The quiet rise of solar power — and the financial problem that could arise

[Nice Squirrel]

Death to air conditioning. I never even put mine in the window this year.

 

[ksen]

I never even turn mine off because fuck my grandkids.

 

[dismal]

An article on pumped storage hydro in the US:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11991

In 2011, pumped storage plants produced 23 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of gross generation—roughly as much as petroleum-fired generation in that year. Pumped storage plants, however, consumed 29 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity in 2011 to refill their storage reservoirs, resulting in a net generation loss of 6 billion kWh.

To put this in perspective, total us generation in 2011 was about 4.1 billion MWh (or 4100 billion kWH if I have the math right).

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An article on pumped storage hydro in the US:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11991

In 2011, pumped storage plants produced 23 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of gross generation—roughly as much as petroleum-fired generation in that year. Pumped storage plants, however, consumed 29 billion kilowatthours (kWh) of electricity in 2011 to refill their storage reservoirs, resulting in a net generation loss of 6 billion kWh.

To put this in perspective, total us generation in 2011 was about 4.1 billion MWh (or 4100 billion kWH if I have the math right).

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data...echart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

30% loss on energy, sounds about right. But the emissions are 17 billion kWh worse less overall. And we are talking massive freshwater fish buffet every day!

 

[Sarpedon]

Death to air conditioning. I never even put mine in the window this year.

It was unusually cool this year.

 

[dismal]

An article on pumped storage hydro in the US:

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11991



To put this in perspective, total us generation in 2011 was about 4.1 billion MWh (or 4100 billion kWH if I have the math right).

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data...inechart<ype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=

30% loss on energy, sounds about right. But the emissions are 17 billion kWh worse less overall. And we are talking massive freshwater fish buffet every day!

I'm not sure how you got that part about emissions being less. It would depend entirely on what technology was used at the margin to run the pumps and what technology was displaced when the water was dropped.

If the technology was the same then the emissions would go up 30%.

If you used coal to back out gas the result would be even worse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

30% loss on energy, sounds about right. But the emissions are 17 billion kWh worse less overall. And we are talking massive freshwater fish buffet every day!

I'm not sure how you got that part about emissions being less.

You are right. If a plant were to cover the peak amount, that'd be 6 kWh less in emissions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it more costly to produce at certain times? A kwH is a kwH isn't it?

No. There's a wide variation in the cost of production of that kwh depending on the circumstances.

Consider a nuclear plant. The plant is very expensive, the fuel is very cheap. It costs almost nothing to raise the output from 10% to 100%. Furthermore, nuclear plants come with a very slow throttle. You have to heat that whole reactor core before they can produce more power, that takes time. (And the reverse is also true, they turn down very slowly.)

Now, consider the opposite extreme, an internal combustion engine. (Not that they are actually used for large scale power generation.) Step on the throttle and it produces more power very quickly indeed--the main reason the internal combustion engine beat the steam engine for powering cars. The fuel cost is substantial, though.

If you plot these on a scale you'll find that most commercial sources of power fall on this range--varying from high capital/low running cost/slow throttle to low capital/high running cost/fast throttle. Anything above this line is trumped and therefore not used on any appreciable scale. Nothing exists below this line except special-purpose situations (the only big example being hydro. Everything below the line is dependent on some limited resource like dammable rivers for hydro.)

The result is there are two basic types of power: baseline and peak.

Baseline power comes from nuke plants/hydro plants/coal plants. Nuke and hydro cost virtually nothing to run, coal is cheap compared to other sources of power. All take substantial time to throttle up or down. Such power is comparatively cheap.

On top of this there is the peak power. This comes from oil & gas plants, it's something like twice as expensive as the baseline power or even higher.

On top of this we add the solar and wind power. Both are erratic which means you can't count on them unless you have a lot of generators spread over a large area. Thus you need generators available to pick up the load if the renewables go offline.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Solar is better than wind in that it better tracks with demand. I.e. there is much more demand during the day than at night and AC loads are higher on sunny days. But backup and storage are still going to be needed.
Large flow batteries operated by utilities (paid for by grid fee and spread on buying/selling power) or solar hydrogen generation (for example by using the new perovskite cells) are two possible solutions to the intermittency/storage problem.

