Solar doesn't replace base line generation unless you can get the power where its needed and as you are not generating power from panels over the majority of a day it means you must get it from someone who is generating it
Or generate and store excess energy during the day. I think the current challenge is that current energy storage solutions do not scale to the size of power plants?
Even the day storing may not be option, my home town chennai got a record rain in last one month with almost no sun for most of the days. Also the only thing that helped people are fossil fuel which is Candle and LPG stoves. The regular coal based thermal power was not there due to shutdown of plant as well as tranmission lines. LPG stove made people stay on first and second floor for two weeks with no need to come down.
I know I sound sarcastic but Tony Seba might find a solution by the year 2030: how to store energy to cover the needs of a city like New York(a city that never sleeps). He has been right on the spot regarding his previous predictions, right?
And everyone who has studied electrical engineering for real, knows that you are always going to need base stations running on fossil fuel or nuclear energy because solar/wind power is unpredictable.
The ones who benefit out of this is the companies you do the huge installations and then increase the prices on utility bills because "practically+scientifically" alternative powers sources are not cost efficient.
Especially the wind power is useless, if you don't have base stations running on coal/nuclear energy to cover for energy variations.
But in the end, the serfs buy it thinking the climate will be saved while the corporations just get richer.
I'm an advocate for solar. I just want to see an honest analysis of the whole question, what does a clean global grid look like? Anyone seen such a thing? If we really switched over to solar power, we'd need storage to handle :
- daily load variations (example, CA ISO "duck graph"[1])
- seasonal load variations (example, Seattle has 16 hours of sunlight in summer, and 8 in winter. It's overcast for weeks at a time in winter).
- unusual events, from extended weather patterns to volcanic eruptions.
Five nines (99.999%) is 5 minutes/year of downtime. What does it cost to guarantee at least that, given the variations in sun (or wind) and the fact that the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on, anytime, regardless of the weather?
Tony Seba's big handwave is that the "god parity" happens in 2020 where photovoltaic is cheaper than transmission costs, so even if fossil fuel cost zero, it would cost more than rooftop PV. Ta-da!
Ok, for what percent of the population does that give you how many nines? What's the complete story that handles conditions in Seattle, London, and really most of Europe?
Tony also likes to refer to Molten Salt Solar as "baseload". Bullshit that's just short-term load following. Useful, yes! Complete solution, no. Or can it be extended? Where can I find an honest analysis?
Yeah I've heard the other handwaves: flow batteries! existing pumped water storage! add wind to the portfolio! supeconducting transmission from deserts! LiIon manufacuturing learning curve! etc... But we need numbers, not enthusiasm.
I found an excellent book talking about realistic sustainable solutions. It is from 2008/2009 and so solar costs are already dramatically less, but is still a great read.
"the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on"
Why?
A small addition to that could probably take us long way: Any need worth the cost.
If the price matches the supply I'm sure people will get quite creative in reducing the demand enough to make the problem go away.
It needs to because otherwise supply voltage drops and you get brownouts.
There is no provision in light switches, outlets, thermostats, industrial machinery, or anything else to first check "is there enough current in the grid right now to run this?". They just draw current when connected, and changing that policy would be a huge endeavor.
This is called "demand response" in utility circles, and to varying degrees, has been operational for decades. Lately it is becoming much more reliable and accessible thanks to smart grid networks.
The nature of solar calls for a decentralized model, with each house having solar panels and a battery - just like most houses in the US have their own heating systems.
Big, entrenched utility companies don't like it because this would take much of their profits away. That said, the grid would not completely go away - it could still serve as a means to sell/buy extra energy if need be.
The problem with this is that the economics of our grid infrastructure and more importantly, the economics of existing generating capacity depends on it running most of the time. Imagine if you had to amortise all those fixed costs over the 5% of the time that you need them.
The use of solar PV to detach from the grid seems potentially quite disruptive if the cost is even close to centrally produced and distributed power. I'm more interested in, and optimistic about, this feature than I am in the macro cost or ecological benefits of PV.
There are several answers to this. The three that stand out to me are alternate power generation methods (inferior, but still helpful), designing systems with excess battery capacity, and, you know, using less energy at times when it's harder to generate.
People tend to be dismissive about conserving energy, but I expect they would think differently if they were producing & storing their own. We use way more than we need to-- some of the biggest power hogs are air conditioning and refrigeration, neither of which is necessary in the winter.
My point is: how expensive would it be to have alternate power generation, especially in cities? I think the grid isn't going anywhere anytime in the next 50 or 100 years at least.
It's anyway going to be an awful long time before North America stops burning fuel for winter heat.
I guess something like $500 a year is not a welcome new bill, but that would be the cost for replacing a house sized generator at a pretty short interval. If the duty cycle is low and maintenance is effective I would expect the cost to be lower than that.
