Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[russ_watters]

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.

Yes, my (quick) analysis assumes a closed and well integrated grid (among other things), and I realize Germany's is very open.

Applying that to the US, which is a much larger country yet still isn't closed but also isn't well enough integrated, we are also already seeing some problems in certain areas, as @mheslep pointed out. I think the fact that our major population centers are thousands of miles apart (mostly spaced east-west) and by far the best solar potential is in the west, integration problems will be very significant at a lower fraction than Germany's.

 

[OmCheeto]

...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".
...

I have two guesses as to why I didn't respond:

1. Probably the first number that caught my eye: "...that panelling 5% of the country with photovoltaics at a cost of £200 000 per person..."

Now, atyy posted that in February of 2013, so I would have immediately googled the cost of PV and the exchange rate, and done some fast Omic maths:

, and saw that this "smarty" guy claimed I needed 415 THOUSAND watts worth of solar panels.
This is why I listed this as #1, as nobody uses that much power.

415,000 watts = 557 horsepower (We're talking BIG BLOCK, hemi head, fuel injected, dual overhead cams...)​

So I obviously thought this person was crazy.​

2. This was from a 383 page document.

ummmm... I wasn't retired back then. Ain't nobody got that much free time.​

Anyways, after checking out Prof MacKay on the interwebs, I prayed that I had never said a bad word about him.
And my prayers were answered; "Kind of refreshing to hear from a professor of physics rather than Geraldo."

Sadly, Prof. MacKay passed away in April of last year.
Reading just a fraction of his posted words, over the last 24 hours, made me feel like I would have enjoyed his company, greatly.

Although atyy quoted Mackay near the end, I would like to quote the apparent dedication, and preface:

Version 3.5.2. November 3, 2008.

to those who will not have the benefit
of two billion years’ accumulated energy reserves​

Preface

What’s this book about?

I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about
sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and
we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that
allegedly make a difference don’t add up.
Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional
(for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks
about numbers. Or if they do mention numbers, they select them to sound
big, to make an impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than
to aid thoughtful discussion.
This is a straight-talking book about the numbers. The aim is to guide
the reader around the claptrap to actions that really make a difference and
to policies that add up.​

 

[mheslep]

...Obviously, solar and wind can't be 100% of our energy use without storage since they don't operate 24/7...

And yet there have been several publications in the last few years claiming 100% supply from renewable power (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and others up to 80%, though none AFAIK in the primary journals. They make fairly ridiculous assumptions in my view to get there (esp. massive storage).

See e.g.:
Jacobson, Delucchi, et al. 2015. “100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for the 50 United States.” Energy Environ. Sci. 8. Royal Society of Chemistry. doi:10.1039/C5EE01283J.
Becker, S et al. 2014. “Features of a Fully Renewable US Electricity System: Optimized Mixes of Wind and Solar PV and Transmission Grid Extensions.” Energy 72: 443–58. doi:10.1016/j.energy.2014.05.067.
Elliston, B., I. MacGill, and M. Diesendorf. 2014. “Comparing Least Cost Scenarios for 100% Renewable Electricity with Low Emission Fossil Fuel Scenarios in the Australian National Electricity Market.” Renewable Energy 66: 196–204. doi:10.1016/j. renene.2013.12.010.
Frew et al. 2016
Lenzen et al. 2016

For criticism see e.g. "DEEP DECARBONIZATION OF THE ELECTRIC POWER SECTOR INSIGHTS FROM RECENT LITERATURE"
http://innovationreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/EIRP-Deep-Decarb-Lit-Review-Jenkins-Thernstrom-March-2017.pdf

 

[mheslep]

...Solar will continue to grow and in 20 years, will generate 20-40% of US electricity...

