Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[rootone]

If you mean fusion, well yes, I am an optimist.

 

[mfb]

Fission.

Maybe fusion in a few decades, although I don't think that will be quickly adopted in developing countries.

 

[rootone]

It can be surprising though.
Flat screens and touch devices are now everyday technology, that was sci fi only 20 years ago.
If ITER does demonstrate that fusion is a real prospect, I think we will see China/India/Russia doing their own fusion thing.
https://www.iter.org/

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, dispatchable power, i.e. [power with an on/off switch that works any time, night/day, winter/summer.

I was just talking about that with mfb, about how peaker plants, the ones with the on/off switches, that are only 35-40% efficient due to their on/off ability, could be made more efficient.

Adding power during peak times doesn't solve the problem that the main plants have a limit below which they can't go. Hence: pumped hydro, to simply prevent them from wasting the energy from fossil they have to make at the wrong time. Dispatchable power doesn't solve that. They can't use gas turbines, which power the dispatchable plants, and still have the 67% efficiency of a combined cycle.

 

[mfb]

I don't know the situation in the US: In most parts of Europe, pumped hydro is used nearly everywhere where it is reasonable. You cannot simply build a new hydro power plant at arbitrary places, you need a suitable topography, water, and not too many people living there.

If ITER does demonstrate that fusion is a real prospect, I think we will see China/India/Russia doing their own fusion thing.

Let's be optimistic and say ITER DT fusion does start 2035 as projected. That is the earliest point where you can reasonably start working on a follow-up project. Even if you throw unlimited money on it, that gives a single DEMO-like device not before 2040, where the conditions relevant for a power plant can be explored. In 2045 you can have enough experience to construct several actual power plants, which don't start running before 2050.

Fusion can be interesting in the future, but it won't become a relevant power source within the lifetime of current power plants. We need at least one generation in between.

 

[Ken Fabos]

Forget the idealised Transition scenarios where nuclear is the main low emissions thrust or where solar, wind and storage are introduced into the mix only in an orderly, controlled, planned manner. Nuclear is not the main thrust and more wind and solar are coming into existing grids - or intermittently reducing demand, which is effectively the same thing - and that's going to accelerate, ready or not.

Take away the looming likelihood that solar and wind will strain networks and work on storage would slow and stall. Make storage a prerequisite for solar and wind and all three would stall. If that happens then there is no Transition; there is good no reason to think nuclear will step into that breach. The nuclear option would take extraordinary forethought, planning and government interventions. Why should we expect such far-sighted forethought and planning now? We haven't had that so far.

Yet it's not really that disorderly - it's just a tipping point that we've seen coming. It's a bit sooner than expected but it's not a surprise. It isn't a crisis of failed technologies - batteries and other options are quite real and available right now at the scales we need right now - it's a shift in their relative economic viability not their existence that's at issue and it only becomes a system reliability crisis where we have industry and regulators fighting it or otherwise responding inappropriately and inadequately. Cost evaluations are still being done in vacuums that don't include climate or other externalities.

I think we will see a face off between rapid despatch fossil fuels - gas - and the first Big Batteries in the emerging managing intermittency space and those batteries will be expensive. But so is fast, on-demand gas expensive and the cost differential has been getting smaller, and even non-existent if gas is correctly seen as the too high emissions option it truly is and at risk of being left as stranded assets when foresight is properly applied, so batteries will get a start. It looks to me that is happening right at the time and in the places we should expect to see them - so there has been some foresight and planning going on after all. We will see if they will achieve their promise or not.

I find it most curious that some of the most staunch doubters of the potential for storage technologies to achieve significant advances appear to be so optimistic about the potential for remarkable technological advancement in other areas. Sure, we don't know and can't know how taking this path will turn out but waiting and delaying until we have certainty looks like a more serious mistake than pushing ahead on the path that is unexpectedly opening before us.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know the situation in the US: In most parts of Europe, pumped hydro is used nearly everywhere where it is reasonable. You cannot simply build a new hydro power plant at arbitrary places, you need a suitable topography, water, and not too many people living there.

I can see how Europe could be maxed out in terms of reasonable places to put pumped hydro: western civilization has been entrenched there centuries longer than here, so I'd expect any available resource has long been portioned out to serve more people than here, and there's much less room for growth.