What happens to the existing grid when there are 2 consecutive weeks of bad weather during winter?
Not sure where you are, but look at one of the availability maps at a NE utility (I know CT has one... CL&P?) after a major storm. Distributed generation definitely shouldn't be compared to "100% current availability"!
My money's on this-- the explosion of people in Africa and poorer Asian countries who have both the means and the need for cheap solar (plus batteries to go with it) will quickly far outstrip any entity's ability to keep pace by building out the grid. Large parts of western countries will soon follow.
I know I'd rather pay a reasonable up front cost to own my electrical generation capacity - which, as a bonus, can be set up almost anywhere in the world - and not have to pay a monthly fee for something I have no control over that's prone to outages at times when it's needed most.
Running the numbers we could build several days worth of 100% electric storage for fairly minimal costs. (10TWh = 1 day's storage.) The problem is having a back to your backup costs money and someone needs to cover the costs for a facility that effectively never gets used.
Another approach is to simply over build, renewables are rapidly becoming the cheapest option so simply over building say 10% can drastically reduce the need for grid storage.
I'd be interested to see those numbers. Most of the "easy" hydro locations in the world are already taken so we can't just extrapolate the as-built costs of existing capacity.
"Easy" hydro locations refers to hydroelectric power generation.
But the person you replied to was referring to pumped-hydro power storage, which is a totally different thing for a different purpose, and is much more flexible.
Note: Hydro power is different than pumped storage. Hydro needs a river and a huge lake etc. Pumped storage can simply create a new lake on top of a mountain and pump water up there.
Colorado for example has a lot of high altitude lakes that are not used. Ideal locations need to be close to high grid producers or users otherwise you need to build a lot of transmission lines.
Further, current usage is designed for peak power output not total storage, if the goal is 10's of TWh we would want a lot of huge reservoirs with minimal pumping capacity each. Where current designs are focused on peak output which is the expensive part. So, massively increasing storage capacity would likely reduce costs per GWh stored.
Anyway, these numbers are going to have a lot of give based on goals. The point is the US government can make this problem go away for ~2 billion / year which means it's not a significant issue.
Sure, I understand that pumped storage is different technology but the reservoir + head infrastructure required for both is pretty similar and that's what costs money. The turbines would be designed differently since you want dispatch-ability rather than peak output and the intakes would be a lot lower because otherwise you can't actually use most of your capacity but otherwise you're still talking about massive civil engineering projects either way.
Not only that, but the best sites have probably already been taken and if you want to build a massive amount more (by a factor of 50 or so) then you'll get into more and more marginal sites.
Even in countries with a lot of lakes available near elevation change, blasting and tunnelling into rock to get the water from the high to the low reservoir is not cheap.
Assuming that you build one full day's worth of storage (10TWh), for the sake of convenience we can convert this to power and say that we need 416 GW. You say that the expensive part is focussing on peak output, I actually disagree (because I think the civil engineering costs dominate) but let's put a 50% discount on capital costs at the end to account for it.
Doing a little digging online, cost ranges for building pumped hydro go from $600 - $2500 / kW. Let's take the lower number and further halve it to account for what you said about energy maximising storage being cheaper than power maximising.
If we need 416 GW, that'll cost $208 billion US dollars to build.
To be honest I went into this thinking that the cost would come out to be ridiculous but I'm not actually sure that is an outrageous cost. It's only a fifth of the US annual federal discretionary budget.
If those cost assumptions actually added up which I'm not sure they do.
Edit: Hydropower generally builds a huge dam to support a large head of water piled on top of it's self. Pumped storage replaces that huge column of water with hill so you only need a relatively small amount of water to store a lot of energy.
Anyway, I still think your numbers are a little high as Solar and wind are never going to have zero output over a day which reduces peek demands significantly. Existing dams can also shift production to meet different sessional needs and act as backup power production. Still, let's call a ~200 billion investment enough to solve grid storage.
Further, current pumped storage can make money though arbitration. So, private investment subsidized by say 2 billion / per year or 80 billion over 20 years seems to make this a non-issue.
I don't disagree but it is a bit more complex. But first, allow me to dispell the myth that solar cells don't generate power when it is overcast, they do. My panels typically run at 52 - 58% of rated power when the sky is wall to wall clouds. Granted that is a big drop in production it isn't 0 and can be planned around.
The "discussion inside the discussion" here is money. As inverter and management technology has gotten better, it becomes possible for a single family home, in the lower 48 states, to locally generate perhaps 95% of its annual power requirements, and to supplement that last 5% with onsite generated power using propane or methane.
In such a configuration, the consumer's on going payments are either lease payments or a maintenance contract on the gear to keep it running. Not some utility company. And that means that you cannot distribute the cost of "big" energy projects across a wide base of payers (as a utility, you can still do that with taxes). And that leads us too ... Commercial power.
