Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[mheslep]

Crediting past nuclear builds for their emissions reductions is all very well but those were done for other reasons

Seconding Russ: so what? The point I draw from France et al is that nuclear *works*, i.e. affordably decarbonized a major grid. Nothing else has even come close.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't know that this is true in terms of new *generation* instead of nameplate(rated) power.

I had the same thought and found the likely source fromt he EIA. I had objected to the claim before realizing it omitted natural gas, but in any case it does indeed include projected *kWh* generation. That's surprising to me (that new renewables are projected to be so significant), but as you (we) have said, since they aren't eating into fossil fuels, it's a lot of self-congratulation over a failure.

 

[mheslep]

That's surprising to me (that new renewables are projected to be so significant), s

Note 'renewables' is still dominated by hydro, not solar and wind, both established and new. China in particular has recently built a large amount. It appears the developing world will follow suit, building a burst of hydro which is of course limited.

 

[russ_watters]

Note 'renewables' is still dominated by hydro, not solar and wind, both established and new. China in particular has recently built a large amount. It appears the developing world will follow suit, building a burst of hydro which is of course limited.

Total current renewables are dominated by hydro, yes, but *growth* is evidently dominated by wind:

Renewables are the fastest-growing source of energy for electricity generation, with annual increases averaging 2.9% from 2012 to 2040. In particular, in the Reference case, nonhydropower renewable resources are the fastest-growing energy sources for new generation capacity in both the OECD and non-OECD regions. Nonhydropower renewables accounted for 5% of total world electricity generation in 2012; their share in 2040 is 14% in the IEO2016 Reference case, with much of the growth coming from wind power.

 

[mheslep]

doesn't appear to become essential until RE penetration approaches ~50%

'RE' can and does go to near 100% grid share via hydro.

Intermittent power is another story. There no major grids anywhere near 50% solar and wind. This is expected, since the value of solar and wind drop sharply as each approaches a grid penetration close to their respective capacity factors (35% wind, 20% solar)

 

[mheslep]

but *growth* is evidently dominated by wind:

That's *forecast* growth, 23 yrs out. We'll see.

 

[russ_watters]

I had let this go, but since it got another comment:

We are at the early beginnings of storage; depending on circumstances, it doesn't appear to become essential until RE penetration approaches ~50% so it's not reasonable to complain that we haven't seen much of it yet.

It depends on the mix of "renewables". Depending on the country, hydro can take a big chunk of that and in most developed countries is as exploited as it can reasonably be. But the intermittent renewables of solar and wind are limited to about 20% before their intermittence requires storage.

For example, in the USA hydo is 7% and toatal renewables is 15% (with most of the rest wind). So the renewables limit in the USA before storage is required is about 27%. Given that wind power is 5x what solar is and is growing faster, that's why I don't see a realistic scenario where solar could exceed 10% in the USA without a major breakthrough in storage (or absurd subsidy).

 

[mfb]

(or absurd subsidy)

Like 55 cent/kWh (Germany, for solar power installed in 2004, to be paid up to 2024)? In 2012 it was ~20 cent/kWh. Today it is 12 cent/kWh (for solar rooftop, lower for larger installations). That is still about three times the electricity market price. Guaranteed for 20 years. If solar would be as cheap as advertised, why does it need three times the market price as subsidy? The issue it poses for grid regulation is not even considered here - that is a more indirect subsidy. You also get some money for the installation itself, yet another subsidy.

 

[mheslep]

Globally, new http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2017/03/new-global-solar-capacity-outpaced-wind-in-2016-irena-says.html, according to its advocates. New coal capacity installed in http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jan-2017-New-by-year.pdf, with perhaps twice to three times the average generation of solar-wind per unit of installation. See plans in Japan to build 45 new coal plants for indication of trends up or down. Then there is the new gas power capacity, I guess at roughly half as much installation globally as new coal. Unless solar and wind can stop the advance of coal, and start retiring the fossil power fleet, which solar-wind visibly does not do, then solar-wind are so much noise in the green press.