I have now seven solar panels on my backyard roof and plans for four more. That will be over 7 kW of panels. But I have no storage batteries specifically for the solar panels. The DC current from the panels is converted by a surprisingly efficient set of invertors into the 120 VAC current that is used in the house. Any load in the house that is on at the time will consume it. If there isn't enough loads to consume the solar power it goes onto the grid running my meter backwards. At night I consume power from the grid.

My panels are pointed to about 145° or about 35° to the east from due South. This gives them a morning to early afternoon bias, when here in the South you would prefer a peak generation in the mid to late afternoon. I want to put four panels on the roof of my garage that is aimed to the southwest and pitched well enough for afternoon, summer sun. But Mrs. Simple doesn't want the panels on the roof where they can be seen a little from the street above our side entry garage. But only a little bit. From the side. (I am practicing my arguments to her here.)

Did you ever put in a proper switch?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are many comments here that are basically justifying the status quo, including discriminatory legal structures!

And there are fascinating storage possibilities - pumping water up hill as at Dinorwic, charging car batteries, and various salts.

If you need to change a business model it is very good idea to prepare for it, not avoid it!

You think we haven't considered such things?

Pumping water uphill? That's called pumped hydro storage. It requires suitable terrain features and an adequate supply of water. (Hint: The places with the most sun tend to lack in the water department.) You'll lose a quarter of your power this way and note that this hydro power--with it's slow throttle. It's also quite capital intensive.

Charging car batteries? The cost per kwh is about $8.50. (Note: Article from 2011) That's 70 (edit: I originally fucked up the math and said 40) times what I'm paying for power from the grid. Why do you think off-grid houses are so obsessive about minimizing the draw from the batteries?

Salts? I'm not aware of anything that does much better than the lowly car battery.

You also missed:

Flywheel: High capital costs, high efficiency. The problem is the power doesn't last very well--the flywheel spins down in a matter of hours.

Superconducting ring: High capital costs, high efficiency. The problem is that you have to keep the whole thing extremely cold--the cooling costs are too high. Also, should it ever warm up too much all the stored energy is liberated nearly instantly. The same thing will happen should you overcharge it. I don't believe it's possible to avoid the destruction of the storage loop in this situation.


The closest thing I've seen to a good storage mechanism is solar thermal. Reflectors are used to heat a large mass of liquid which is used to run a conventional generator. This is still at the research stage and suffers an inherent problem of low efficiency.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The important point is that solar and wind are not even close to being base generation, the vast majority of the power that we need. They are simply just a way to generate some power without generating carbon dioxide.

There is no reasonable method for storing the large amounts of power that would be required to allow solar and wind to provide base power, not to mention that the total installed base of solar panels would have to be about three times the installed base power generation, with twice that number in storage capacity.

What is needed in the medium term 10 to 20 years is a zero carbon emitting, high density, central power generating method.

Fortunately we have such a technology available. Unfortunately for a lot of very bad reasons we are not using it. Nuclear power. It is trapped in an almost perfect storm of bad thinking from both the right and the left.

Unfortunately, it's got one big problem: Slow throttle.

If you want to run the entire country on nukes the plants have to be running at a level sufficient to cope with the peaks at all times. Any industrial firm that can make use of vast amounts of power with no say as to when it will be delivered would love it (my impression is that some electrolytic processes qualify) but it would mean the cost per kwh would go up substantially.

 

[Derec]

If you want to run the entire country on nukes the plants have to be running at a level sufficient to cope with the peaks at all times. Any industrial firm that can make use of vast amounts of power with no say as to when it will be delivered would love it (my impression is that some electrolytic processes qualify) but it would mean the cost per kwh would go up substantially.

Getting rid of coal fired base generation plants would do a lot since since coal emits a lot more CO₂ than gas. So even if you leave all the gas peakers in place you'd still have accomplished a great deal.
And utility size flow batteries, fed by renewables for example, can eventually eliminate the need for gas peakers also.

 

[bilby]

There are many comments here that are basically justifying the status quo, including discriminatory legal structures!

And there are fascinating storage possibilities - pumping water up hill as at Dinorwic, charging car batteries, and various salts.

If you need to change a business model it is very good idea to prepare for it, not avoid it!

You think we haven't considered such things?