It seems to me, though, there may be creative options that are also reasonable. Pumped hydro needs a head, and the Michigan plant I found demonstrates a head as small as 400 feet, (122m) is viable. You already perform surface mining in Germany, so, presumably there are already holes that have been dug that are 122m deep, or could be made to be. It seems to me holes like this could be the basis of pumped hydro plants. Not just in Germany, but wherever they exist.

The holes would be the bottom of the head. The elevation above could be formed into a reservoir by constructing a "moat" up there, around the circumference of the hole. There would be two walls, inner and outer, constructed primarily of rock and rammed Earth taken from the hole. The walls could be made to be as massive as needed.

Now, since this all is supposed to be aimed at cutting back on fossil emissions, it would be ironic and counter-productive to construct all this with fossil fueled machinery. Therefore, you'd install temporary windmills and solar farms to make hydrogen to power the internal combustion engines involved and electricity to power electric motors. This is a situation where both become viable, in principle, because all the vehicles are going to be confined to traveling within a few miles radius: the need for frequent refueling won't be such a liability.

A project like this is what I'd consider to be an essentially ancient type of project, mostly consisting of time consuming gruntwork: moving Earth from one place to another, and ramming it. It's not high tech: the Romans, Egyptians, or Aztecs could have done it. You could do this from scratch anywhere, even on a flat plain with no pre-existing hole. But, surface mines represent places where 1.) the land has already been 'damaged,' meaning you shouldn't get any resistance from geenpeace types, and the hole has already been roughed out for you.

Individual power plants in the local utility here in San Diego range from 94MW up to 964MW. Personally, I think about this in terms of replacing individual power plants one at a time rather than trying to replace whole utilities in one shot. If you could recycle a strip mine into a replacement for one fossil power plant, then that's one less fossil power plant.

 

[nikkkom]

Now, since this all is supposed to be aimed at cutting back on fossil emissions, it would be ironic and counter-productive to construct all this with fossil fueled machinery. Therefore, you'd install temporary windmills and solar farms to make hydrogen to power the internal combustion engines involved and electricity to power electric motors. This is a situation where both become viable, in principle, because all the vehicles are going to be confined to traveling within a few miles radius: the need for frequent refueling won't be such a liability.

Why would you "CO2-optimize" only energy construction projects? What is the difference between CO2 emitted while building a dam or an apartment block?

 

[mfb]

100 m of height difference and 30 m of water level gives you 30 MJ/m² or 8 GWh per square kilometer, two square kilometers for upper and lower lake.
If you can cycle that reservoir daily and get 2 cent/kWh every time, you get €50 million per year, or €25/m². Cheaper than the land you have to buy, but you still have the construction cost, and a full cycle per day at 2 cent/kWh price difference is probably quite optimistic, and I didn't even take the efficiency into account.

Now, since this all is supposed to be aimed at cutting back on fossil emissions, it would be ironic and counter-productive to construct all this with fossil fueled machinery. Therefore, you'd install temporary windmills and solar farms to make hydrogen to power the internal combustion engines involved and electricity to power electric motors. This is a situation where both become viable, in principle, because all the vehicles are going to be confined to traveling within a few miles radius: the need for frequent refueling won't be such a liability.

Sorry zoobyshoe, but your proposals are just unrealistic. The defining factor of everything is the price. "I invest $1 billion to make $100 per year" simply does not work, no matter how CO2-efficient it is, but you keep proposing concepts of that type.

 

[zoobyshoe]

100 m of height difference and 30 m of water level gives you 30 MJ/m² or 8 GWh per square kilometer, two square kilometers for upper and lower lake.
If you can cycle that reservoir daily and get 2 cent/kWh every time, you get €50 million per year, or €25/m². Cheaper than the land you have to buy, but you still have the construction cost, and a full cycle per day at 2 cent/kWh price difference is probably quite optimistic, and I didn't even take the efficiency into account.
Sorry zoobyshoe, but your proposals are just unrealistic. The defining factor of everything is the price. "I invest $1 billion to make $100 per year" simply does not work, no matter how CO2-efficient it is, but you keep proposing concepts of that type.

There's no reason it has to compete with the cheapest alternative available in charge per kWh. In fact, being "Green" you could certainly charge the same as the most costly CO2 emitter and no one would blink.

I have ideas about the construction cost, but first, do you think the idea is viable as a mere pumped storage? The main problem I wanted to look at was your complaint there is no where to put such a thing anymore in Europe.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why would you "CO2-optimize" only energy construction projects? What is the difference between CO2 emitted while building a dam or an apartment block?

I don't think I suggested the idea this would only be done on energy construction projects.