While you and I might be able to live off grid, your typical multi-story office building or apartment can not. They don't have the square footage available for panels, and they generally don't have the space for back up power equipment. So they still need generators and transmission lines and a "grid." And because the cost of that grid is distributed across fewer people, their costs are significantly (I've seen estimates of 10x) higher. That raises rents, and the cost of goods, and generally puts a real crimp in any economy. Not to mention the power utility is now just another botique supplier to these guys and so loses a lot of scale it had before.
The shifting balance of power (pun intended) is going to cause a lot of disruptions and cost shifting. At the end of the day it could be the thing that puts a lot of brick and mortar stores out of business.
Yes of course solar cells generate (less) power on overcast days.
Here's the issue: If solar is already on track to replace fossil fuels by 2030, everyone can stop working on energy. Bill Gates can apologize and shutdown his new fund. Sam Altman can stop meeting with energy companies.
But I'm skeptical. I expect there remain needed technologies. Storage? Transmission? Baseload? Such an analysis would tell us.
I'm asking, where can I find an analysis of this? All these articles are lite advocacy pieces that border on marketing.
Agreed but the emotional hurdle is huge. A 50 - 100MW travelling wave reactor (TWR) to provide baseline for a city would be straight forward bury the reactor, set up what is essentially a geothermal plant on top of it, safe, clean, and it disposes left over waste!
Completely technologically sound, safer than any other power alternative, and impossible to fund, license, and deploy due to primarily emotional fear of the words 'nuclear reactor'.
China is already deploying nuclear reactors, while their population may be emotionally afraid of them, they have a system whereby they can deploy by fiat. That isn't true in the US and much of Europe.
And how many of those are the travelling wave reactors that you think could be rolled out today if tree-huggers weren't preventing it? The answer is zero I believe which means it's likely not the environmentalists that are holding things up but more likely fundamental issues with the technology not being ready yet.
It seems China is at the very, very early stages of thinking about maybe investigating building one of these.
You're asking legitimate questions, but I'm not sure if it's reasonable to expect a good answer. You seem to want a perfect plan to go solar.
If you look at predictions for renewables from a few years ago you will find out that they are all - no matter who you asked - largely wrong. I remember that not that long ago nobody would have expected that prices for onshore wind and solar would go down so rapidly. On the other hand offshore wind was often praised as the tech that would make renewables cheap. The opposite has happened. Onshore wind and solar got cheaper in a speed that even the most outspoken renewable advocates hadn't predicted, offshore wind is one of the most expensive ways to get renewable energy.
Basically today there is not a single country that largely relies on "new" renewables (wind + solar). Denmark comes close, but they are small and interconnected with neighbors that have a lot of water power capacity and pumped storage.
I think it is pretty much impossible to predict which techs will work out in a future grid that will need a lot more storage tech. Some things we think today are promising will spectacularly fail and maybe some things we don't have on the radar yet will provide solutions.
I'm not asking for predictions, I'm looking for a statistical analysis that takes into account historical weather, seasonal, and load across geographies weighted by use.
This is all measured and recorded. Has anyone analyzed it? Should I pay someone to do that myself? Is anyone interested to try?
If you look at the book "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" you will find it chock full of data. Problem is, it's for the UK, not the US. But FWIW, I think the UK is more north than the continental US.
Overall I thought the book was excellent. Some of the numbers are slightly off but a lot of the calulcations are intentionally back-of-the-envelope. What were the other issues you had with it?
Heating is a great example, solar hot water heaters or sunroofs can cheaply collect a lot of heat. Heat pumps can also extract energy from air pushing up there numbers.* Further, insulation can make a large difference without directly showing up on heating or cooling numbers. All of which make the "Heating, cooling 37 kWh/d" a meaningless number.
Transportation is another area, we don't care about the energy content of gas when IC engines have such terrible efficiency numbers.
"not on my street", "not in my back yard!" page 109 are also complexly arbitrary issues. Consider, farmers love wind power as a very small footprint brings significant revenue. Sheep can happy eat grass under a wind turbine.
(*): A solar room can collect heat which is then redistributed though a home or even concentrated by a heat pump at extreme efficiency to heat a house without being uncomfortably warm or ugly.
FWIW I read this[0] here, but IIRC it was not well received. Most of the complaints where about Nuclear's Profit model issues, not the actual presentation of data.
Something like power generation capacity, of peak load, for
30% solar, 30% wind, 30% natural gas, 30% hydro, 30% nuclear and 30% compressed air storage. Note it goes over 100% so that parts of it can be offline and peak demand can be still supplied.