Pumping water uphill? That's called pumped hydro storage. It requires suitable terrain features and an adequate supply of water. (Hint: The places with the most sun tend to lack in the water department.) You'll lose a quarter of your power this way and note that this hydro power--with it's slow throttle.

Wait, what?

Pumped storage hydro isn't 'slow throttle'. Dinorwig can go from zero to full power in about 16 seconds.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you want to run the entire country on nukes the plants have to be running at a level sufficient to cope with the peaks at all times. Any industrial firm that can make use of vast amounts of power with no say as to when it will be delivered would love it (my impression is that some electrolytic processes qualify) but it would mean the cost per kwh would go up substantially.

Getting rid of coal fired base generation plants would do a lot since since coal emits a lot more CO₂ than gas. So even if you leave all the gas peakers in place you'd still have accomplished a great deal.
And utility size flow batteries, fed by renewables for example, can eventually eliminate the need for gas peakers also.

And gas is a *LOT* more expensive than coal.

- - - Updated - - -

You think we haven't considered such things?

Pumping water uphill? That's called pumped hydro storage. It requires suitable terrain features and an adequate supply of water. (Hint: The places with the most sun tend to lack in the water department.) You'll lose a quarter of your power this way and note that this hydro power--with it's slow throttle.

Wait, what?

Pumped storage hydro isn't 'slow throttle'. Dinorwig can go from zero to full power in about 16 seconds.

It depends on the size. The bigger the plant the slower the throttle.

 

[Derec]

Getting rid of coal fired base generation plants would do a lot since since coal emits a lot more CO₂ than gas. So even if you leave all the gas peakers in place you'd still have accomplished a great deal.
And utility size flow batteries, fed by renewables for example, can eventually eliminate the need for gas peakers also.

And gas is a *LOT* more expensive than coal.

I didn't say replace coal plants with gas. By all means replace them with nukes, but you do not need to generate all the electricity with them (as in your scenario I was replying to) to see huge carbon savings. So even if all the existing gas plants remain online, simply getting rid of coal would reduce 74% of CO₂ emissions from electricity production in the US.

 

[barbos]

The state regulates the utility industry. What it can charge, whom it must serve.

The problem with solar is that the largely fixed cost of constructing and maintaining grid is currently amortized across units of power sold. People who maintain a grid connection but don't consume power are exploiting the model. They are free riding.

The common-sensical non-ideological solution to this would be to have a fixed grid charge and a variable power charge that is more in line with the marginal cost of power. If someone want to completely disconnect from the grid they can avoid the grid charge.

I can't think of any valid reason why anyone of any ideology would find this objectionable.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to cling to outdated system that does not serve its purpose in the modern world.

Ignorance and bias, I suppose.

Well, not quite. You described problem utilities are facing correctly but "Ignorance and bias" part is incorrect.
There is an obvious solution of fixed maintenance charge, but that's not what utilities are suggesting. They understand that fixed charge will not help a whole lot because people will go off-grid faster. Their solution is to make solar less attractive through direct taxing even the one which is off-grid.
Grid is dying and I think they will fail to save it, not in the current way.

 

[Earl IV]

The state regulates the utility industry. What it can charge, whom it must serve.

The problem with solar is that the largely fixed cost of constructing and maintaining grid is currently amortized across units of power sold. People who maintain a grid connection but don't consume power are exploiting the model. They are free riding.

The common-sensical non-ideological solution to this would be to have a fixed grid charge and a variable power charge that is more in line with the marginal cost of power. If someone want to completely disconnect from the grid they can avoid the grid charge.

I can't think of any valid reason why anyone of any ideology would find this objectionable.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to cling to outdated system that does not serve its purpose in the modern world.

Ignorance and bias, I suppose.

Looking at my electric bill, it appears I'm doing exactly what you describe (as I suspect most people are)

There's a service fee in addition to a usage fee.

Simple fix would be to increase service fees... and as they do more people will migrate to alternatives.

 

[Clivedurdle]

The comment about cogeneration is part of the way forward.

What is actually needed is a complete whole system review, including all possible sources of generation and how to mix and match them, all sources of demand and their efficiency, all possibilities for conservation.

Local energy plans are doing much of this.

