Solar will soon be cheaper than coal fueled power

[SimpleDon]

Solar will soon be cheaper than coal fueled power

Environmental and liberal web sites have been buzzing with the good news that photovoltaic solar power will soon be cheaper than electrical power from coal fired generation in life cycle costs. Solar thermal power, mirrors concentrating sunlight on a boiler, and wind power already are cheaper than coal.

This good news for the battle against the biggest problem that we face today, human caused climate change from carbon emissions. A problem that a large segment of the population doesn't even accept. This technical advancement means that one of the main arguments climate change deniers have, that it will bankrupt us to try to prevent climate change, is gone, right?

Unfortunately, this is not true. Solar and wind power are not going to be able to meet our needs for electrical power in the foreseeable future. Neither can replace coal.

Don't get me wrong. These alternative power sources can play a big role in slowing climate change. But they can't replace coal fired generation and using them will cost much more than this article implies.

The problem is simple, night, when the sun isn't shining. Well, not just the nighttime, early and late in the day solar cells don't produce their full capacity because the sun is too low in the sky. And then there is the problem of clouds, days that are overcast. Let's say that solar arrays produce power 8 hours a day. (This is generous, for most of the US an annual average is more like 5 to 6 hours.)

What do we do for the other 16 hours when the solar panels aren't producing power? Currently we burn coal. Or uranium or natural gas or let water from behind dams. In other words we do what we do now, which is heating the planet.

What about batteries? Isn't technology going to produce a cheaper battery soon that will solve this problem too?

No, sorry. Tesla is trying to build a state of the art battery factory combining the latest battery technology with the best in an automated, economies of scale maximizing factory. People who understand these things think that Tesla is trying to produce batteries in the $100 a kilowatt hour cost to produce range. It is currently more than twice that. (I pay $15 for a lithium ferrous phosphate battery, LiFePO4, with 12 amp hours of storage at 3.2 volts DC. This is,

(1000 watts per kW × $12) ÷ (3.2 volts × 12 amp hr) = $312.50 per kilowatt hour.

I need a battery in the 6 kWh range for a wheelchair.)

To put this in some perspective, a kilowatt hour of electrical energy is about 10¢ of electricity. It is not economical to spend $100 to store 10¢ of energy. But that isn't the end of the bad economics. If you need 10 megawatts of power to power your small town you will need a bare minimum of 30 megawatts worth of solar cells. Remember, they only generate for 8 hours a day. And you will need a minimum of 20 mW × 16 hours a day worth of batteries costing 32 million dollars.

And the bad news doesn't end even there. Batteries have a limited lifetime. Tesla is hoping to get a lifetime of about 2000 charges per battery up from today's 1000. In other words you would have to replace the batteries every three to six years.

The only technology that we have now and in time that is left to replace our carbon emitting generating plants and to provide new capacity for growth is nuclear. Unlike solar and wind they can generate 24/7. You only need 10 mW of capacity to replace 10 mW of coal generation. We would be better off to spend our time solving the relatively easy to solve problems with nuclear power than to devote extensive research to trying to turn solar into something that it can never be, reliable base generation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, sorry. Tesla is trying to build a state of the art battery factory combining the latest battery technology with the best in an automated, economies of scale maximizing factory. People who understand these things think that Tesla is trying to produce batteries in the $100 a kilowatt hour cost to produce range. It is currently more than twice that. (I pay $15 for a lithium ferrous phosphate battery, LiFePO4, with 12 amp hours of storage at 3.2 volts DC. This is,

(1000 watts per kW × $12) ÷ (3.2 volts × 12 amp hr) = $312.50 per kilowatt hour.

I need a battery in the 6 kWh range for a wheelchair.)

To put this in some perspective, a kilowatt hour of electrical energy is about 10¢ of electricity. It is not economical to spend $100 to store 10¢ of energy. But that isn't the end of the bad economics. If you need 10 megawatts of power to power your small town you will need a bare minimum of 30 megawatts worth of solar cells. Remember, they only generate for 8 hours a day. And you will need a minimum of 20 mW × 16 hours a day worth of batteries costing 32 million dollars.

