• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Solar will soon be cheaper than coal fueled power

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.

Solar has a place in the mix of the nation's power generation but today it is solely to reduce carbon emissions. It and wind are too intermittent to serve for base power generation and really don't provide reliable peak power generation. The result is that it is not economical because in requires 100% back up from traditional sources. For this reason it will continue to need subsidies even if its cost per kWh drops below the cost for coal. This is reasonable, the carbon that was put into the oceans and the air generating low cost power benefited society as a whole, not just the power generation industry.
 
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.


I have seven panels now on my roof averaging about 220 watts each. Because of the orientation of my house they are pointed southeast (~148°) which means that they have a morning bias, they produce peak power from the morning to the middle of the afternoon. I have a great roof 90° from that one to generate in the afternoon but It is above my side entry garage but Mrs. SimpleDon doesn't want to have panels visible from the street.

I originally had individual inverters on my first two panels. One failed and since then I have cabled the unregulated DC to two larger invertors in the closet in my garage. There are pros and cons to each method but if you want batteries then you want to avoid the dual losses of DC to AC at the panels and then AC to DC at the batteries. Also the temperatures on the roof can reach 40° C in the summer. The garage closet never gets above 30°. The inverters are rated for 45°. Lower is better. The panels are rated for 60 to 85°, why use inverters rated at only 45°? Like everything you get what you pay for, you can buy better inverters, more efficient and rated for higher temperatures but most likely you won't. When I installed the first panels myself I bought directly from China the cheaper components, since I have had to pay to install them I tend to buy better quality. But most installers that have to bid competitively will bid with lower quality components.

Did you ever replace the suicide plugs with a proper switchover unit?

- - - Updated - - -

Very little. Solar is viable here in the UK, where the sky is covered in clouds from horizon to horizon, for most of the year.

Unless you give the utility company a way to shut off everybody's ACs when the sun goes behind the cloud the solar adds very little to the system. The nuke plant can't throttle up/down quickly enough to meet the demand, thus it's going to have to be throttled up to meet the load anyway and the solar adds almost nothing.

Why not have extra solar rather than extra nuclear, since it throttles better? And what does the nuclear solution do when demand changes, as it tends to every minute of every day?

Solar doesn't throttle at all, it just wastes the power if there's nothing to do with it. And extra solar does no good at night--you need the nuke plant then.

As for what happens when the demand changes: The usual answer is oil or natural gas plants to deal with the swings in demand. If all you have is nuke you have to leave the throttle set high and simply waste the power.
 
No, I don't think that we will have decent storage options in 10 to 15 years. If you can't name the technology it probably can't be in widespread use in 10 to 15 years.

Exactly. It's almost unheard of to see a technology widely used that wasn't at least in the lab 10 years ago.

Look at the Tesla battery. I told you that they were most probably shooting for a cost of production of $100 a kWh, down from say $250 today for the LiFePO4 batteries, the best in production and use now. We don't know if they can do it.

Also, I didn't include a section that I wrote, because my posts are longer than most people are willing to read already. In it I pointed out even if Tesla could reduce that $250 number by ten times the battery technology would still be too expensive. A change of this magnitude in 10 to 15 years is utterly impossible. The 2.5 times reduction that they are trying to get now is most probably wishful thinking.

If the cost could be cut 10x that would get the lifecycle storage costs down to around 1 cent/kwh--a number that I think would be economically viable.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

"The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-ending-nuclear-power-has-contributed-to-reducing-carbon-dioxide-co2/5329583

That's a crackpot site.
 
Forget batteries. Batteries suck and they will always suck. The future for our energy is flywheel storage and solar/wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Flywheel storage lasts forever. It is something we can learn to mass produce cheap.

Check the discharge rates.

There's also the problem that a flywheel system can catastrophically liberate the energy if something goes badly wrong.
 
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.

Pumped storage systems are used to shift low cost base power to peak power times. They aren't designed to handle unplanned short term swings in load or generation. They allow utilities to build smaller baseload generation facilities, not to follow load peaks. I don't think that they would be especially good at storing energy from wind and solar power.