Consider the consequences of arriving at 40% of annual US generation from solar in 20 years:

• US annual generation (2016) from all sources per the EIA was 4000 TWh, or a 0.5 TW average annual power load. Assuming a generous solar PV annual average 20% capacity factor (Germany averages 11%), total US installed solar capacity must rise to double the US average load (0.4/0.2), or 1 TW rated solar capacity for the ~five full power equivalent hours fixed tilt solar provides during the day, in order to arrive at 40% annual generation.
• US annual solar installation in 2016 was 15 GW/yr, with 42 GW cumulative already installed (solar industry association). One TW in 20 years requires an average installation rate of 50 GW/yr. Assuming a 25 year panel life, the rate of installation (replacement) must continue at 40 GW/yr indefinitely.
• Assuming solar is used and not curtailed (wasted), storage is required that can accommodate the 0.5 TW solar surplus during the day and redistribute the energy in off-solar hours. If storage is neglected in favor of keeping conventional power and flipping it on during non-peak solar hours, 40% generation from solar is not achieved. Assuming a daily US storage depth of 6 TWh (0.5 TW*12 hrs) requires 171 years of one Tesla Gigafactory annual battery output (35 GWh/yr), replaced every ~decade.
• Losses of 20% can (generously) be expected in the storage loop, requiring another 125 GW of solar PV.
• Most of the conventional power fleet must be maintained in place, indefinitely, to supply poor seasonal solar weeks or months. If not, then storage must become seasonal and grow by two orders of magnitude.

 

[russ_watters]

And yet there have been several publications in the last few years claiming 100% supply from renewable power (solar, wind, hydro, geothermal) and others up to 80%, though none AFAIK in the primary journals. They make fairly ridiculous assumptions in my view to get there (esp. massive storage).

Long study and I do intend to read it. One thing after a skim is I wish they spent some time discussing the premise (e.g.; why not nuclear? Is there a short term role for natural gas?) instead of essentially apparently just setting it as a self-evident postulate that we have to use his preferred mix of energy sources.* Clearly, a lot of effort went into the paper, but it doesn't discuss the key issues that need to be discussed: what do we want and why.

He does bring up a key piece of the storage picture that we haven't discussed much though: thermal storage for HVAC. Surprisingly enough, some ground source heat pumps actually do thermal storage (season to season) and more directly, ice storage for air conditioning.

There is a chicken-or-egg problem with ice storage though in that it is a local economic tool, so it will be difficult to implement as policy. And currently it runs opposite to how solar would need to use it, buying cheap power at night and using it to offset power use during the day(in the US anyway). The grid would need to become heavily saturated with solar/intermittent renewable power and the conventional sources driven out of business to flip that script over to store energy during the day. I suppose though that Germany was nearly at that point with those couple of hours of 95% renewables last May.

*Unfortunately there isn't much public discussion of these issues that I can see, which is why I think threads/forums like this are so important. Instead, the politicians sign silly and pointless treaties like Kyoto and Paris while paying pretending to be pro clean energy while using renewables to offset nuclear instead of coal! And the media and clean energy advocates lap it up because I guess they don't know any better/haven't thought these issues through.

I considered briefly writing a paper or book on this, but then I remembered that I'm too lazy to update my energy policy thread at the top of this forum! I've searched only briefly for literature, but what I've seen seems thin (question: why is the Royal Society of Chemistry publishing a paper on a US energy grid conversion to renewables?) or even crackpotish (shame on IEEE). I do have some hope for a book I just bought which has exactly the right focus: It's called "Energy for Future Presidents". I haven't opened it yet, so we'll see what the take is...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393345106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[mheslep]

Long study and I do intend to read it.

Id recommend skimming and spending more time on the critical review. Jacobson' papers include subtle assumptions like a 1/2 hour time resolution in his models for electricity availability, which implies a 1/2 hour of national storage: 250 GWh, though never mentioned.

One thing after a skim is I wish they spent some time discussing the premise (e.g.; why not nuclear? Is there a short term role for natural gas?)

The most infamous 100% renewable author must be Jacobson, and in public discussions he is fanatically anti-nuclear, though he's not the only one. In comparing emissions from various sources, he ranked nuclear high in CO2. How so? Well, per Jacobson, one needs to count the massive fires started by coming nuclear wars and count them against nuclear power, never mind the actual blast destruction. For example:

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security†
Mark Z. Jacobson*
...
Because the production of nuclear weapons material is occurring only in countries that have developed civilian nuclear energy programs, the risk of a limited nuclear exchange between countries or the detonation of a nuclear device by terrorists has increased due to the dissemination of nuclear energy facilities worldwide. As such, it is a valid exercise to estimate the potential number of immediate deaths and carbon emissions due to the burning of buildings and infrastructure associated with the proliferation of nuclear energy facilities and the resulting proliferation of nuclear weapons

My take is that nuclear power puts the 100% renewable plans in the trash bin and thus these authors out of business. All of the 100% plans make near crackpot assumptions in my view, which can only stand-up when making a claim that there's no clean power alternative. Thus nuclear power has to become a non-option.