The reason I suggested it here is that another member has been maintaining that solar and wind only exist because of fossil. I think that's a very good point. The strategy, therefore, should include the goal of these alternates powering themselves. Solar cell factories ought to be powered by solar cells, windmill factories by windmills. I googled looking for any such factory, a story to the effect, "Solar Factory Powers Itself With Its Own Products," but didn't find any.

 

[OmCheeto]

I don't think I suggested the idea this would only be done on energy construction projects.

The reason I suggested it here is that another member has been maintaining that solar and wind only exist because of fossil. I think that's a very good point. The strategy, therefore, should include the goal of these alternates powering themselves. Solar cell factories ought to be powered by solar cells, windmill factories by windmills. I googled looking for any such factory, a story to the effect, "Solar Factory Powers Itself With Its Own Products," but didn't find any.

Well that's just silly.
If we tried to run the largest solar cell plant in the USA, here in Portland [ref], it would operate for about 1 week out of the year. Ok, maybe a couple of months.
But it probably gets most of it's energy from hydroelectric and wind farms. Our sole nuclear plant closed down years ago.
Our sole coal plant is scheduled to close in 3 years. It appears that they are thinking of converting it into a biomass burner.
I'm sure we get nuclear and coal energy from neighboring states. Being formerly a nuclear power plant technician, I'm not really afraid of nuclear.
We may also have natural gas plants. hmmm... (google google google):

PGE

26% Purchased
25% Natural Gas
16% Hydro
11% Wind & Solar
22% Coal​

Hydroelectric is probably so low because we're supplying Los Angeles with half of their electrical power.

But I'm still pissed that you kids can't sell us your rooftop solar.
That isn't just goofy, it's downright stupid. I wonder if it's infrastructure, or corporate profits driving that.

I just calculated that the US has to import ≈$200 BILLION worth of crude oil a year for gasoline. A lot of people moan about taxes. I like to moan about trade deficits. Currently at ≈$500 billion total.

ps. While trying to figure out how to eliminate those god awfully expensive batteries, I ended up inventing a new type of refrigerator. I'll cut you and Woolie in on the profits, once I get things patented and to the market. If your electric bill hadn't been so low, I'd have never researched it. So, it's kind of your fault. Thanks!

 

[nikkkom]

I don't think I suggested the idea this would only be done on energy construction projects.

The reason I suggested it here is that another member has been maintaining that solar and wind only exist because of fossil. I think that's a very good point. The strategy, therefore, should include the goal of these alternates powering themselves. Solar cell factories ought to be powered by solar cells, windmill factories by windmills.

And robotics factory ought to be built by robots? :D
Such requirement does not make sense to me.
If we want to move away from using fossil fuels in transport, this is a _separate_ engineering problem to the construction of generation or storage. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using internal combustion engine-based vehicles to build a windmill factory.

 

[gmax137]

... At one point a majority of US reactors were burning, in part, the plutonium from Soviet weapons. For years.

Sorry for the late response to this, just a correction. The "megawatts to megatons" program used Russian weapons uranium (not plutonium) for reactor fuel here in the US:

The Megatons to Megawatts program was initiated in 1993 and successfully completed in December 2013. A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (high enriched uranium, equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants. During the 20-year Megatons to Megawatts program, as much as 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States was generated by fuel fabricated using LEU from Russian HEU.

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

I don't think that achievement gets enough credit.

 

[gmax137]

... Cutting *global* GHG emissions means adopting an affordable clean energy plan that can ~80% of emissions, and one that the developing world can use, in India, Vietnam, Philippines, etc. ...

I think this is the main point, and missed by nearly this entire thread. "First World problems" and all that. Meanwhile there are billions of other people whose lives could be improved beyond measure by increased energy resources.

 

[nikkkom]

I think this is the main point, and missed by nearly this entire thread. "First World problems" and all that. Meanwhile there are billions of other people whose lives could be improved beyond measure by increased energy resources.

Third World problems are not technological, they are political: bad governments (corrupt and/or tyrannical).
People in the West spend centuries improving its systems of governance. Now the best you can do is to help others to improve theirs faster.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well that's just silly.

Solar cells are very energy intensive to make. They have to use a carbon arc furnace to melt the silica, and there's another heating later in the process. So, there is this complaint they are not green products because all that energy is now coming from fossil. People point to the irony of something that is supposed to replace fossil requiring so much of it and producing the concomitant pollution.

I'm surprised you have a solar cell factory there, because, yeah, it's about the worst place for a solar farm.