And the bad news doesn't end even there. Batteries have a limited lifetime. Tesla is hoping to get a lifetime of about 2000 charges per battery up from today's 1000. In other words you would have to replace the batteries every three to six years.

Yup. Battery economics stink.

Lets look at those numbers a bit: 1000 lifetime cycles. 10¢ of electricity needs $100 of battery to store it--that's 1000x. Thus the battery alone costs you 10¢ per kwh even if you didn't have to pay anything for the power you are using to charge it.


In practice solar can cut the fuel used by oil and gas plants and it's good for industrial situations where they can run the machinery when the sun shines. Beyond that it makes no sense other than for off-grid use.

 

[NobleSavage]

What are the economics of pumped hydro like?

 

[bilby]

No, sorry. Tesla is trying to build a state of the art battery factory combining the latest battery technology with the best in an automated, economies of scale maximizing factory. People who understand these things think that Tesla is trying to produce batteries in the $100 a kilowatt hour cost to produce range. It is currently more than twice that. (I pay $15 for a lithium ferrous phosphate battery, LiFePO4, with 12 amp hours of storage at 3.2 volts DC. This is,

(1000 watts per kW × $12) ÷ (3.2 volts × 12 amp hr) = $312.50 per kilowatt hour.

I need a battery in the 6 kWh range for a wheelchair.)

To put this in some perspective, a kilowatt hour of electrical energy is about 10¢ of electricity. It is not economical to spend $100 to store 10¢ of energy. But that isn't the end of the bad economics. If you need 10 megawatts of power to power your small town you will need a bare minimum of 30 megawatts worth of solar cells. Remember, they only generate for 8 hours a day. And you will need a minimum of 20 mW × 16 hours a day worth of batteries costing 32 million dollars.

And the bad news doesn't end even there. Batteries have a limited lifetime. Tesla is hoping to get a lifetime of about 2000 charges per battery up from today's 1000. In other words you would have to replace the batteries every three to six years.

Yup. Battery economics stink.

Lets look at those numbers a bit: 1000 lifetime cycles. 10¢ of electricity needs $100 of battery to store it--that's 1000x. Thus the battery alone costs you 10¢ per kwh even if you didn't have to pay anything for the power you are using to charge it.


In practice solar can cut the fuel used by oil and gas plants and it's good for industrial situations where they can run the machinery when the sun shines. Beyond that it makes no sense other than for off-grid use.

There is nothing wrong with using solar power to reduce the daytime/summertime peaks in demand for air-conditioning and refrigeration in warm and hot climates. It also makes sense, even in temperate climates, to supplement the heating of water for domestic use with direct solar heating - in the topics and sub-tropics this can almost completely eliminate the demand for electricity or gas to generate domestic hot water; An insulated tank can keep the water sufficiently hot overnight to make this a good option.

In the long term, I can foresee HVDC intercontinental links, allowing solar power from the daylight side of the planet to be supplied to the nighttime side; this seems like it is going to be a cheaper option than local battery storage, although either is likely to be pretty expensive.

In the meantime, using nuclear fission to fill the gap is a no-brainer. Sadly, the people influencing the decisions seem determined to use no brains; they see the very small, localised risks of a fairly unpleasant nuclear accident as outweighing the massive non-accidental global disaster that they unwittingly support every time they oppose the expansion of nuclear fission.

By lobbying against nuclear power, the environmentalist movement have placed themselves amongst the most effective supporters of continued burning of coal on the planet. It would be hilarious if I didn't live here.

 

[bilby]

What are the economics of pumped hydro like?

Not too bad; but the number of suitable sites is not that great. There are pretty obvious reasons why pumped hydro won't ever catch on in Kansas, for example. Pumped storage is good for smoothing the peaks, but it can't supply the 60-odd% of base load while you wait for the sun to come back around the planet.