Edit:

It's called "Energy for Future Presidents". I haven't opened it yet, so we'll see what the take is...
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0393345106/?tag=pfamazon01-20

The author of Future Presidents, Muller, is physics professor at Cal and has an interesting background, with several online videos teaching the material.

 

[russ_watters]

Id recommend skimming and spending more time on the critical review. Jacobson' papers include subtle assumptions like a 1/2 hour time resolution in his models for electricity availability, which implies a 1/2 hour of national storage: 250 GWh, though never mentioned.

The most infamous 100% renewable author must be Jacobson, and in public discussions he is fanatically anti-nuclear, though he's not the only one. In comparing emissions from various sources, he ranked nuclear high in CO2. How so? Well, per Jacobson, one needs to count the massive fires started by coming nuclear wars and count them against nuclear power, never mind the actual blast destruction. For example:

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...

My take is that nuclear power puts the 100% renewable plans in the trash bin and thus these authors out of business.

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...

 

[EnumaElish]

If subsidies to "too big to fail" bankrupt firms are somehow justified, subsidies to renewables are only more so. IMO subsidies must reflect the capitalized present value of delayed extraction of nonrenewables, including (i) their potential future use value, (ii) preserved option value that would have been lost at extraction, (iii) the value of environmental externalities arising from postponed extraction, (iv) other non-specific externalities such as future alternative uses of new technology, and industry contagion effects. Otherwise a rational, competitive market society would not have issued said subsidies. Would it?

 

[mfb]

Jacobson

Okay, one author I can safely ignore from now on.

Number of nuclear weapons used against countries with nuclear weapons: 0
Number of conventional weapons used against countries with conventional weapons: Countless.

Otherwise a rational, competitive market society would not have issued said subsidies. Would it?

Subsidies for renewable energies were never issued by a rational, competitive market. They were issued by politicians, for various reasons, including publicity for the next election, but not including a rational cost analysis.

 

[gmax137]

a rational, competitive market society

Subsidies for renewable energies

I have been told the wind guys in northern New England get $100 per MW-hr; meanwhile Dominion gets $40 per MW-hr at their Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut. There is "an invisible hand" at work here but it isn't the one you learned about in Econ 101.

 

[mheslep]

I have been told the wind guys in northern New England get $100 per MW-hr; meanwhile Dominion gets $40 per MW-hr at their Millstone nuclear station in Connecticut. There is "an invisible hand" at work here but it isn't the one you learned about in Econ 101.

Eh, not exactly. Many US states have for long had Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require the state utility to buy some defined share of its electricity from a list of so called "clean" power sources, solar/wind/hydro/trash and, straight from the 18th century, trees. Last I looked, none of the state RPS include nuclear. Connecticut certainly does not, not yet. That effective subsidy of the competition hurts Millstone, and nuclear in general.

Connecticut has drafted a bill which is under debate to allow nuclear into the RPS, i.e. Millstone. The RPS prices are set by a market in renewable credits, which are certain to be above, perhaps double, the conventional New England market price of $35/MWh.

Millstone supplies about half of Connecticut power, so allowing it into the state RPS will squash new solar and wind, even with their direct federal subsidies. If Millstone were to close, state emissions would sharply increase (as they have everywhere in the US when a nuclear plant closes).

*Which the solar/wind people don't like, and neither do the natural gas operators who would like nothing more for Millstone to close so they take all and not just half of Connecticut power supply.

Fossil operators don't like:

Connecticut Petroleum Council Executive Director Steven Guveyan said the Energy and Technology Committee’s approval of the Millstone bill amounts to “nothing less than corporate welfare that could raise costs for Connecticut consumers who already pay some of the highest electricity prices in the nation.” The statewide trade group is a division of the American Petroleum Institute, which represents America’s oil and natural gas industry.

Local non-economic operators don't like:

Other opponents say it is inappropriate to refer to nuclear energy as clean, renewable power.