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/ceg.pdf

In the 1930's in London, heat was taken from the Thames to heat housing estates. Most of the ideas already exist. For example, we are not using most of our sewage.

 

[bilby]

The comment about cogeneration is part of the way forward.

What is actually needed is a complete whole system review, including all possible sources of generation and how to mix and match them, all sources of demand and their efficiency, all possibilities for conservation.

Local energy plans are doing much of this.

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/ceg.pdf

In the 1930's in London, heat was taken from the Thames to heat housing estates. Most of the ideas already exist. For example, we are not using most of our sewage.

Wow.

62 pages; and nuclear power gets mentioned in two places (both dismissive), totalling three paragraphs.

Uranium (9%)
We currently rely on uranium imported from Africa, Australia and Russia and only a relatively small proportion of nuclear waste is recycled.

So recycle more? I am sure Canada will sell you uranium too; Four sources, on four different continents, strikes me as a pretty diverse supply, particularly for a fuel that you need so little of per TJ generated. Replacing the easiest 15% - the Coal power - with nukes would get you to 24% carbon neutral power; I am sure some of the Oil and Gas could also be replaced in this way - particularly if oil for vehicles was replaced by nuclear power charging electric cars (mostly at night, smoothing the demand curve and increasing efficiency overall).

The 1970s oil crisis led the French government to review their future energy supplies. Nuclear electricity generation was identified as a means to reduce oil imports and in 1974 the government made the decision to pursue a major programme of investment in nuclear plants.

Two decades on France’s energy security has improved because it diversified its energy supply. However, it is still overwhelmingly reliant on imported fuel, sourcing most of its uranium from Canada, Niger and Russia.

Furthermore, electricity only accounted for small proportion of the primary energy used by France. Oil and gas were still needed for heating and transportation, and a surplus of nuclear electricity generation, required Electricite de France to persuade households and businesses to use electricity for heating.

So Australia can also sell to France, I don't see a major issue with fuel security here. And too much Carbon-neutral power being generated in France seems like a non-problem - flog it to Germany and let the Germans shut down some of their pollution-spewing coal plants too.

Considering that as the coal plants reach end-of-life, existing coal base load could readily be replaced for nuclear, which has a minuscule fraction of the CO₂ emissions and is far cleaner and safer by every measure, that paper's disregard for it goes beyond disappointing.

Dismissing it with reference to the poor public opinion of nuclear power would be poor science, and stupid policymaking; but dismissing it with hardly a mention (and for no stated reason at all) makes me weep for human stupidity.

Nuclear power is apparently considered completely unthinkable as a way to reduce CO₂ emissions, because stupid people.

Fucking human race doesn't deserve to fucking survive if they are this fucking dumb.

 

[Togo]

Furthermore, electricity only accounted for small proportion of the primary energy used by France. Oil and gas were still needed for heating and transportation, and a surplus of nuclear electricity generation, required Electricite de France to persuade households and businesses to use electricity for heating.

So Australia can also sell to France, I don't see a major issue with fuel security here. And too much Carbon-neutral power being generated in France seems like a non-problem - flog it to Germany and let the Germans shut down some of their pollution-spewing coal plants too.

They already sell it to the UK. Transporting electricity around Europe is quite an effort though. The interchange allowing France to sell to the UK was quite expensive, and has a capacity limit.

Dismissing it with reference to the poor public opinion of nuclear power would be poor science, and stupid policymaking; but dismissing it with hardly a mention (and for no stated reason at all) makes me weep for human stupidity.

Nuclear power is apparently considered completely unthinkable as a way to reduce CO₂ emissions, because stupid people.

Well, yeah. Keep them out, and most power generation would be a lot safer...


Renewables are still finding their place in people's thinking, I suspect. As per Loren's examples, most renewables are high throttle, which means think of them as peak generation, but they're also low (or zero) fuel cost, which means people think of them as base load generation. I think that domestic solar is an excellent way of smoothing peak generation - let people control their own generation/consumption costs, and they'll be more efficient about it. For example, my in-laws are very proud of their new solar panels, and do all their high-consumption activities during the day, when the panels will cover the power used. As a result they draw far far less from the grid than they used to, but more importantly they very rarely have a heavy draw on the grid at all.

The model of having a big base load and trying to smooth all consumption into that is the old model, and I think it's due for an overall.