The problem is that gravity is weedy as fuck. Even a whole planet worth of mass doesn't provide much potential energy to millions of tonnes of water lifted a few hundred metres. And sites with two lakes (or sites suitable for damming), separated by hundreds of metres in elevation, but close together as-the-crow-flies, are just not that common.

 

[bilby]

Of course, the anti-nuclear lobby might be doing us all a favour:

 

[ZiprHead]

There a company here selling 1000 watt starter solar kits for a little over $1800. Four panels, each with built in inverters, and mounting hardware. Easily expandable, just add another panel and plug it into the already installed panel array. You'd still have to pay for the wiring to your home wiring and grounding system.

 

[barbos]

Batteries will improve and lithium-ion is not necessarily best fit for storing electricity at night.
Lithium-Ion has high energy density which is what needed for cars and other cases where weight is a factor.
Weight is not a factor for night storage.
Nukes are baseload therefore are not mutually exclusive with solar which coincides with demand (A/C and such) rather well.
People advocating nukes forget that nukes are very long term projects, if you build one now be prepared to live with it for the next 30 years, and chances are, in 10-15 years we will have very decent storage for solar electricity and nukes would have to be expensively shutdown.

 

[bilby]

Batteries will improve and lithium-ion is not necessarily best fit for storing electricity at night.
Lithium-Ion has high energy density which is what needed for cars and other cases where weight is a factor.
Weight is not a factor for night storage.
Nukes are baseload therefore are not mutually exclusive with solar which coincides with demand (A/C and such) rather well.
People advocating nukes forget that nukes are very long term projects, if you build one now be prepared to live with it for the next 30 years, and chances are, in 10-15 years we will have very decent storage for solar electricity and nukes would have to be expensively shutdown.

Yeah, that's what they said 30 years ago too.

 

[barbos]

Batteries will improve and lithium-ion is not necessarily best fit for storing electricity at night.
Lithium-Ion has high energy density which is what needed for cars and other cases where weight is a factor.
Weight is not a factor for night storage.
Nukes are baseload therefore are not mutually exclusive with solar which coincides with demand (A/C and such) rather well.
People advocating nukes forget that nukes are very long term projects, if you build one now be prepared to live with it for the next 30 years, and chances are, in 10-15 years we will have very decent storage for solar electricity and nukes would have to be expensively shutdown.

Yeah, that's what they said 30 years ago too.

I don't recall them saying that 30 years ago.

 

[dismal]

First, if solar is about to become cheaper than fossil fuels on a wholesale basis this is great and we need do nothing except immediately stop subsidizing solar so much.

Second, 24-7 wholesale power in Ercot currently costs about 3 or 4 cents per kWh.

 

[Hickdive]

What are the economics of pumped hydro like?

You still need base load electricity to pump and no system is ever 100% efficient so you lose energy every step of the way.

 

[Hickdive]

The unpalatable (for many) truth is that nuclear power is still the best option for cutting CO2 emissions in the long term.

We should be researching newer, safer reactor designs such as thorium and pebble bed. However government funds that could be directed at these projects are currently being frittered away on solar and wind subsidies.

 

[lpetrich]

First, if solar is about to become cheaper than fossil fuels on a wholesale basis this is great and we need do nothing except immediately stop subsidizing solar so much.

While continuing to subsidize fossil fuels or subsidizing them even more, right? But I agree that subsidies for renewable energy ought to be phased out as their performance improves. Here are some of the political friends of fossil fuels defending subsidies of them:

Energy in the Election | The Middlebury Campus (Oct 10, 2012)

Yet while Romney has voiced his intention to let wind and solar subsidies expire if elected, he simultaneously defends fossil fuel subsidies and tax breaks preventing market control. Energy subsidies give certain energy sources advantages over others regardless of supply and demand, often with disastrous results. Free markets have long been a conservative ideal, so why does Obama’s criticism that “the oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare,” put Romney on defense?