And robotics factory ought to be built by robots? :D

Robots are not a source of alternate energy. Ironically, though, robots do build robots.

If we want to move away from using fossil fuels in transport, this is a _separate_ engineering problem to the construction of generation or storage. There is absolutely nothing wrong in using internal combustion engine-based vehicles to build a windmill factory.

The complaint is about the steel in windmills. Steel mills are gross polluters. If someone could boast the steel in their windmill was heated by electric current generated by a windmill, that would be one carbon-free windmill.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I can't understand how this place could be so unprofitable and still be thriving:

http://www.visitludington.com/stories/ludington_pumped_storage_project

They like it so much they're doing an 800 million dollar upgrade.

 

[nikkkom]

Solar cells are very energy intensive to make.

"Very intensive" compared to what?

The complaint is about the steel in windmills. Steel mills are gross polluters. If someone could boast the steel in their windmill was heated by electric current generated by a windmill, that would be one carbon-free windmill.

These complaints are bogus.

Someone is making an incorrect assumption that they were promised a completely "carbon-free", "pollution-free" economy, and that it will happen overnight.

No one ever promiced anything like this. Every process which we as a society consider generating too much pollution, should be replaced by a better alternative - WITHOUT stopping everything else in the economy in its tracks waiting for this process to be replaced.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using gasoline trucks or "gross polluting" steel mills in building new stuff ("green" or otherwise), while other people in other industries are working on the ways to replace gasoline trucks with a better alternative, or creating legislation and then installing better filters in steel mills.

 

[OmCheeto]

Solar cells are very energy intensive to make. They have to use a carbon arc furnace to melt the silica, and there's another heating later in the process. So, there is this complaint they are not green products because all that energy is now coming from fossil. People point to the irony of something that is supposed to replace fossil requiring so much of it and producing the concomitant pollution.

According to two references, and my always suspicious maths, solar panels generate 50 times more energy than used to create them.
Are you saying that if you deposited $100 in the bank, and were guaranteed only $5000 back at the end of 30 years, you would not make that investment?

Adjusted for inflation, solar currently has a 5.6 times better return than the DJIA.
$100 invested in the Dow in 1987 would have returned $450, while solar currently seems to return $2500. Again, adjusted for inflation.

I'm surprised you have a solar cell factory there, because, yeah, it's about the worst place for a solar farm.
...

From my recollection, the decision was based on us being very "green friendly", and have an excess of clean water.
But that brings up an interesting question.
If we stopped shipping hydroelectric power to Los Angeles, requiring them to build local comparable natural gas power stations, how many watts of solar cells could Solar World produce, and how much would those power plants cost LA?

hmmmm...

-------------------
My references, and suspicious maths.
I'm too tired to filter it today.
You all can figure it out:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/24619.pdf
1999! (ie, old data! beware!)
Alsema estimated that it takes 120 kWh/m2 to make near-future, frameless, amorphous silicon
PV modules. He added another 120 kWh/m2 for a frame and a support structure for a
rooftop-mounted, grid-connected system.

240 kwh/m^2

17% efficiency [ref: memory of current Solar World 300 watt panel]

300 watt panel size: 0.300/0.17 = 1.76 m^2

300 watt panel output per year in San Diego —> 886.8 kwh
30 years of output 26,605.1 kwh

memory check:
https://www.solarworld-usa.com/~/me...lus-sw-290-300-mono-solar-datasheet.pdf?la=en
components
156 mm x 156 mm x 60
1,460,160 mm^2
power 226.7 watts[?]
1,000,000 mm^2/m^2

1.46 m^2
.2267 kw
0.155 kw/m^2

close enough for government work

0.3/0.155 1.935

886.8/1.935= 458 kwh/year
13,740 kwh/30 years
ave 90% over life of panel
12,366 kwh/30 years

so
e-production 12,366
e-construction 240
return 51.525

Solar
April 2017 $100
April 2047 $5000https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=100.00&year1=198704&year2=201704
April 1987 $100
April 2017 $217

https://www.google.com/finance?q=INDEXDJX:.DJI
DJI
April 1987 $100
April 2017 $900

DJI
April 1987 2,276
April 2017 20,700Adjusted for inflation, return on $100 investment:
solar $2500
DJI $450

$2500/$450 = 5.56​

 

[Ken Fabos]

Emissions are a system wide problem - imposing a requirement on one manufacturing sector (RE) to source only low emissions energy whilst their fossil fuel based competitors do not creates a serious market disadvantage. Carbon pricing across the board or applied preferentially to the high emissions sector seems appropriate; applying it preferentially to the RE sector is not.