The only fossil fuel, natural gas, would only be fired when electricity price was very high, like it is operated in many places already today. It is suitable for this use as the investment cost is low and the reaction time is short.
How is the load going to change over time? The passive house movement shows how efficient houses can be built. Also the change from CRT to LED tv's, also change loads. Refrigerators are more efficient than 20 years ago, but can they be made more efficient? Lots of small changes can change the amount of load (for lots of customers (summed)).
The other big issue is how fast can you repair 'own generation?' Utilities typically do a good job in restoring power and assist each other to restore power. Today everyone wants power all the time, 50 years ago power outages were not as much of an issue.
Wait, but why do we/you need a "clean global grid"? Doesn't need to be 100%. Just need/want to move in that direction and get as close as practicable. No reason to answer your question since it's not something we need.
I don't think anyone can give you that level of analysis. To do it 'properly' would require a set of interlinked models on the scale of the IPCC models. Certainly not in a free analysis; Gartner probably have some papers on this.
But as usual the truth lies somewhere between the delusional hype and the denialists, in the form of a gradual rollout. Realistically the newly-commissioned gas power plants are not going anywhere for 30 years, especially when shale gas is so cheap in the US. The short term in Europe is dominated by the Combustion Plant Directive closing down coal plants that reach the end of their working lives. Southern US will see more and more solar. The grid is not going anywhere and will probably require ongoing point upgrades. And so on.
You have an overly rosy view of the current situation, and so you are dramatically overestimating how far photovoltaic has to go to improve it, perhaps in part because you have forgotten the existence of 85% of the world's population.
I'm on the grid, and I had a three-week power outage two years ago. Getting to 99.999% would require no power outages for the next 5700 years. Even getting to 99% would require no power outages for the next 3 years, which isn't going to happen; I had an overnight power outage a few months ago. That's because I live in Argentina. Not out in the boondocks — in the capital, with flatscreen TVs, world-class medical care, and subways crammed full of people glued to their Samsung Galaxy Whatevers. A friend of mine in Pakistan isn't even getting one nine; he has a rolling blackout of an hour every few hours. He's at maybe 70% or 80% grid uptime.
I don't understand this myopic focus on "Seattle, London, and really most of Europe". What percentage of the population lives in the US and Europe? 14%. 86% of the population lives elsewhere. How about Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Delhi, Mexico City, Beijing, Lagos, São Paulo, and Mumbai? Those are the world's ten biggest cities, and by themselves they total nearly the population of the US. As it happens, none of them are in the US or Europe.
Also, as it happens, most of them are at much more equatorial latitudes than most of Europe and even much of the US.
Speaking of rolling blackouts, I lived in California in 2000. At the time, political corruption in the energy markets led to rolling blackouts there, with a total of several hundred hours of blackout at each location (except hospitals, national security installations, and things like that). So California isn't going to reach 99.999% on-grid reliability within the next couple of millennia either, even without any further outages. Reliable electricity is very important to some industries, like semiconductor fabrication. Maxim has a fab there in San José, or at least they did last year. Maybe they'd would be better off depending on solar panels on the fab roof instead of the fickle governance of the California transmission grid.
The upshot of all of this is that transmission-line parity for most of us is going to occur pretty soon actually. It doesn't need to hit 99.999% or 99.99% or 99.9% or even 99% reliability to be an improvement from where we are now. In fact, in Pakistan and in much of the world, even if it's 50% reliable, it's a big help, as long as the times when it's out aren't the same times the regular power grid is out.
Molten-salt solar is certainly capable of some load following, although not as fast as a gas turbine, but it can also handle baseload, because it can run at whatever time of day or night you need. Can it be extended? Well, the materials you need are super common and well understood (we were recently treated to an explanation the other day of how Lavoisier made significant improvements to the handling and production of the salts in question in the 18th century), and the heat engine is typically a closed-cycle Parsons steam turbine, same as in a coal or combined-cycle plant. There's no reason I know of to expect it to be any harder to scale than other types of steam turbines. The only issue is that it will have a hard time producing energy as cheaply as photovoltaic unless we can bring the cost of the machinery way down and its lifetime up.
You mention deserts, I suppose because enormous land area is cheap and the skies are not cloudy all day. But how much area do you really need to generate the electricity we use? Argentine electricity use, for example, is only about 3000 kWh/year/人, or 340 W/人. With a typical panel efficiency of 15% (not 22% like some advanced unijunction panels), a typical capacity factor of 18%, a solar constant of, say, 1000 W/m², and a latitude of 34°36’ (thus a cosine of 8...
I believe the duck graph would be entirely eliminated if people had well insulated homes and air-con that could take advantage of abundant solar to pre-cool their home before they got home. Not that it's easy to get from here to there, but it's hardly the jetsons either.