Romney’s pledge to subsidize and support coal mining would both harm energy markets and fail to sustain the dying industry. While coal made America strong, the industry is no longer profitable or competitive due to low natural gas prices. Romney’s subsidies and tax deductions for coal mining, coupled with his vow to roll back environmental regulations, will merely waste taxpayer dollars on funding ecological destruction.

Newt Gingrich isn’t pro-market, he’s pro-business | Grist (Jul 2, 2010)

A recent report from the International Energy Agency revealed a stunning fact: Worldwide, fossil-fuel energy corporations receive $550 billion a year in subsidies. Another report found that between 2002 and 2008, American taxpayers alone lavished $72.5 billion on fossil-fuel subsidies, and that’s not counting implicit subsidies like military deployments to defend energy supplies, health costs from respiratory and circulatory ailments caused by fuel combustion, ecological damage like in the Gulf of Mexico, and damage from climate change. This massive interference in global energy markets by heavy-handed government bureaucrats ought to offend proponents of free-market capitalism or small-government conservatism. It’s tantamount to corporate socialism.

Yet Gingrich and his acolyte defend these subsidies. Why? Says Gingrich, “a low-cost energy regime is essential to our country.”

Republican Congressman to Oil and Gas Industry: ‘No More Subsidies’ : Greentech Media (Feb 28, 2014)

Renewable energy advocates always envisioned subsidies simply as a way to kick-start an industry until it reaches the scale necessary to phase out this government welfare. Apparently, API never had a plan to wean itself off of subsidies.

Referring to the American Petroleum Institute.

Subsidies are necessary in the incubation phase, but oil is a “mature” industry, and renewable energy technologies like ethanol, wind and solar are “proven and established” industries. As industries prove and establish themselves, and then mature, subsidies should be retired. So now is the time to end permanent federal subsidies for oil drilling and phase out subsidies for solar and wind technologies.

 

[lpetrich]

Tesla's Next Big Product Is Coming On April 30: Batteries

When Elon Musk makes his next big announcement later this month he won’t be joined by an electric car or a space-bound capsule. Tesla will finally be passing along details on its long-awaited batteries designed for home use, plus a “utility-scale” battery as well—both of which will likely be manufactured in its new Gigafactory in Nevada.

What's it good for?
Tesla's New Battery Could Solve One of Solar Power's Biggest Problems

A New York Times article published earlier this week essentially sets up the problem that Tesla’s battery will solve. In Hawaii, 12 percent of homes have some kind of solar energy, by far the highest rate for any place in the US at the moment. In fact, that rate is growing too quickly—solar customers are dumping so much energy back onto the grid that they’re taxing the delicate and often aging infrastructure that was only designed to deliver power to homes. What’s happening in Hawaii is actually indicative of what’s going to be an issue everywhere as many cities start to see an increase in large-scale solar implementation: There’s going to be too much energy generated, and nowhere to put it.

That article: Solar Power Battle Puts Hawaii at Forefront of Worldwide Changes - NYTimes.com

Installers — who saw their fast-growing businesses slow to a trickle — are also frustrated with the pace. For those who can afford it, said James Whitcomb, chief executive of Haleakala Solar, which he started in 1977, the answer may lie in a more radical solution: Avoid the utility and its grid altogether.

Customers are increasingly asking about the batteries that he often puts in along with the solar panels, allowing them to store the power they generate during the day for use at night. It is more expensive, but it breaks consumer reliance on the utility’s network of power lines.

“I’ve actually taken people right off the grid,” he said, including a couple who got tired of waiting for Hawaiian Electric to approve their solar system and expressed no interest in returning to utility service. “The lumbering big utilities that are so used to taking three months to study this and then six months to do that — what they don’t understand is that things are moving at the speed of business. Like with digital photography — this is inevitable.”

A nightmare for many electric-power companies: customers seceding from the grid.

 

[bigfield]

As far as grid power is concerned, molten salt could provide the energy storage requirements necessary for turning solar and wind into a base load power supply.

As far as residential electricity is concerned, the potential for independent power generation and storage is exciting news.

