storage, which therefore dictates the cost. That's why pumped-storage is a difficult proposition.

You're completely ignoring this issue with the technology you are discussing (not necessarily your fault: it is generally glossed-over in the media hype of new inventions), but it is certainly there and it is unlikely to allow the technology to become viable.

It may "make sense" but the reason it hasn't happened yet in a scale needed to save solar is because it costs more money than it saves. I doubt the solar-to-gas idea will fix that.

The choice is essentially this for places that haven't maxed-out their solar without storage:
Option 1. [do nothing] Keep an existing gas/coal plant (zero capital cost, a certain production cost).
Option 2. Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before.

Right now, Option 2 isn't too painful, so people are doing it some.

For Germany and several other countries, Option 2 doesn't really work anymore because above 8% some of the output of a solar plant gets wasted if there is no storage. So now we have:

Option 3: Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before. Build a storage or conversion plant.

Since Option 3 incorporates Option 2, it *must* be more expensive than Option 2.

First, I am not advocating solar plants, I do not think they are viable.
I do think that at the current prices home solar could be vary viable, but they need to address the
deficiencies in the current grid tie rules. The home solar producer cannot be paid more than the wholesale
price for their surplus, without harming the utility. the utility would have to make the cost up somewhere.
I see the future role of solar as minimizing home electric bills. doing so will by the nature of our seasons,
produce large seasonal surpluses. I think those surpluses could be stored as transport fuels.
Sunfire has an energy storage fuel cell that looks interesting, but I do not think making fuel from electricity to later
burn for electricity is viable (The storage losses plus the Carnot losses would be too great.)
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com...le-solid-oxide-electrolyser-fuel-cell-system/

 

[nikkkom]

we figured out the physics behind space travel 50 years ago and used it to put men on the moon. After that, "the scale up engineering" to build a colony on the moon "is possible". So why hasn't it happened? Because the laws of physics still dictate how big of a rocket it takes to get to the moon, which thereby dictates how much it costs. So a colony won't happen without a game-changer technology because the laws of physics drive the economics and prevent the idea from being affordable.

Moon base does not require game-changer technology. Chemical rockets will do.

True, the size of the rocket is dictated by the amount of fuel it needs, which in turn is dictated by rocket equation and maximum attainable Isp with chemical fuels, ~450s for hydrogen/oxygen, less for hydrocarbons.

But the cost of all that fuel is very small, less than 1% of current launch costs. So far, most of the costs are elsewhere (labor and discarded hardware). If you reduce those costs, chemical rockets are enough to build Moon bases. SpaceX already shows how to do that.

So why hasn't Moon base happened? Because (1) there is no clear commercial reason to build one, and (2) if you try to build one with govt program, all the dangers of govt SNAFUs and astounding inefficiency jump on you. Space Shuttle is a govt rocket. Also, it is the most expensive rocket in history (by $/kg-in-LEO metric) - which is not a coincidence. Only government program people could think that to refurbish and refuel a solid motor, it's okay to send it 1500 miles across the country from Florida to Utah, and then back!

 

[NTL2009]

The Navy states that their man made fuel will cost between $3 and $6 a gallon, but Sunfire which is commercial
spinoff from Audi, states they can make fuel from between $1.10 and $1.30 per liter.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/technology/audi-diesel-air-water/index.html...

In the linked article, Sunfire says no such thing. They say (actual quote here, with emphasis):

"The company said it was aiming for a pre-tax price of between 1 and 1.20 euros per liter ($1.10 to $1.30), compared to the current German pre-tax price of around 0.6 euros per liter of gasoline."

So they are aiming for it to be twice as expensive to produce as gasoline. How good is their aim? Does this company have a track record of bringing products to market at their pre-announced price?

That claim is from 2.5 years ago - how are they doing now? OK< found this, from July, 2017 -
http://www.sunfire.de/en/company/pr...he-production-of-blue-crude-planned-in-norway

from 2020 the first plant shall start its operation ...
The target-price per litre lies below 2 Euros. ...

So they might start in 2020, and the target price has doubled in the last 2.5 years... so we will see. I wish them well, but I would not hold my breath.

 

[NTL2009]

Now you are just being obtuse. Read context above. Nobody parks a semi outside their apartment at night. ...

No, it was to demonstrate how obviously obtuse you were being, suggesting that a 100' cable was all that people in apartments or detached garages would need.

... So far I've got:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries.

1 barrel = 1.7 MWh.

2,958,000 MWh per day from the Middle East. ...

While I can't accept your premise that reducing our imports by the % that represents our ME purchase will save that entire Military budget, and your assumptions on EV conversion are far too optimistic, let's go with it, just to see where it takes us...

On military costs: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/u-s-foreign-military-support/

A 2013 Senate Committee on Armed Services report put the cost of supporting the U.S. military presence abroad at more than $10 billion a year, 70 percent — or nearly $7 billion (annually) — of which, the report said, was spent in Germany, the Republic of Korea and Japan.

How much oil do we import from Germany, Korea, and Japan? Yet, we have costs there. Not all Military spending can be tied directly to oil.

http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-energy-costs

$32-$62/MWh for windmills - But I'm still missing the context for this one or the price comes out absurdly low.

Well, this thread is "The Future of Solar Power", not wind, so that should get it's own thread if you want to go there.

But the Levelized Cost numbers you provided are for lifetime costs. I think a better way to compare to the cost of a war (which is still a very questionable assignment) is take your daily Millions of MWh number, then calculate how much installed solar it would take to produce that energy on average (using capacity factor of ~ 16%). Now, add in the cost of storage and losses. Now add in all the conversions to fuel for uses that cannot be supplied by batteries. Show your work :)

 

[OmCheeto]

Cutting loose of the grid and going it alone...

Not sure where I inferred that. As I recall, I said the grid should be expanded.

You're not comparing their generation cost to your total cost, are you?

Yes. Why not?

 

[mheslep]

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries

North America is no longer dependent on Persian Gulf oil. As that EIA reference shows, the US exports five times the petroleum product that it imports from the Gulf.

 

[mheslep]

SpaceX already shows how to do that

Showing is doing, so clearly not. SpaceX talks about Moon missions. But there is no moon base, and there is no private moon landing.