 

[Dan8420]

New to the thread, but I've been following along and read the whole thing. Most of the issues with solar / wind seem to come from energy storage. I have not seen Vanadium Redox Flow Batteries mentioned at all, but would be curious on all of your thoughts? From what I am reading, they have an extremely long term life cycle and can be recycled almost entirely. Granted, it has an energy density that is terrible in comparison to Lithium; however, would that be a major issue with grid storage?

I am looking at some that are the size of a 20' shipping container with 100kWh storage capacity, roughly 3 days for an average household. (Will post a link to the manufacture website, if requested) This is smaller than the average garage and has the potential to be used for home storage for wind / solar systems. It could even be used as a whole home backup in the event of a grid failure and also help to offset peak usage.

Here is a few links to what I have been reading and would be curious on the thoughts of everyone on this technology. I did a quick search of the forums and haven't seen much posted about these types of batteries.

https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/VRB.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

 

[mheslep]

...I am looking at some that are the size of a 20' shipping container with 100kWh storage capacity,...

Flow has advantages but has always been expensive per unit energy compared to alternatives. Flow has a residential price of $1200 to $1500 per kWh installed per Lazard. Given at least $120K for the 100kWh unit, I don't think it practical unless the owner plans to live in the container amongst the battery.

https://www.lazard.com/media/438042/lazard-levelized-cost-of-storage-v20.pdf

As for utility storage, look at the math for scaling up that container. Consider a single 1 GW wind farm and three days of storage using those 100kWh containers: 720K 20' containers, laid end to end would cross the United States coast to coast.

 

[nikkkom]

The goal, the best interest of the public, it seams to me is clean, reliable, affordable, long term power. "Renewable" is not necessarily the goal, but a semantic way for anti nuclear groups (including fossil fuel interests) to exclude nuclear.

Then you should lobby for a change in laws which regulate incentives for different power generation methods, not for a change what word "renewable" means.

 

[russ_watters]

Then you should lobby for a change in laws which regulate incentives for different power generation methods, not for a change what word "renewable" means.

We are arguing in this thread exactly that and as I linked above, nuclear interests are indeed lobbying to correct this unfairness. Since you are a thinking person who agrees on the fundamental problem and is not bound by the chicanery of others, you need not present arguments based on that chicanery but rather on reasonable logic.

[edit: maybe I should flip that over to make it more direct:] You are bound to justify your positions with reasonable arguments, not chicanery.

 

[Dan8420]

Flow has a residential price of $1200 to $1500 per kWh installed per Lazard.

Thank you for the link, I didn't realize it was so expensive. A lot of what I had been reading claims it is much cheaper, but couldn't find anything from any manufacturers website on this; no wonder they don't list pricing.

100kWh containers: 720K 20' containers, laid end to end would cross the United States coast to coast.

I agree size is a big factor; however, I was thinking more along the lines of individual home systems where you could incorporate these directly into new construction instead of having large storage facilities. At 160 sq. ft. I don't think anyone would mind losing a bit of basement or garage space for one of these. The bigger ones scale a little bit differently though, 1600kWh in 2 - 40' containers, 16x the capacity in only 4x the footprint. Regardless, the cost on these is way more than I had realized and as such, not likely a good option. Thanks for the input!

 

[johnbbahm]

I saw this piece about Sunfire energy, They claim their Electrolysis module is reversible.
It looks like they extract hydrogen from water, and store it, the reverse uses the cell as a fuel cell to extract
electricity.
http://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/hydrogen

 

[mfb]

I don't trust companies advertising something as "cheap" without any price estimate.

 

[Dan8420]

I don't trust companies advertising something as "cheap" without any price estimate.

The company I was looking at did give a projected estimate of $300 per kWh installed, just no hard figure on the cost for one of their units.

 

[russ_watters]

At 160 sq. ft. I don't think anyone would mind losing a bit of basement or garage space for one of these.

I don't agree; that's roughly the size of my master bedroom and larger than the footprint of my car (rendering my one car garage a no car garage). It's 5x the size of all of my current utility space combined.

 

[Dan8420]

I don't agree;

Fair enough and point taken; I suppose I should've worded that statement differently. In any case, it would seem that the price outweighs the benefits. Thanks for the comments on it!

 

[mheslep]

At 160 sq. ft. I don't think anyone would mind losing a bit of basement or garage space for one of these.

