Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[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"?

 

[mfb]

Growth rate is the relative change. And that is clearly going down over time in all these plots, with 2016 in the first plot as the only exception.

It gets worse if you look at individual countries. You see a pattern where initially the growth rate is huge, but then the additional installation levels off or goes down. Globally that trend is not so visible yet because China and India are still in the early stages of rapid expansion.
Here is a plot for Germany. Subsidies lead to many installations in 2010-2012, then subsidies for new installations went down, and new installations went down as well.
Here is a plot for Spain, and Italy - with the total installed capacity instead of new installations. Same trend, they are not increasing notably any more.
France still has new installations, but at a low overall level, and the growth rate is going down a lot here as well.

In the US, from 2011 to 2012 production increased by 138%. The next year it increased by 114%. From 2013 to 2014 it increased by 98%. Sounds great? From 2014 to 2015 it increased by 45%, from 2015 to 2016 it increased by 39%.

In terms of absolute numbers, it increased by 9 TWh for the last three years in a row. It looks like the US is following Europe's trend.

You find the same trend everywhere. Reduce subsidies and suddenly the rate of new installations goes down - despite cheaper modules.

 

[nikkkom]

CWatters said:
> 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.

I suggest we tax everyone equally. As a rule, micromanaging economy is not a good idea (look as any "socialist paradise" for the reasons why). You need to have STRONG reasons why some tech must be penalized or artificially accelerated. "Hmm, it would be nice if we boost technology X a little" is not a strong enough reason.

This applies to storage too. You do not need to "give priority" to storage. As more intermittent sources appear, storage will be built by normal "evil capitalist" investors. Heck, storage makes sense even with traditional power sources, since it can displace peaker plants.

 

[CWatters]

Some form of base capacity is required be it storage, nuclear or fossil. The problem is who will to invest in something that's not used very often? The more renewable capacity you have the less frequently you need that base capacity - but you still need it .

I'd be surprised if you could build enough battery based storage for that to be a viable solution on its own. I saw a report awhile back that looked at the number of pumped storage facilities that would be needed just to backup renewable in Scotland and it was huge/impractical.

 

[mheslep]

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

Not so. Major cost and schedule errors happen, but this is not intrinsic to nuclear. They rarely happened before the advent of the US NRC. And today cost and schedule errors are slight in China, S. Korea, which go up in 5 to 7 years.

Even with the cost n schedule errors, it's still cheaper and cleaner than high penetration intermittent power (which does not exist, anywhere) plus fossil fuel backup.

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

Certainly. Emissions from fossil fuel electric power is under a lot of pressure, with $trillions at stake. In the US, the NRDC, Sierra, and American Petroleum Institute combine to find anti-nuclear campaigns. Coal and natural gas interests fund anti nuclear campaigns, with natural gas interests directly funding Sierra.

 

[mheslep]

I suggest we tax everyone equally. As a rule, micromanaging economy is not a good idea (look as any "socialist paradise" for the reasons why). You need to have STRONG reasons why some tech must be penalized or artificially accelerated. "Hmm, it would be nice if we boost technology X a little" is not a strong enough reason.

This applies to storage too. You do not need to "give priority" to storage. As more intermittent sources appear, storage will be built by normal "evil capitalist" investors. Heck, storage makes sense even with traditional power sources, since it can displace peaker plants.

Yes equal taxes, though income and sales taxes are not the only taxes. Malicious regulation also effects income. A regulator who mandates design changes after approving the design is malicious (NRC required aircraft impact post hoc. Next time, meteor impact). A regulator who willfully violates the law and closes a previously approved waste facility paid for by the industry is malicious.

 

[Ken Fabos]

I suggest we tax everyone equally. As a rule, micromanaging economy is not a good idea (look as any "socialist paradise" for the reasons why). You need to have STRONG reasons why some tech must be penalized or artificially accelerated. "Hmm, it would be nice if we boost technology X a little" is not a strong enough reason.