Personally I think the best possible use for dirty fossil fuel energy is making PV but I think we will see more dedicated RE for RE manufacturing; Tesla comes to mind as a company that is deliberately moving in that direction. Meanwhile RE manufacturing will continue to reflect the broader energy mix - and reducing the overall emissions of that mix is the measure that matters.

 

[mheslep]

Carbon pricing across the board

The problem is carbon pricing can't be applied by law "across the board", but only across a sovereign country, which likely explains why there are no serious carbon taxes. Make carbon expensive here, and it will move there, as happened with expensive labor.

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

 

[Ken Fabos]

The problem is carbon pricing can't be applied by law "across the board", but only across a sovereign country, which likely explains why there are no serious carbon taxes. Make carbon expensive here, and it will move there, as happened with expensive labor.

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.

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

The full extent of nuclear's problems are outside the range of the discussion here but they aren't going to go away and it looks to me more like it is renewables that are reaching the point where they are the solutions that will take care of themselves, not nuclear. RE failure - which is looking less likely as the tech progress continues - has never been and won't be the special ingredient that enables nuclear to take off; it didn't enable nuclear when RE really was more wishful thinking than cost effective energy source so stopping RE now that it's costs are making it the most widely used new generation clearly won't. I think it's possible for opponents of this path to impede RE uptake - an alliance between climate science deniers, pro-fossil fuel lobbyists and pro-nuclear advocates could achieve that - but that won't deliver nuclear the support it needs to be the main climate solution.

The "wait until the tech is better" approach is only going to slow the pace on the energy transition; it requires an overarching and enduring determination and commitment from governments that they won't and perhaps can't give this issue. Even if RE began as appeasements and appearances, that is not the case now. It can grow despite the mire of conflicted politics. Nuclear, I believe, cannot.

 

[OmCheeto]

The problem is carbon pricing can't be applied by law "across the board", but only across a sovereign country, which likely explains why there are no serious carbon taxes. Make carbon expensive here, and it will move there, as happened with expensive labor.

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

I was going to push the "like" button, but then I noticed that I'd misread your post as; "no taxes or manure required".

Maybe next time.

But I do agree with your one segment; "Better to innovate a replacement tech better than fossil fuels..."

100%

Still can't believe my maths on the return on solar, vs the DJIA.

Anyone?

 

[rootone]

Still can't believe my maths on the return on solar, vs the DJIA.

The stock market?, Well some win some lose.
Stock markets generally are conservative and behind the game.

 

[Nicola Escudero]

I just hope this is not too expensive so everyone can use it. Electric bill is really very high these days.

 

[NTL2009]

... Still can't believe my maths on the return on solar, vs the DJIA.

Anyone?

Post 320? If I followed the intent:

I think the error is assuming the energy payback ratio is the same as the financial payback ratio. Energy isn't the only thing you pay for to get a solar panel installed and operating. But energy is the only thing you get paid for in return (other than subsidies).

Lots of other apples-oranges to that. An investment in the stock market is liquid. If I need to buy a car 5 years after I invest, I can sell some stock and have the funds in a few days. If I 'invest' in solar panels on my roof, well, I'm committed, not easy to get some money out of them 5 years later. Lots of things that make that comparison fuzzy math, IMO.

Do a straight calculation on financial payback of solar (consider opportunity cost of the solar capital investment that isn't making money other ways) - that's the way to do it to compare to stocks. I don't think you will see a financial payback as high as solar's return on energy.

More on EROEI here:

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

A 2015 review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews assessed the energy payback time and EROI of solar photovoltaics. In this study, which uses an insolation of 1700/kWh/m²/yr and a system lifetime of 30 years, mean harmonized EROIs between 8.7 and 34.2 were found.

 

[OmCheeto]

Post 320?

Yes.

If I followed the intent:

I think the error is assuming the energy payback ratio is the same as the financial payback ratio. Energy isn't the only thing you pay for to get a solar panel installed and operating. But energy is the only thing you get paid for in return (other than subsidies).

I'm designing the system for my sister, who is Zoobs neighbor. And based on his landlords comment about it not being worth it to sell back extra energy, I've designed the system to only create as much energy as is required.