“Senate Bill 106 would redefine old, nuclear sources as ‘clean energy’ and give Dominion a special deal at the expense of cutting-edge, truly renewable technologies,” said Claire Coleman, climate and energy attorney for Connecticut Fund for the Environment, which is based in New Haven. “Connecticut’s future lies in clean, safe, locally-produced energy like wind and solar, not nuclear plants that cause more problems than they solve.”

This complaint is particularly whiny though honest:

Mike Trahan, executive director of SolarConnecticut, the trade group for solar industry businesses in the state, said allowing Millstone to bid into the state procurement process now reserved for renewable energy resources such as large-scale hydropower, solar, wind and trash-to-energy facilities is akin to letting former major league pitching star Roger Clemens face a Little League baseball team in a game.

Exactly. If reliable, affordable, clear power was game for kids the solar trade group would have a point.

 

[mfb]

is akin to letting former major league pitching star Roger Clemens face a Little League baseball team in a game.

If we want the best team, maybe that is a good idea?

 

[Ken Fabos]

Solar is going to have a fantastic future. It will continue to get cheaper and so will storage - PV and battery, CSP and thermal. We are reaching the point in places where RE has been introduced at larger scales that intermittency issues are becoming significant and it's further ability to displace fossil fuels will depend on storage (and demand management and efficiency). It's reaching decision time in places like South Australia and these will be the testing ground - and given that solar and batteries are better on emissions than gas and gas is expensive too with stranding risks as well, the earlier batteries installations will get their chance.That displacement of fossil fuels with RE starts in the form of fossil fuel plant spending more time powered down or idling rather than shut down and stranded, but the economics of that situation will continue to make investments in storage more attractive, not less. Even in the presence of ongoing emissions amnesty.

Solar will continue to be beloved by politicians and policy makers that want to be seen to be taking the climate problem seriously (and because the climate/ GHG's link is real it means 97% and more of real climate scientists will keep coming up with more and more results that confirms it) the need to be seen to be taking the climate problem seriously is only going to grow. The easiest and most popular way for politics to appease those concerns has been and still is, to lend visible support to RE so a large part of politics will continue to do so - and with growing confidence given the plummeting costs of these technologies. The high costs and limited emissions achievement of earlier RE deployments do not properly reflect their future outlook; every RE element is cheaper now than ever before and we can be confident of further significant price decreases over the next decade, even without the "breakthrough" advances that would make the later challenges more achievable. The scales needed are enormous - that has always been the case - and we do need the R&D side to persist, to refine the tech we have and develop the tech that will replace it.

More ballsy is the politics of resisting climate concerns, with it's own indulgences in populist opportunism, like the expedient fanning of the flames of alarmist economic fears of strong climate action. It is especially brave because policy based on serious misapprehensions about emissions/climate concerns (even with their tame 3% of scientists desperately forcing round climate data into square holes) are never going to be fit for purpose except by the most extraordinarily lucky ineptitude. This kind of politicking has been popular enough to see heads of governments and whole mainstream political parties indulging in it, with opposing the support for RE that is a signature theme of the climate action agenda having become in turn the signature theme of the climate obstructionist agenda. Lot's of supporters of nuclear as an alternative to RE will continue to align with them - seeing their opposition to political environmentalism and to the support given to RE as cause in common. A serious mistake in my opinion as I don't think that alignment will achieve greater support for nuclear for climate purposes - but clearly there are proponents of nuclear here that disagree.

There are no certainties, whichever course we take, except perhaps that failure to rise up and face up to the climate and emissions problem is the most certain road to disaster and that making sacrifices, if that's what it takes to avoid an unfixable climate distaster, ought to be a no brainer. When people who, by any historical standards are wealthy beyond imagination and extravagantly wasteful with it, are encourage to feel outrage at the prospect of making even modest financial sacrifices for the sake of climate stability - and cry "what about poor people?" as they do so - I can only feel appalled at the self indulgence.

 

[nikkkom]

Eh, not exactly. Many US states have for long had Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) that require the state utility to buy some defined share of its electricity from a list of so called "clean" power sources, solar/wind/hydro/trash and, straight from the 18th century, trees. Last I looked, none of the state RPS include nuclear.

Why should it? Nuclear is not renewable. It does use fuel.

 

[mfb]

Solar power and wind use the fuel of the Sun, indirectly. They will last much longer than uranium reserves, but both will last much longer than the next generations (plural) of power plants and both don't emit notable CO2.