The kind of person who frequents this site might like the Rocky Mountain Institute's take on this:
Loads of boring wonkery about more efficient buildings, and better ways of regulating utilities to align incentives properly, or ideas for financing the deployment of new technologies for efficent shipping and so on.
Business guys look at line graphs and think that trends continue forever. The reality is, everything has a limit. No technology can improve indefinitely as technology is bounded by the limits of the physical world (see Moore's law). Only an industry scientist has the perspective to make an accurate prediction. Will solar technology improve to a point where it can beat the energy density of fossil fueles? Or is it physically impossible? Any qualified people willing to supply an opinion?
Personally my intuition says that we will go to solar, but at great cost. We will be forced to switch due to rising oil costs and even after the switch the energy supply will be so diminished that we will no longer be treating energy as frivolously as we do today.
The theoretical maximum efficiency of a single junction silicon cell (Shockley–Queisser limit) is 33.7%.
As a means of electricity production, it's already better than fossil fuels in large parts of the world but fossil fuels are storable and that makes all the difference.
I've been following solar for around a decade now and have yet to consider it because of it's long ROI. Sure, the technology has gotten more efficient as pointed out in the article, but a consumer's up front costs have yet to come down.
I checked again last year about installing an array on my roof. My original outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years. If you want solar to take over the world and be a viable alternative to low income families, this isn't going to cut it.
Also, does the author know there's a limited amount of lithium in the world while his projections are pretty rosy for electric, the facts don't seem to align with his assumptions:
William Tahil, the founder of Meridian International Research, a technology consultancy in Martainville, France, has argued that there simply isn’t enough economically recoverable lithium on the planet to support the auto industry’s ambitious plans. Tahil estimated that only 4.4 million tons of the world’s lithium resources can be extracted without prohibitive cost, a supply he believes will be quickly exhausted if lithium-ion batteries become a staple of next-generation cars.
So why people are focusing on lithium to herald in the new electric car revolution, we should probably already be looking beyond electric cars as a viable long term solution.
I share your concerns. I've been looking into DIY flow batteries as an alternative for middle-income groups, but that approach isn't promising so far; we're still talking five figure sums up front to store just 45kWh (rounded-off, high side of average daily US residential utilization). Unsurprisingly for those well-versed in thermodynamics, energy is just plain expensive to store; another way of putting that is fighting against entropy is monetarily expensive.
These technologies are currently only accessible to highly-determined and resourceful people (those willing to make fundamental changes to their electricity consumption patterns, or those with 2+ sigma annual disposable income to fund their individual solution), and are still not ready for mass, de-centralized adoption. Grid-scale deployments might be another story, but any talk of a mass wave of private individuals adopting this technology is not matching up with the numbers I've run.
A combination of energy conservation and energy production technologies and techniques, I can see gaining traction, but that is a long, long (2+ decades) ways off in the US (Germany is potentially leading the way here IMHO).
Where does it said there are pretty??
We know there are enough oil or petrol that could last 100s to 1000s of years. And there are known Lithium reserve that could last us 100s years even if we keep the current pace of development.
The problem with both is extraction cost. How can we effectively extract it that provide a profits at this current price. It wasn't until recently US mastered the technique of flasking oil we have more then what we need.
>>My original outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years.
So you'd be getting (saving) 4K annually from a 40K investment? Try getting that kind of return elsewhere.
Seriously though, the best solar strategy for the homeowner is do-it-yourself ground mount installs. If DIY is not your thing at a minimum get separate quotes for install and supply. The markup solar installers add to equipment is outrageous.
That is Amara's Law [1]. The paraphrase given by Cringely that is commonly quoted (to my knowledge, Amara himself never gave as concise a quote as the paraphrase) is:
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."
it's worth noting that various large vc firms lost their shirts around this period last year betting big on solar...this article may have been part of the pr push for all that
oil's below $40/brl and ng is around $2. the solar / renewable drive "began" with prices of both at 3*+ multiples of where they are today. the problem addressed has diminished which should affect investment / development and stall future transition.
72 comments
[ 1093 ms ] story [ 611 ms ] threadClimate has been changing for 4.5 billion years: http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/1181/, so enough with this scaremongering.
And everyone who has studied electrical engineering for real, knows that you are always going to need base stations running on fossil fuel or nuclear energy because solar/wind power is unpredictable.
The ones who benefit out of this is the companies you do the huge installations and then increase the prices on utility bills because "practically+scientifically" alternative powers sources are not cost efficient.
Especially the wind power is useless, if you don't have base stations running on coal/nuclear energy to cover for energy variations.
But in the end, the serfs buy it thinking the climate will be saved while the corporations just get richer.
Get some reality checks here: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi...
Lastly, even Germany who had pledged to stop burning coal, votes not to do it: http://www.thegwpf.com/reality-check-2500-new-coal-plants-wi...
and pays Denmark to disable wind turbines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-01/german-win...