This applies to storage too. You do not need to "give priority" to storage. As more intermittent sources appear, storage will be built by normal "evil capitalist" investors. Heck, storage makes sense even with traditional power sources, since it can displace peaker plants.

nikkkom, there is no taxing different energy options equally as long as there is no cost attatched to major externalities like emissions and, i suggest, as long as the climate stability led requirement for a rapid transition to low emissions is in play. The climate problem is a strong enough reason to intervene and a "level playing field" is a fiction that can't be sustained. I suggest that the necessity for interventions in this are not Leftist or Socialist or even Greenist driven - and where it has played out that way it happened in a policy vacuum that reveals starkly the unwillingness and inability of mainstream, centrist politics to grapple rationally with the issues and choose to lead rather than impede.

We need to formally recognise climate responsibility and that unconstrained market economics continue to fail to respond appropriately.

We can all wish the transition to low emissions be done with competent big picture planning and forethought but what we've been getting looks like more like a load of deeply compromised covfefe to me. Not micromanaging in the absence of macromanaging looks more problematic than not managing at all. I expect the plans we make today will be revised and redone many times before we are done as issues, technical, economic and political, arise and have to be dealt with. The issue I see coming to the fore is storage and other responses to intermittency from growing proportions of RE so it's the issue that will get the attention. That can go awry of course, and poor investment decisions will occur - we will see in time if South Australia for example, finds the addition of some storage more effective than addition of more gas in a corner of the National Electricity Market that is approaching 50% supply from RE. These decisions are (still) being made without clear reference to climate responsibility or potential for stranded assets.

 

[mheslep]

The issue I see coming to the fore is storage and other responses to intermittency from growing proportions of RE so it's the issue that will get the attention.

I don't follow why you would describe nuclear as untenable, though it plainly works, but describe large scale deep (multiple TWh) storage, which does not exist, as somehow 'coming to the fore' by talking it up.

 

[mheslep]

Adding levies to imports from places without carbon pricing can be applied by nations that do have them;

Okay, I'm China. While last week we had more coal emissions than the rest of the world combined, turns out this week we eliminated our carbon emissions according to our accounting, which only we are competent to produce. Now our emissions are just like Sweden's. So here's a ship full of tractors, no tariffs please. Also, we'd be happy to have your various heavy industries move here, where we will supply them with clean cheap power, so no carbon tax.

 

[mheslep]

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.

Right, $30 to $60 for cheaper forms of power unsubsidized. Then look at Lazard's LCOE on storage technologies, which run from $300 to $1000 per MWh unsubsidized.. Nuclear, gas, coal - these don't need deep storage.

 

[mheslep]

...
Probably higher overall electricity prices, but it can work.

Not with any significant impact on climate emissions, no intermittent plus (maybe) storage can't work, as the developing world won't tolerate expensive power when they can build coal. Solar and wind are just a dog and pony show in the places that matter. See Monaco, where every green advocacy site promotes the new World Bank funded and extraordinarily expensive solar thermal plant there, and where a large 1 GW+ coal plant goes up behind the curtain which will generate several times the annual energy.

 

[mfb]

Okay, I'm China. While last week we had more coal emissions than the rest of the world combined

Global electricity production from coal is about 10,000 TWh (2015), China contributes about 3500 TWh (2016), about 1/3.
China has 30% of the global CO2 emissions.

Please don't make up numbers.

The comment you quoted was mainly about industrialized nations, but it applies everywhere. It can work - if the political will is there.

 

[glappkaeft]

They're never going to generate electricity in Pripyat again.

Not for any technical reasons, they operated the other three reactors afterwards and the last one shut down in 2000. The ultimate closure was part of a program where the EU either paid countries (Ukraine) to disband their old unsafe reactors or made their closure a requirement for joining the EU (Bulgaria, Slovakia and Lithuania).

 

[nikkkom]

nikkkom, there is no taxing different energy options equally as long as there is no cost attatched to major externalities like emissions and, i suggest, as long as the climate stability led requirement for a rapid transition to low emissions is in play. The climate problem is a strong enough reason to intervene

I disagree that it is strong enough. Simply put, I don't consider CO2 in amounts we emit it now to be a significantly harmful emission. (NOx, SO2, various ash and dust are another matter).
I met people which are so scared of it that they literally think CO2 is poisonous. Curiously, the very same people use gas stove at home and can't tell what is the current concentration of CO2 in Earth atmosphere - first guess was off by two orders of magnitude too high.

 

[mheslep]

Global electricity production from coal is about 10,000 TWh (2015), China contributes about 3500 TWh (2016), about 1/3.
China has 30% of the global CO2 emissions.