Since the system requires a minimum of 4, and a maximum of 12 panels, the system will consist of 4 stacks, with unused panels being stored beneath the top panels. This could extend the life of the 3 panels only used in August to between 100 and 200 years. I've been getting fuzzy statements regarding why solar panels degrade. Which is somewhat understandable, as it's still a relatively new, and continuously evolving technology. Of course, if and when San Diego residential installations can sell their energy on the market, it may make financial sense to deploy extra panels.

Here is a graph of my sisters electrical usage over the last year, required number of panels, and their output.

System output is based on cloud cover, length of days, and number of panels. Sunlight hours varying from a minimum of 158 hours in December, and a maximum of 329 hours in July.
The spike in August is due to A/C. Which is ok with me. I installed my first one in my house about 3 years ago.

If anyone thinks a rail deployable solar array in not feasible, here is the system she had me look at before she mentioned the Tesla roof: http://smartflowersolar.com/

I told her that I was happy that she was made of money.

I didn't include my sisters natural gas usage, as I decided a solar thermal system could easily cover that.
It's a slightly different design mechanically, but identical in effect.

Lots of other apples-oranges to that. An investment in the stock market is liquid. If I need to buy a car 5 years after I invest, I can sell some stock and have the funds in a few days. If I 'invest' in solar panels on my roof, well, I'm committed, not easy to get some money out of them 5 years later. Lots of things that make that comparison fuzzy math, IMO.

Do a straight calculation on financial payback of solar (consider opportunity cost of the solar capital investment that isn't making money other ways) - that's the way to do it to compare to stocks. I don't think you will see a financial payback as high as solar's return on energy.

My comment was mainly in response to Zoobs statement that the energy to produce a panel isn't much different than the energy it puts out over its lifetime. The stock market statement was just a simple comparison on returns. I was mostly concerned that my calculation of the EROEI of the panels was too high.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
A 2015 review in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews assessed the energy payback time and EROI of solar photovoltaics. In this study, which uses an insolation of 1700/kWh/m²/yr and a system lifetime of 30 years, mean harmonized EROIs between 8.7 and 34.2 were found.

I don't understand where they get the "1700" number.

Solar panels are commonly 15% efficient with 1000 watts/m^2 input, which means they have an output of 0.15 kw/m^2.

1700 kwh/(m^2 yr) = 11,333 hours/year
0.15 kw/(m^2)

There are only 8766 hours in a year.

Unless they are not including panel efficiency.
But then their number is too low.

Though, their EROEI of 34.2 sounds reasonably in the ballpark to my figure, so I'll take that as confirmation that my maths wasn't boogered.
34.2 actually sounds better than my number, as the only correction I did was to remove 2 hours of daylight, to account for the low sun after sunrise, and before sunset. I did not factor in the angle of the sun.
I decided not to, as if I did that, then I should add in which parts of the day are cloudier. Being so close to the west coast, we generally have morning clouds, which burn off in the afternoon.

hmmmmm...
(google google google)
Ah ha!
According to this website, average insolation in San Diego is only 6 kwh/(m^2 day)
I had it at 8.
6/8 * 50 = 37.5 EROEI ≈ 34.2
Well there you go then.

 

[Ken Fabos]

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

I see no reason to expect R&D applied to nuclear will produce superior results but when applied to renewables and storage it won't or can't. Given the expected growth of RE, priority support for R&D to improve our storage options looks reasonable and appropriate - and to some extent that is what we are now seeing, with a large slice of that financed by companies. Searching for the Big Breakthrough is admirable and whatever our technology choices, we will rely on ongoing innovation to make what we do keep getting better. The Big Breakthroughs are another matter.

We can all hold out hopes for our preferred Big Breakthrough possibilities; I personally am keen to see more serious work done to develop nantenna aka optical rectenna technology, where a single, already identified technological gap (fast enough diodes), if bridged could deliver a superior alternative to PV, one that can deliver energy day or night, cloudy or clear and potentially be able to turn low grade radiant heat directly into DC. That could enable new kind of very simple thermal electric storage as well as energy production.

 

[mfb]

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

Who claims that?

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

 

[Ken Fabos]

Who claims that?

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile I suggest that RE is competitive now...

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

 

[mfb]

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

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

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

 

[CWatters]

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

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

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

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

 

[CWatters]

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

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

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

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

EPR Flamanville is a trainwreck too.

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[mfb]

However wind and solar now appear to be cheaper.

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

Here are results for PV, year over year:

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

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

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

 

[nikkkom]

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

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

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

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

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

 

[mfb]

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

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

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