 

[lpetrich]

Here's a linkfest of renewable-energy news:
Cleantech News — Solar, Wind, EV News (#1 Source) | CleanTechnica
Renewable Energy World - Renewable Energy News, Jobs, Events, Companies, and more
Alternative Energy News
Green Technology | Cleantech and Renewable Energy News and Analysis
Renewable Energy News - Bloomberg
Renewable energy | Environment | The Guardian
Green Energy: Pictures, Videos, Breaking News

What they don't discuss does take a lot of reading to discover, but it's revealing. No good renewable synfuels technology now exists, so petroleum groupies can rest easy -- at least for the next few years. But renewable-source electricity generation has been growing dramatically, despite various problems with the sources.

 

[Togo]

Don, a fascinating argument. I've just changed a few words below:


Unfortunately, this is not true. Nuclear is not going to be able to meet our needs for electrical power in the foreseeable future. It can't replace solar and wind.

Don't get me wrong. This alternative power source can play a big role in slowing climate change. But it can't replace solar and wind generation and using it will cost much more than Don implies.

The problem is simple. We don't consume power smoothly. Demand has vast spikes and troughs. Nuclear power runs all the time, whether you use the power or not. In order to get a situation where you can use the full capacity of a nuclear plant, you're relying heavily on other sources of power. Or you could build massive overcapacity, with all those plants using fuel 24/7 while not producing power.

So when are these peaks? Well nighttime is the classic trough of minimal power useage. Most people are asleep after all. That's why electricty companies spend so much time and energy trying to pursuade people to heat water at night for use when the sun comes up. Daytime is peak time - it's when you need the power, particularly in areas where air-conditioning is used. There's a smaller peak in early evening, when people cook the evening meal, or heat up homes left empty during the day. By massive coincidence, that's the same time that wind power is most reliable, as the land cools down at variable rates and produces reliable wind power whatever the overall weather conditions might be. So the main demand for power comes during periods of peak sunshine and peak wind.

Never mind that in Don's account a 12-hour day has mysteriously turned into 5 or 6 hours, or that we've somehow ended up with solar panels that stop working when it's cloudy. Never mind that Don's wind power somehow only functions when the sun is shining, or when the weather is right, rather than relying on the heating and cooling patterns of the local landscape. Never mind that the specific heat capacity of rock relative to water isn't something you can rely on anymore. The best approach is clearly to build nuclear plants when most will only be used a fraction of the time.

But wait, what about batteries? Can't nuclear plants use them to smooth the peaks and troughs and reduce the number of plants needed down to something vaguely sane?

Unfortunately not. Some highly questionable mathematics shows quite clearly that's it's uneconomical. Apparently the only battery technology we can rely on costs about 100$ and is fitted to a wheelchair. I mean yes, electric cars are becoming commercially available, but we don't talk about that.

No, the only technology we have now and in time to replace coal is solar and wind. Because unlike nuclear they aren't stuck running 24/7, but instead duplicate the easy switching of coal. We're better off now spending money on shaping demand and smoothing power generation than on trying to make nuclear something it can never be - a suitable solution for the bulk of our power needs.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How about harnessing the energy from fitness clubs and gyms? Could those places power their own lighting needs by doing that and storing in batteries?

 

[lpetrich]

How about harnessing the energy from fitness clubs and gyms? Could those places power their own lighting needs by doing that and storing in batteries?

Work out the numbers. 2000 food calories a day is about 100 watts. From  Muscle, the energy efficiency of human muscle is about 18% to 26%. That gives something like 20 watts averaged over a whole day. Enough to power a lightbulb, but not much more.  Human power -- it's possible to get more mechanical-energy output in bursts. Some numbers:

A trained cyclist can produce about 400 watts of mechanical power for an hour or more, but adults of good average fitness average between 50 and 150 watts for an hour of vigorous exercise. A healthy well-fed laborer over the course of an 8-hour work shift can sustain an average output of about 75 watts.