Please don't make up numbers.

...

As I said, emissions from "coal", not all CO2
IEA:

..As noted above, China represents half of total global coal consumption

https://www.iea.org/about/faqs/coal/

 

[mheslep]

The comment you quoted was mainly about industrialized nations, but it applies everywhere. It can work - if the political will is there

So far I see little more than it-can-work hand waiving, the kind of narrative that simultaneously obtained i) the various ineffective climate agreements and ii) hundreds of global coal plants planned or under construction in 2017.

Global agreements are difficult when they are in mutual self interest like trade agreements.Where is the global agreement to deal with pariah N Korea? With ISIS?

Here, we have a proposal (intl carbon tax) that is very much against the short to medium term self interest of developing countries where expensive power means no power.

 

[mfb]

Simply put, I don't consider CO2 in amounts we emit it now to be a significantly harmful emission.

I would call the effects significant.

met people which are so scared of it that they literally think CO2 is poisonous.

Technically it is - although not at concentrations you'll find in the atmosphere.

As I said, emissions from "coal", not all CO2

I checked BP's numbers. 2015: global consumption 3.84 billion tons, China 1.92 billion tons. Quite precisely 50%. China's number is expected to go down slightly, while the global consumption is expected to go up.

Where is the global agreement to deal with pariah N Korea? With ISIS?

Please stay on topic.

Here, we have a proposal (intl carbon tax) that is very much against the short to medium term self interest of developing countries where expensive power means no power.

And yet nearly every country signed the Paris agreement.

 

[OmCheeto]

So far I see little more than it-can-work hand waiving...

My apologies for cutting you off, but I just finished a graph.

Trends in global energy sources as a percent of total energy consumption
dots are semi-suspicious data
lines are what my computer curve fitted to the dots
[source material]​

It's one of those "head scratching" graphs, where one has to sit and ask oneself; "Why did that curve change direction there? And that one? And that other one?"

Your comment is related to the "renewable" energy curve, as I was thinking to myself; "What would the curve look like if we started it in 1650, rather than 1965?" as "renewables" maxed out in both 1965 and 2015, as a percent of a global energy source.

Would people in 1650 think wind, waterfalls, and wood, were "hand wavy" solutions, when that was pretty much all they had?

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't follow why you would describe nuclear as untenable, though it plainly works, but describe large scale deep (multiple TWh) storage, which does not exist, as somehow 'coming to the fore' by talking it up.

It was this comment of yours, regarding "multiple TWh storage" that got me thinking about my above post. I seem to have gotten distracted.

 

[mfb]

@OmCheeto: I don't understand your normalization. It is not relative to total production in that year as it adds up to more than 100% and coal is way too low. It is not absolute production either, not even scaled, as it doesn't show an overall increase. What is it?

 

[OmCheeto]

@OmCheeto: I don't understand your normalization. It is not relative to total production in that year as it adds up to more than 100% and coal is way too low. It is not absolute production either, not even scaled, as it doesn't show an overall increase. What is it?

percent production by source of total energy consumption normalized to 100% of its peak year

 

[OmCheeto]

Take for example, "Ren" (Renewables) in both 1965 and 2015 were ≈4.15% sources of global energy production.
Normalize them, et al, to 100%, and you get my graph.

 

[mheslep]

And yet nearly every country signed the Paris agreement

Many of them signing to do nothing but increase emissions for years. It is easy to gather a crowd for dinner when someone else picks up the check.

 

[nikkkom]

Technically it is - although not at concentrations you'll find in the atmosphere.

Technically, NaCl is poison too. Try eating 700 grams of it in one go...

 

[Ken Fabos]

I disagree that it is strong enough. Simply put, I don't consider CO2 in amounts we emit it now to be a significantly harmful emission. (NOx, SO2, various ash and dust are another matter).

This conclusion about the validity of climate change risks, widely promoted and widely held, has had profound impacts on the course we have taken and on how we got to where we are now. Indulged in by politicians and political parties, corporations and business associations, it impacts every aspect of our policy responses, not merely by weakening community support for strong climate action but by actively opposing, obstructing and compromising the honest efforts that have been proposed. I think nuclear has been especially harmed by this, because the influence of climate science denial is concentrated within and held as high priority by the same parts of mainstream politics where the greatest body of political support for nuclear (supposedly) resides.