Pumped storage systems are only about 70 to 80% efficient. They only return 70 to 80% of the power put into them. This is because of mechanical and electrical loses. The same turbine is used to pump and to generate the power. The generator is turned into a motor to pump. There are subtle inefficiencies in using the same machines to do both pumping and generating.

You can only build one in mountains and it is far better if you don't have to build the impound, the dam and the lake. If you can find one then the cost to build is in the ~$2500 a kW range. if you have to build the impound count on ~$5,200 a kW. The cost to build a coal fired generating plant is ~$3000 a kW and photovoltaic solar is about ~$4,200 a kW. Nuclear plants are ~$5,500 a kW. Solar thermal is ~$5,000 a kW. Numbers rounded from the EIA, 2012 estimates. See here - pdf.

The biggest problem that you will face is who will pay for the pumped storage system. The power company doesn't have a financial interest in building it if the solar power is from home and commercial rooftops installations like mine. In fact, they will lose money because of it.
 
Forget batteries. Batteries suck and they will always suck. The future for our energy is flywheel storage and solar/wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Flywheel storage lasts forever. It is something we can learn to mass produce cheap.
Flywheels suck because they don't hold energy for more than few hours and they are surprisingly expensive.

But you correctly identified the problem of batteries, it's the fact that they don't (usually) last forever. In any case Flow batteries last practically forever, same with molten salt batteries. And they are actually used in storage already, we need some drop in price before it becomes cheaper. Even conventional chemical batteries like Lead acid don't have to last only few years.
 
There's no battery on the horizon that's suitable.
Not true, as I said, molten salt batteries are commercially used on the grid in few places. They last 25 years,
As for solar + nuke: What happens when the sun goes behind a cloud?
clouds over all deserts in the country at once?
But if that happens, everybody gets a holiday and stay at home.
Unless you give the utility company a way to shut off everybody's ACs
when the sun goes behind the cloud the solar adds very little to the system. The nuke plant can't throttle up/down quickly enough to meet the demand, thus it's going to have to be throttled up to meet the load anyway and the solar adds almost nothing.
Again, A/C is most needed when Sun is shining. That's what I meant when I said Solar coincide with demand rather well.
 
Solar has a place in the mix of the nation's power generation but today it is solely to reduce carbon emissions. It and wind are too intermittent to serve for base power generation and really don't provide reliable peak power generation. The result is that it is not economical because in requires 100% back up from traditional sources.

Source please?


I keep seeing these weird claims that solar is stopped cold by a passing cloud. You realise that solar is used in countries in which seeing the sky is an unusual event, occurring maybe once or twice a week?
 
"The energy put into mining, processing, and shipping uranium, plant construction, operation, and decommissioning is roughly equal to the energy a nuclear plant can produce in its lifetime. In other words, nuclear energy does not add any net energy."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/germany-ending-nuclear-power-has-contributed-to-reducing-carbon-dioxide-co2/5329583

That's a crackpot site.

It's a simple concept and has been noted here by others in this thread.

As Thomas Homer-Dixon, director of the Trudeau Center for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Toronto, notes:


A better measure of the cost of oil, or any energy source, is the amount of energy required to produce it. Just as we evaluate a financial investment by comparing the size of the return with the size of the original expenditure, we can evaluate any project that generates energy by dividing the amount of energy the project produces by the amount it consumes.

Economists and physicists call this quantity the “energy return on investment” or E.R.O.I. For a modern coal mine, for instance, we divide the useful energy in the coal that the mine produces by the total of all the energy needed to dig the coal from the ground and prepare it for burning – including the energy in the diesel fuel that powers the jackhammers, shovels and off-road dump trucks, the energy in the electricity that runs the machines that crush and sort the coal, as well as all the energy needed to build and maintain these machines.

As the average E.R.O.I. of an economy’s energy sources drops toward 1 to 1, an ever-larger fraction of the economy’s wealth must go to finding and producing energy. This means less wealth is left over for everything else that needs to be done, from building houses to moving around information to educating children. The energy return on investment for conventional oil, which provides about 40 percent of the world’s commercial energy and more than 95 percent of America’s transportation energy, has been falling for decades. The trend is most advanced in United States production, where petroleum resources have been exploited the longest and drillers have been forced to look for ever-smaller and ever-deeper pools of oil.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/04/its-not-just-alternative-energy-versus-fossil-fuels-or-nuclear-energy-has-to-become-decentralized.html
 
While continuing to subsidize fossil fuels or subsidizing them even more, right?