Conclusion: Solar/Wind energy exist only through subsidies:utility bills increases->your tax money getting burned.
Good luck with all your coal plants.
- daily load variations (example, CA ISO "duck graph"[1])
- seasonal load variations (example, Seattle has 16 hours of sunlight in summer, and 8 in winter. It's overcast for weeks at a time in winter).
- unusual events, from extended weather patterns to volcanic eruptions.
Five nines (99.999%) is 5 minutes/year of downtime. What does it cost to guarantee at least that, given the variations in sun (or wind) and the fact that the grid absolutely, positively, needs to supply current for any need that gets switched on, anytime, regardless of the weather?
Tony Seba's big handwave is that the "god parity" happens in 2020 where photovoltaic is cheaper than transmission costs, so even if fossil fuel cost zero, it would cost more than rooftop PV. Ta-da!
Ok, for what percent of the population does that give you how many nines? What's the complete story that handles conditions in Seattle, London, and really most of Europe?
Tony also likes to refer to Molten Salt Solar as "baseload". Bullshit that's just short-term load following. Useful, yes! Complete solution, no. Or can it be extended? Where can I find an honest analysis?
Yeah I've heard the other handwaves: flow batteries! existing pumped water storage! add wind to the portfolio! supeconducting transmission from deserts! LiIon manufacuturing learning curve! etc... But we need numbers, not enthusiasm.
[1] http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/21/utilities-cry-fowl-over-...
http://www.withouthotair.com/
If the price matches the supply I'm sure people will get quite creative in reducing the demand enough to make the problem go away.
There is no provision in light switches, outlets, thermostats, industrial machinery, or anything else to first check "is there enough current in the grid right now to run this?". They just draw current when connected, and changing that policy would be a huge endeavor.
Besides, you don't need to check for current, you check for prices. Which would be simpler.
The nature of solar calls for a decentralized model, with each house having solar panels and a battery - just like most houses in the US have their own heating systems.
Big, entrenched utility companies don't like it because this would take much of their profits away. That said, the grid would not completely go away - it could still serve as a means to sell/buy extra energy if need be.
People tend to be dismissive about conserving energy, but I expect they would think differently if they were producing & storing their own. We use way more than we need to-- some of the biggest power hogs are air conditioning and refrigeration, neither of which is necessary in the winter.
It's anyway going to be an awful long time before North America stops burning fuel for winter heat.
I guess something like $500 a year is not a welcome new bill, but that would be the cost for replacing a house sized generator at a pretty short interval. If the duty cycle is low and maintenance is effective I would expect the cost to be lower than that.
If we used solar most of the time and NG only some of the time we'd have made a huge dent in emissions.
Not sure where you are, but look at one of the availability maps at a NE utility (I know CT has one... CL&P?) after a major storm. Distributed generation definitely shouldn't be compared to "100% current availability"!
I know I'd rather pay a reasonable up front cost to own my electrical generation capacity - which, as a bonus, can be set up almost anywhere in the world - and not have to pay a monthly fee for something I have no control over that's prone to outages at times when it's needed most.
Running the numbers we could build several days worth of 100% electric storage for fairly minimal costs. (10TWh = 1 day's storage.) The problem is having a back to your backup costs money and someone needs to cover the costs for a facility that effectively never gets used.
Another approach is to simply over build, renewables are rapidly becoming the cheapest option so simply over building say 10% can drastically reduce the need for grid storage.
But the person you replied to was referring to pumped-hydro power storage, which is a totally different thing for a different purpose, and is much more flexible.
Colorado for example has a lot of high altitude lakes that are not used. Ideal locations need to be close to high grid producers or users otherwise you need to build a lot of transmission lines.
Further, current usage is designed for peak power output not total storage, if the goal is 10's of TWh we would want a lot of huge reservoirs with minimal pumping capacity each. Where current designs are focused on peak output which is the expensive part. So, massively increasing storage capacity would likely reduce costs per GWh stored.
Anyway, these numbers are going to have a lot of give based on goals. The point is the US government can make this problem go away for ~2 billion / year which means it's not a significant issue.
Not only that, but the best sites have probably already been taken and if you want to build a massive amount more (by a factor of 50 or so) then you'll get into more and more marginal sites.
Even in countries with a lot of lakes available near elevation change, blasting and tunnelling into rock to get the water from the high to the low reservoir is not cheap.
Assuming that you build one full day's worth of storage (10TWh), for the sake of convenience we can convert this to power and say that we need 416 GW. You say that the expensive part is focussing on peak output, I actually disagree (because I think the civil engineering costs dominate) but let's put a 50% discount on capital costs at the end to account for it.