Whilst the influential captains of commerce and industry are not greatly influenced by anti-nuclear activism they've shown themselves to be self interested suckers when it comes to the attraction of denying the validity and seriousness of the climate problem, in order to avoid the perceived burden costs acceptance of that responsibility brings; it is incompatible with, even antithetical to strong climate action using nuclear.

When climate science denial is politically untenable and climate responsibility is faced rather than avoided, then nuclear may be able to mobilise a significant body of influential support that is currently rendered impotent.

Nikkkom, you can believe that current CO2 emissions, ongoing, will not be significantly harmful; believing what you like is, for ordinary citizens, like a civil right. However for those holding positions of trust and responsibility to choose to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent expert advice the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is negligence.

Adding levies to imports from places without carbon pricing can be applied by nations that do have them; there is no "can't", just lack of political commitment to apply carbon pricing, nationally or negotiated internationally.

Okay, I'm China. While last week we had more coal emissions than the rest of the world combined, turns out this week we eliminated our carbon emissions according to our accounting, which only we are competent to produce. Now our emissions are just like Sweden's. So here's a ship full of tractors, no tariffs please. Also, we'd be happy to have your various heavy industries move here, where we will supply them with clean cheap power, so no carbon tax.

Exemption from emissions levies on imports can and should be applied on the basis that the accounting be accurate - there is no can't here, just lack of political will to develop appropriate policy to deal with the climate/emissions/energy conundrum face on with eyes open.

I don't know how serious China is about introducing carbon pricing but it is on their agenda. I haven't noticed that it is on any US agenda and here in Australia with peak business and industry groups insisting it is the best way forward (in principle) it is rejected absolutely by the current government.

 

[nikkkom]

Nikkkom, you can believe that current CO2 emissions, ongoing, will not be significantly harmful

I simply do not believe CO2 emissions are going to be "ongoing" on this scale for much longer. 30 years from now, they will be lower than today.

 

[rootone]

I simply do not believe CO2 emissions are going to be "ongoing" on this scale for much longer. 30 years from now, they will be lower than today.

Only if industries which produce the most CO2 become unprofitable.

 

[mheslep]

I simply do not believe CO2 emissions are going to be "ongoing" on this scale for much longer. 30 years from now, they will be lower than today.

Global http://endcoal.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Jan-2017-New-by-year.pdf: 77 GW (42 GW China, 19 GW India)
As of January 2017: global coal capacity planned or permitted: 570 GW

 

[RogueOne]

Nikkkom, you can believe that current CO2 emissions, ongoing, will not be significantly harmful; believing what you like is, for ordinary citizens, like a civil right. However for those holding positions of trust and responsibility to choose to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent expert advice the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is negligence..

I think you are misinterpreting the way that our government works here in the U.S. We have what is called a constitutional republic. In this form of government, we have a constitution that is to be adhered to while elected officials gently guide the country in ways that align with what the voters want.

This is not a form of government that is intended to be controlled by an unelected and concentrated group of elites whom are hand picked by each other on the basis of being dubbed an "expert".

For elected officials holding positions of trust and responsibility, choosing to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent will of the voters and supreme law of the land set by the constitution, the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is Tyranny.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Would people in 1650 think wind, waterfalls, and wood, were "hand wavy" solutions, when that was pretty much all they had?

Apparently you only have to go back to about 1800.

No fancy "Omic" maths this time. Everything should add up to 100%.
And yes, I changed parameters around 1940, from Global to US.
Can't remember how many times I've told people I'm not god, and cannot fix the worlds problems.
Think globally, act locally, and invent a refrigerator for Zoob and your sister, to alleviate at least a bit of the problem.

[reference for left side of "Global" graph: People who love graphs as much as I do, apparently]
[reference for right side of "USA!" graph: Yup. The gubment. 1.3 Primary energy consumption by source]

 

[Ken Fabos]

I think you are misinterpreting the way that our government works here in the U.S. We have what is called a constitutional republic. In this form of government, we have a constitution that is to be adhered to while elected officials gently guide the country in ways that align with what the voters want.