 

[mheslep]

Why should it? Nuclear is not renewable. It does use fuel.

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.

 

[mheslep]

will continue to get cheaper and so will storage

When will storage be cheap enough or technically available? Decades? A century? There are no battery back up systems installed in the world that could replace a single middling power plant for a day.

Under cover of a few percent of solar and wind, vast amounts of new coal plants are under construction, though nuclear and some hydro already decarbonized several grids, decades ago.

 

[Ken Fabos]

When will storage be cheap enough or technically available? Decades? A century? There are no battery back up systems installed in the world that could replace a single middling power plant for a day.

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. A surprising lot of eager new entrants trying to be ready for the boom; if you want a GWhr or two you can get it. Expensive, yes, but we are at the early beginnings of storage and it's reasonable to expect it to get cheaper as the scale grows. Under near term circumstances even modest amounts will go a long way but longer term we can't have too much of it.

The (interim) aim isn't for a battery backup system replacing a coal/gas power plant for a day, it's replacing them 6-8hrs every sunny day by solar, followed by batteries replacing them overnight, with the existing power plant moved to an RE backup role. I suspect that early stage storage capacity will better enable FF plant to spent more time cold and some of the emissions reduction potential of existing RE will become more apparent. I don't think we should expect a smooth, direct relationship between RE installed and emissions reduced; we will see stages where it lags and potentially, with more integration of storage, we will see more rapid emissions results.

Under cover of a few percent of solar and wind, vast amounts of new coal plants are under construction, though nuclear and some hydro already decarbonized several grids, decades ago.

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA and vast amounts of planned coal plant look to be in doubt, such as in India and China. More electricity networks with growing contributions from RE sources will find themselves looking at choosing between new gas or batteries and given that less emissions than old coal but still too high for climate stability purposes is the best gas can do, they risk stranding in a world of persistent and growing climate concern that recognises their intrinsic unfitness for purpose.

Crediting past nuclear builds for their emissions reductions is all very well but those were done for other reasons than emissions, reasons that induced the necessary unanimity of political and policy purpose, and without those reasons - given emissions currently appears to be an inadequate incentive by itself - they will not get that political unanimity of purpose, so will not be repeated. Hydro however, has a solid place and doesn't have to be pumped to complement intermittent RE. wherever it exists. Where it does exist the need to invest in so much battery storage will be reduced and larger amount of RE will be easier to manage.

 

[russ_watters]

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA...

[edit] Any reason you omitted natural gas from that? You probably got that from here:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/electricity.php

Given that renewables are not projected to increase fast enough to offset any of the other major sources, doesn't that tell us we're not on a good path and should make changes?

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

So what? It still happened, just as opposition to nuclear power has caused higher emissions even though that wasn't their goal. Moving forward, if the goal is lower emissions, then it is clear that nuclear should be part of the solution, isn't it?

...given emissions currently appears to be an inadequate incentive by itself - they will not get that political unanimity of purpose, so will not be repeated.

We'll see. "Public support" is not where the rubber meets the road: the "incentive" that matters is money and since nuclear power is currently being treated unfairly in several ways financially, lifting that unfair treatment may make a significant difference. See:

Exelon Corp. announced Tuesday that it will “prematurely” shut down Three Mile Island Unit 1, the surviving reactor at the site of the 1979 nuclear accident, unless it gets some form of price supports from the Pennsylvania legislature...

Exelon, which is based in Chicago, has suggested that Pennsylvania should give nuclear power preferential treatment and premium payments similar to those given to renewable energies, such as wind and solar. Nuclear power is by far the state’s largest source of energy that does not produce harmful air emissions.

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/energy/exelon-says-it-will-shut-tmi-in-2-years-20170530.html

The issue has come to a head for TMI since as a one-reactor plant it is pretty cost ineffective. Leveling the playing field would help avoid having this massive source of clean energy be replaced by fossil fuel energy in a couple of years. And leveling it for one plant opens the door for others.

 

[mheslep]

More Solar and Wind are being built than new nuclear and coal according to IEA

I don't know that this is true in terms of new *generation* instead of nameplate(rated) power. In any case, the fundamental point is *not* to build solar and wind. The point is to lower emissions by stopping fossil, esp coal. Instead global coal is on a roll, under cover a narratives like yours about what will happen in 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.