Wrong. We should get rid of the massive coal subsidies too. If they exist.

I wasn't aware of any. Did Obama just make some up?
 
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.

Solar has a place in the mix of the nation's power generation but today it is solely to reduce carbon emissions.

Solar has a place and that is for people who are ignorant of the costs they are imposing on society to feel good about themselves.

In terms of actually producing energy it's a mole on a gnats ass.

Check that, it probably also makes sense in grid-remote locations where power demand is minimal. Like a highway callbox in the Arizona desert.
 
Forget batteries. Batteries suck and they will always suck. The future for our energy is flywheel storage and solar/wind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

Flywheel storage lasts forever. It is something we can learn to mass produce cheap.
Flywheels suck because they don't hold energy for more than few hours and they are surprisingly expensive.

But you correctly identified the problem of batteries, it's the fact that they don't (usually) last forever. In any case Flow batteries last practically forever, same with molten salt batteries. And they are actually used in storage already, we need some drop in price before it becomes cheaper. Even conventional chemical batteries like Lead acid don't have to last only few years.

Yeah, I did some snooping on flywheel-based UPS systems. The runtimes are very short--the use case (and it makes sense) is to absorb the very short outages and not draw anything from the batteries--thus prolonging their life. I've got a UPS system on this machine--and the typical outage lasts a fraction of a second. The sort of thing that tends to reboot your computer but the lights don't even go dark.
 
Not true, as I said, molten salt batteries are commercially used on the grid in few places. They last 25 years,
As for solar + nuke: What happens when the sun goes behind a cloud?
clouds over all deserts in the country at once?
But if that happens, everybody gets a holiday and stay at home.
Unless you give the utility company a way to shut off everybody's ACs
when the sun goes behind the cloud the solar adds very little to the system. The nuke plant can't throttle up/down quickly enough to meet the demand, thus it's going to have to be throttled up to meet the load anyway and the solar adds almost nothing.
Again, A/C is most needed when Sun is shining. That's what I meant when I said Solar coincide with demand rather well.

What you are missing is the time scale. The power production changes much faster than the power demand.
 
Its a simple concept. But you still have to make the correct calculations.

True, so can you point to the calculations that prove the statement that started this point of the discussion is wrong?
 
Solar has a place in the mix of the nation's power generation but today it is solely to reduce carbon emissions. It and wind are too intermittent to serve for base power generation and really don't provide reliable peak power generation. The result is that it is not economical because in requires 100% back up from traditional sources.

Source please?


I keep seeing these weird claims that solar is stopped cold by a passing cloud. You realise that solar is used in countries in which seeing the sky is an unusual event, occurring maybe once or twice a week?

Nobody has claimed it's stopped cold. It's just the power production drops considerably.

I don't have any good data on power production when it goes behind clouds but we can get a decent back of the envelope from photography:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value

A typical shot in full sun: EV15.
Hazy sunlight (fuzzy shadows): EV14.
Cloudy bright (no shadows): EV13.

Note that exposure value is a log scale--each step represents a doubling of the light.

Thus a cloud that means you don't have shadows cut the power generation by roughly 75%.
 

Which gives a value of approximately 6 for the EROI on nuke. Not 1.

- - - Updated - - -

Solar has a place in the mix of the nation's power generation but today it is solely to reduce carbon emissions.

Solar has a place and that is for people who are ignorant of the costs they are imposing on society to feel good about themselves.

In terms of actually producing energy it's a mole on a gnats ass.

Check that, it probably also makes sense in grid-remote locations where power demand is minimal. Like a highway callbox in the Arizona desert.

Around here there are a lot of solar-powered installations along the highway in the desert--not simply call boxes but things which actively use power like lighted billboards and various towers that I think are transmitters of some kind.
 
Back
Top Bottom