This is not a form of government that is intended to be controlled by an unelected and concentrated group of elites whom are hand picked by each other on the basis of being dubbed an "expert".

For elected officials holding positions of trust and responsibility, choosing to reject and dismiss the abundant, consistent and persistent will of the voters and supreme law of the land set by the constitution, the option to believe what they like is not a right, it is Tyranny.

Elected representatives are to some extent, above and outside the reach of Common Law yet I suggest it does still apply and under common law those in positions of trust and responsibility who's decisions fail to take account of expert advice and harms arise as a consequence can be found liable. A recent court decision in the Netherlands shows this legal principle used in practice with respect to elected governments although I grant that the US system, despite relying on Common Law may be different, yet I understand court cases have gone ahead within the US legal system. The global, multi-generational nature of the harms arising as well as, where it exists, strong electoral support for ignoring them will tend to extend the de-facto immunity from responsibility elected officials enjoy but I suggest that under Common Law even being popularly elected to enact policies that avoid climate responsibility does not make that responsibility go away.

It isn't really a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny but it's not uncommon to try and frame the question that way to justify ongoing responsibility avoidance

 

[CWatters]

Oil companies are investing in renewables like wind and solar because costs have fallen making them more profitable than oil...

http://business.financialpost.com/n...embracing-push-to-green-energy-wood-mackenzie

 

[RogueOne]

Elected representatives are to some extent, above and outside the reach of Common Law yet I suggest it does still apply and under common law those in positions of trust and responsibility who's decisions fail to take account of expert advice and harms arise as a consequence can be found liable. A recent court decision in the Netherlands shows this legal principle used in practice with respect to elected governments although I grant that the US system, despite relying on Common Law may be different, yet I understand court cases have gone ahead within the US legal system. The global, multi-generational nature of the harms arising as well as, where it exists, strong electoral support for ignoring them will tend to extend the de-facto immunity from responsibility elected officials enjoy but I suggest that under Common Law even being popularly elected to enact policies that avoid climate responsibility does not make that responsibility go away.

It isn't really a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny but it's not uncommon to try and frame the question that way to justify ongoing responsibility avoidance

I know that it is not a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny. That is because "recognition of climate responsibility" is the new name for tyranny. So "recognition of climate responsibility" and "tyranny" have become a package deal today. Maybe your movement will gain more traction if you can break that. Until then, the people don't want the democrat's version of "recognition of climate responsibility". They won't even tolerate it anymore.

 

[russ_watters]

I know that it is not a choice between recognition of climate responsibility and tyranny. That is because "recognition of climate responsibility" is the new name for tyranny. So "recognition of climate responsibility" and "tyranny" have become a package deal today. Maybe your movement will gain more traction if you can break that. Until then, the people don't want the democrat's version of "recognition of climate responsibility". They won't even tolerate it anymore.

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

Regardless, this thread is about solar power's prospects, which can be judged through multiple lenses:
1. Aggressive government directed clean/renewable energy programs.
2. Aggressive private sector solar power product marketing (Apple/Elon Musk and damn the economics).
3. Passive growth prospects (it happens on its own due to its technical and economic merit).

And of course each of these can be viewed in terms of one's desire to see it happen versus predicting its likelihood to actually happen.

 

[RogueOne]

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

That has been my perception as well. I think that is why they have created the term "climate denier" or "science denier". It splits factions into two easy-to-discriminate groups, so that all viewpoints other than theirs are vilified. Its easier to campaign on black-and-white topics.

I think there is more complex spectrum than that, especially for those who do not strictly adhere to the AGW viewpoints that have been favorited by politicians and their news outlets. There are other vectors, such as estimation of magnitude of anthropogenic contributions to the climate's actual amount change. Then there is the estimation of what the "lethal dose" is for those contributions. There are also differing estimations on how much the world's government could actually impact climate change, even if everything were outlawed/regulated right down to how much air the politicians allow proletariats to exhale.

I am now done with the political side of this discussion and will focus on the future of solar power.
Solar power will gain in popularity in the very long term. It will decrease in value temporarily due to their reliance on subsidies.

 

[OmCheeto]

Let me reframe that slightly and then see if we can get off the politics:

It has been my percption that most supporters of aggressive anti-climate change action believe there are only two sides to the issue, with the other being climate change denial. But there is a third: accepting climate change, but opposing agreessive government action to correct it.