Doing a little digging online, cost ranges for building pumped hydro go from $600 - $2500 / kW. Let's take the lower number and further halve it to account for what you said about energy maximising storage being cheaper than power maximising.
If we need 416 GW, that'll cost $208 billion US dollars to build.
To be honest I went into this thinking that the cost would come out to be ridiculous but I'm not actually sure that is an outrageous cost. It's only a fifth of the US annual federal discretionary budget.
If those cost assumptions actually added up which I'm not sure they do.
Anyway, I still think your numbers are a little high as Solar and wind are never going to have zero output over a day which reduces peek demands significantly. Existing dams can also shift production to meet different sessional needs and act as backup power production. Still, let's call a ~200 billion investment enough to solve grid storage.
Further, current pumped storage can make money though arbitration. So, private investment subsidized by say 2 billion / per year or 80 billion over 20 years seems to make this a non-issue.
The "discussion inside the discussion" here is money. As inverter and management technology has gotten better, it becomes possible for a single family home, in the lower 48 states, to locally generate perhaps 95% of its annual power requirements, and to supplement that last 5% with onsite generated power using propane or methane.
In such a configuration, the consumer's on going payments are either lease payments or a maintenance contract on the gear to keep it running. Not some utility company. And that means that you cannot distribute the cost of "big" energy projects across a wide base of payers (as a utility, you can still do that with taxes). And that leads us too ... Commercial power.
While you and I might be able to live off grid, your typical multi-story office building or apartment can not. They don't have the square footage available for panels, and they generally don't have the space for back up power equipment. So they still need generators and transmission lines and a "grid." And because the cost of that grid is distributed across fewer people, their costs are significantly (I've seen estimates of 10x) higher. That raises rents, and the cost of goods, and generally puts a real crimp in any economy. Not to mention the power utility is now just another botique supplier to these guys and so loses a lot of scale it had before.
The shifting balance of power (pun intended) is going to cause a lot of disruptions and cost shifting. At the end of the day it could be the thing that puts a lot of brick and mortar stores out of business.
Here's the issue: If solar is already on track to replace fossil fuels by 2030, everyone can stop working on energy. Bill Gates can apologize and shutdown his new fund. Sam Altman can stop meeting with energy companies.
But I'm skeptical. I expect there remain needed technologies. Storage? Transmission? Baseload? Such an analysis would tell us.
I'm asking, where can I find an analysis of this? All these articles are lite advocacy pieces that border on marketing.
Completely technologically sound, safer than any other power alternative, and impossible to fund, license, and deploy due to primarily emotional fear of the words 'nuclear reactor'.
[1] "Over 60 power reactors are currently being constructed in 13 countries plus Taiwan (see Table below), notably China, South Korea, UAE and Russia." -- http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generat...
It seems China is at the very, very early stages of thinking about maybe investigating building one of these.
If you look at predictions for renewables from a few years ago you will find out that they are all - no matter who you asked - largely wrong. I remember that not that long ago nobody would have expected that prices for onshore wind and solar would go down so rapidly. On the other hand offshore wind was often praised as the tech that would make renewables cheap. The opposite has happened. Onshore wind and solar got cheaper in a speed that even the most outspoken renewable advocates hadn't predicted, offshore wind is one of the most expensive ways to get renewable energy.
Basically today there is not a single country that largely relies on "new" renewables (wind + solar). Denmark comes close, but they are small and interconnected with neighbors that have a lot of water power capacity and pumped storage.
I think it is pretty much impossible to predict which techs will work out in a future grid that will need a lot more storage tech. Some things we think today are promising will spectacularly fail and maybe some things we don't have on the radar yet will provide solutions.
This is all measured and recorded. Has anyone analyzed it? Should I pay someone to do that myself? Is anyone interested to try?
That's what I'm asking.
http://www.amazon.com/Sustainable-Energy-Without-Hot-Air/dp/...
EX: They use 10% for solar cell efficiency when some current systems are over 22%. http://www.sciencealert.com/panasonic-has-produced-the-world... And lab results are even higher.
Overall I thought the book was excellent. Some of the numbers are slightly off but a lot of the calulcations are intentionally back-of-the-envelope. What were the other issues you had with it?
Heating is a great example, solar hot water heaters or sunroofs can cheaply collect a lot of heat. Heat pumps can also extract energy from air pushing up there numbers.* Further, insulation can make a large difference without directly showing up on heating or cooling numbers. All of which make the "Heating, cooling 37 kWh/d" a meaningless number.
Transportation is another area, we don't care about the energy content of gas when IC engines have such terrible efficiency numbers.
"not on my street", "not in my back yard!" page 109 are also complexly arbitrary issues. Consider, farmers love wind power as a very small footprint brings significant revenue. Sheep can happy eat grass under a wind turbine.