Unless the house energy system allows the owner to completely cut lose of the grid, permanently, then I don't think anything ten times smaller and a 20th of the cost of the flow container is worthwhile. Three days of storage won't grant guranteed year round independence for the vast majority of places in the world, and perhaps nowhere.

 

[mheslep]

I saw this piece about Sunfire energy, They claim their Electrolysis module is reversible.
It looks like they extract hydrogen from water, and store it, the reverse uses the cell as a fuel cell to extract
electricity.
http://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/hydrogen

There have long been fuel cells and electrolyzers on the market sized for a residence, each about the size of a clothes washing machine. Expensive. What's not included are adequate high pressure H2 tanks for storage. Some years ago in NJ, a DIY engineer with a couple of acres and a flair for acquiring grants built-bought himself a complete year round system for his home: solar PV, electrolyzer, fuel cell, compressor, H2 tanks. The H2 cylinders were IIRC, 3k psi, 20'x4' OD, a couple of them. Today's cost about $1M.

 

[russ_watters]

Oh - Jocobson must be the "shame on IEEE" guy I was referring to earlier. Though I'd like to just ignore him, the problem is that when trash gets published in a semi-respected semi-technical journal, we are essentially forced to pay attention to it. It has been cited in this thread via link to a previous discussion on the issue of nuclear fuel availability. PF policy prohibits crackpot sources, but it is tough to deal with crackpot material in a mainstream source. I may bring that up in the mentor's forum...

Could be this is the new "power lines cause cancer". Real thinkers need to be gaining more traction. I guess this thread is doing our part for that cause...

From my inbox today:

A battle royal between competing visions for the future of energy blew open today on the pages of a venerable science journal. The conflict pits 21 climate and power-system experts against Stanford University civil and environmental engineer Mark Jacobson and his vision of a world fueled 100 percent by renewable solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy. The criticism of his “wind, water, and sun” solution and an unapologetic rebuttal from Jacobson and three Stanford colleagues appear today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

“The scenarios of [that paper] can, at best, be described as a poorly executed exploration of an interesting hypothesis,” write the experts, led by Christopher Clack, CEO of power-grid-modeling firm Vibrant Clean Energy.”

...Jacobson calls Clack's attack “the most egregious case of scientific fraud I have encountered in the literature to date.”

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-the-us-grid-work-with-100-renewables

Whoa boy. A respected scientist(?) calling criticism published in a respected journal fraudulent? Ugly and high scoring on the crackpot index...

It is very worrisome that Jacobson has such a high profile.

 

[mheslep]

It is very worrisome that Jacobson has such a high profile

Jacobson is Lysenkoism in the 21st century. Worse, Lysenko could be explained by Stalin and his gulags which awaited Lysenko's critics. Who or what explains the platform granted Jacobson at a major U?

 

[russ_watters]

Who or what explains the platform granted Jacobson at a major U?

Was that rhetorical?

 

[mheslep]

Was that rhetorical?

Oh yes, thought I had posted independently and not in response.

 

[mheslep]

Climate scientist Ken Caldeira is one of the authors of the PNAS paper referenced above. A year ago Jacobson and Caldeira were in a panel discussion of the feasibility of 100% WWS (along with Shellenberger), 1.5 hrs, relevant rebuttals begin 38 mins

 

[Pred]

Since solar installs rate doubles every 2.5 years and price falls by about 20% in the same time period, maybe you just did not see latest numbers and remember the "old" ones from 2-4 years ago?

 

[mfb]

Since solar installs rate doubles every 2.5 years

New installations are going down in countries where solar has a significant share, e.g. Germany or Spain.
Installations are only increasing rapidly in countries with nearly no solar power.

 

[OmCheeto]

New installations are going down in countries where solar has a significant share, e.g. Germany or Spain.
Installations are only increasing rapidly in countries with nearly no solar power.

Makes sense to me.

 

[nikkkom]

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/conte...cent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

Last update: January 9, 2017

The section "4.2 Feed-in Tariff" is especially interesting. Basically, according to info there in Germany PV feed-in tariffs reached the "normal" price of the electricity. This means new installations will have no subsidy (although existing ones will continue to operate under older agreements with subsidy). From now on, PV in Germany stands on its own.