Regardless, this thread is about solar power's prospects, which can be judged through multiple lenses:
1. Aggressive government directed clean/renewable energy programs.
2. Aggressive private sector solar power product marketing (Apple/Elon Musk and damn the economics).
3. Passive growth prospects (it happens on its own due to its technical and economic merit).

And of course each of these can be viewed in terms of one's desire to see it happen versus predicting its likelihood to actually happen.

Is it ok for me to support all three?

ps. For some reason, your post reminded me of Rickover's "energy" speech from 1957. I still consider him to be both a genius, and a prophet.
Not to mention, that his numbers seem to corroborate mine:

% energy by source
year    who     HC%     Other%
1850    H.R.     5        95
1850    O.C.     7        93

1957    H.R.    93         7
1959    O.C.    93         7

HC = hydrocarbons
H.R. = Hyman G. Rickover
O.C. = Om Cheeto

And it's interesting to see how little things have changed in just 60 years (and one month):

H.R., 1957; "Our country, with only 6% of the world's population, uses one third of the world's total energy input; this proportion would be even greater except that we use energy more efficiently than other countries. Each American has at his disposal, each year, energy equivalent to that obtainable from eight tons of coal. This is six times the world's per capita energy consumption."

O.C., 2017; "Our country, with only 5% of the world's population, uses one quarter of the world's total energy input"​

And the weird coincidence:

H.R., 1957; "I am honored to be here tonight, though it is no easy thing, I assure you, for a layman to face up to an audience of physicians."

O.C., 2013; "[Former Energy Secretary] Professor Chu has entered the room. [at the Hospital Om used to work at. ]" [ref: PF. Fun thread! I'll have to go back and re-read @atyy 's link, as it appears I did not respond. Perhaps I didn't like what I saw, and my "Greenie" bias "just couldn't handle the truth". But I have to go buy plants for my garden now, so maybe tomorrow. Ciao!]​

 

[johnbbahm]

I see solar replacing oil for fuel, and much sooner than later!
Solar is one of the most energy dense alternate energy sources, roughly 2.8 acres per Gwh.
The main problem is the density and duty cycle still do not match the on demand needs.
Audi/Sunfire and the Naval research labs have been working on power to fuel projects, and have working prototypes in place.
http://www.audi.com/corporate/en/co...ity/product/synthetic-fuels-Audi-e-fuels.html
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2016/NRL-Seawater-Carbon-Capture-Process-Receives-US-Patent
The ability to store and accumulate solar power in the form of liquid hydrocarbon fuel,
changes the energy landscape.
When a refinery can make their own feedstock from water, CO2, and electricity, for less than cost of refining oil,
they will do so, because that will be the path of higher profits.
For a given region solar will have large seasonal surpluses.
Spring and Fall in the South, has low demand for air conditioning or heat, so a wide solar distribution
would make lots of surplus electricity. Without a demand, all those unused Mwh could damage the grid.
The old oil refineries could act like an unlimited dump load, storing all the surpluses as liquid fuels.
Audi says their process is 70% efficient, so to store the 33 Kwh in a gallon of gasoline would require
roughly 50 Kwh of electricity. Wholesale electricity can be had for $.05 per Kwh, so $2.50 per gallon,
A barrel of oil yields about 35 gallons of fuel product, so 35 X $2.50 =$87.50 per barrel for the cost of what the refinery
brings into the plant.
I have not worked in the oil business for several decades, but the oil business has a long history of cutting edge research.
I would not be surprised, if the oil companies had their own better processes.

 

[CWatters]

I'm a bit late replying to..

Right, $30 to $60 for cheaper forms of power unsubsidized. Then look at Lazard's LCOE on storage technologies, which run from $300 to $1000 per MWh unsubsidized.. Nuclear, gas, coal - these don't need deep storage.

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid. Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we can all go 100% for wind and solar but right now it looks like most countries can and are increasing solar and wind capacity without too many problems or significantly increased cost.

 

[mheslep]

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid.

The meaning of "significant contribution" is unclear. An ability to dump power on the grid is not the only issue. Cost matters, as the LCOE pricing you referenced in #353 suggests. Wind penetration in Texas already reached a point where power pricing frequently would go negative for hours. That is, if not for the ~$25/MWh subsidy granted to US wind, more wind power would not be built at such a point. Texas completed several $billion of additional transmission capacity a couple years ago reducing the problem for a time, but that is a cost not reflected by some LCOE accounts.

...Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

The conventional list of storage technologies uses another form of man made power to charge the storage. Calling fossil fuel power "storage" conveniently removes it from the list of expensive https://www.greentechmedia.com/content/images/articles/Lazard_Storage_LCOE_behind_the_meter.pngs as if it were free. Clearly, it's not. The cost of that fossile fuel 'storage' is not accounted for in the LCOE pricing you reference in #353, that is, there is no "Solar PV plus coal plant backup" line item.

More importantly, the cost of fossile fuel power plants has two components: i) capital cost to build and ii) cost to operate once built. That LCOE chart from Lazard reflects the combination. If a fossil fuel plant is indeed built to provide a reliable grid in the presence of wind/solar, and I agree with you're point above that fossil *must* be built for solar/wind, then the capital cost is sunk and then the marginal cost to flip the switch and run the plant is very often cheaper than the cost of building new solar or new wind. Thus small shares of solar and wind (5% - 20%) drive the building (or continued existence) of fossil fuel plants, killing the economic incentive to build anymore solar and wind into a majority share, and thus locking-in the fossil fuel plants long term. Germany is illustrative, with 49 GW of coal plants in 2002, and 49 GW of coal plants today, and a 50% increase in natural gas plants over the same period.

So far, only nuclear and hydro have obtained deep cuts in carbon emissions in power grids.

 

[russ_watters]

Currently solar and wind don't need or use storage to make a significant contribution to the grid. Currently storage is essentially provided by leaving oil and gas in the ground on sunny/windy days.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we can all go 100% for wind and solar but right now it looks like most countries can and are increasing solar and wind capacity without too many problems or significantly increased cost.

It's probably worth looking into the limitation for solar specifically or intermittent renewables/clean energy in general to see just how far they can go before significant problems become unavoidable.

Obviously, solar and wind can't be 100% of our energy use without storage since they don't operate 24/7. The true maximum before waste or storage becomes required (therefore amplifying marginal costs) may be a bit hard to pin down because it depends on how the grid load and solar output vary throughout the year.

However, a decent starting point would be from the fact that for a few minutes last year, Germany ran on 95% renewables, versus a total of 25% over the course of the year. About half of that peak was solar and most of the rest was wind, and for the year solar is about 4%. This implies a limit for solar of about 8% before at least some wasted capacity or storage is required. I believe @mheslep has cited 7% previously as being an apparent limit from real country data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany
https://www.sciencealert.com/last-sunday-95-percent-of-germany-s-energy-was-provided-by-renewables

Broader, for all types of renewables/clean energy (if we accept biomass, which I don't) Germany runs about 25% for the year. Looking at the graph on the wiki page for Germany, they are currently replacing nuclear with "renewables" while keeping fossil fuel power (almost all coal) at about half of their power production. If Germany continues on that path, they will soon replace their nuclear power with clean/renewable energy, reaching a ceiling where more can't be added without storage or waste (and great marginal cost) and not put a dent into their carbon emissions.

Does anyone really want this or see a way around this problem? Does Germany have a plan for meeting their Paris Accord commitment?

 

[mfb]

https://www.sciencealert.com/last-sunday-95-percent-of-germany-s-energy-was-provided-by-renewables

See 2016, week 18 in these graphs, I don't think there is a way to link directly to that week.

What actually happened that day: For two hours we had 50% solar, 25% wind, and 25% coal/nuclear power. Only 80% of the production was needed, so 20% was exported. Why could Germany export 20% of its production? The countries around it had sunshine and wind as well - but their share of photovoltaics and wind power is smaller, so they could use the excess power. If Germany would be an isolated system, or if the surrounding countries would have the same energy politics, the energy would have been wasted.

You can also see how the electricity price gets massively negative because all the solar and wind power operators want to get their subsidies for pushing even more power into a grid that has more than it needs already.

Replacing coal by renewable energies is great, it increases prices but it reduces pollution and CO2 emission. Replacing nuclear by renewables during the day and coal during the night? What a stupid idea, it increases prices, pollution and CO2 emissions.