(*): A solar room can collect heat which is then redistributed though a home or even concentrated by a heat pump at extreme efficiency to heat a house without being uncomfortably warm or ugly.
[0]http://energyrealityproject.com/lets-run-the-numbers-nuclear...
I've liked the roadmaps from Stanford's Mark Jacobson. If you want the high-level general public view, check out:
http://thesolutionsproject.org
Or for more in depth information you can check out the links on his website, including to the summary papers published in the scientific literature:
http://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-5...
Something like power generation capacity, of peak load, for 30% solar, 30% wind, 30% natural gas, 30% hydro, 30% nuclear and 30% compressed air storage. Note it goes over 100% so that parts of it can be offline and peak demand can be still supplied.
The only fossil fuel, natural gas, would only be fired when electricity price was very high, like it is operated in many places already today. It is suitable for this use as the investment cost is low and the reaction time is short.
The other big issue is how fast can you repair 'own generation?' Utilities typically do a good job in restoring power and assist each other to restore power. Today everyone wants power all the time, 50 years ago power outages were not as much of an issue.
But as usual the truth lies somewhere between the delusional hype and the denialists, in the form of a gradual rollout. Realistically the newly-commissioned gas power plants are not going anywhere for 30 years, especially when shale gas is so cheap in the US. The short term in Europe is dominated by the Combustion Plant Directive closing down coal plants that reach the end of their working lives. Southern US will see more and more solar. The grid is not going anywhere and will probably require ongoing point upgrades. And so on.
Embarrassing for HN community this comment is top voted.
I'm on the grid, and I had a three-week power outage two years ago. Getting to 99.999% would require no power outages for the next 5700 years. Even getting to 99% would require no power outages for the next 3 years, which isn't going to happen; I had an overnight power outage a few months ago. That's because I live in Argentina. Not out in the boondocks — in the capital, with flatscreen TVs, world-class medical care, and subways crammed full of people glued to their Samsung Galaxy Whatevers. A friend of mine in Pakistan isn't even getting one nine; he has a rolling blackout of an hour every few hours. He's at maybe 70% or 80% grid uptime.
I don't understand this myopic focus on "Seattle, London, and really most of Europe". What percentage of the population lives in the US and Europe? 14%. 86% of the population lives elsewhere. How about Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Delhi, Mexico City, Beijing, Lagos, São Paulo, and Mumbai? Those are the world's ten biggest cities, and by themselves they total nearly the population of the US. As it happens, none of them are in the US or Europe.
Also, as it happens, most of them are at much more equatorial latitudes than most of Europe and even much of the US.
Speaking of rolling blackouts, I lived in California in 2000. At the time, political corruption in the energy markets led to rolling blackouts there, with a total of several hundred hours of blackout at each location (except hospitals, national security installations, and things like that). So California isn't going to reach 99.999% on-grid reliability within the next couple of millennia either, even without any further outages. Reliable electricity is very important to some industries, like semiconductor fabrication. Maxim has a fab there in San José, or at least they did last year. Maybe they'd would be better off depending on solar panels on the fab roof instead of the fickle governance of the California transmission grid.
The upshot of all of this is that transmission-line parity for most of us is going to occur pretty soon actually. It doesn't need to hit 99.999% or 99.99% or 99.9% or even 99% reliability to be an improvement from where we are now. In fact, in Pakistan and in much of the world, even if it's 50% reliable, it's a big help, as long as the times when it's out aren't the same times the regular power grid is out.
Molten-salt solar is certainly capable of some load following, although not as fast as a gas turbine, but it can also handle baseload, because it can run at whatever time of day or night you need. Can it be extended? Well, the materials you need are super common and well understood (we were recently treated to an explanation the other day of how Lavoisier made significant improvements to the handling and production of the salts in question in the 18th century), and the heat engine is typically a closed-cycle Parsons steam turbine, same as in a coal or combined-cycle plant. There's no reason I know of to expect it to be any harder to scale than other types of steam turbines. The only issue is that it will have a hard time producing energy as cheaply as photovoltaic unless we can bring the cost of the machinery way down and its lifetime up.
You mention deserts, I suppose because enormous land area is cheap and the skies are not cloudy all day. But how much area do you really need to generate the electricity we use? Argentine electricity use, for example, is only about 3000 kWh/year/人, or 340 W/人. With a typical panel efficiency of 15% (not 22% like some advanced unijunction panels), a typical capacity factor of 18%, a solar constant of, say, 1000 W/m², and a latitude of 34°36’ (thus a cosine of 8...
The kind of person who frequents this site might like the Rocky Mountain Institute's take on this:
http://www.rmi.org/our_goals
Loads of boring wonkery about more efficient buildings, and better ways of regulating utilities to align incentives properly, or ideas for financing the deployment of new technologies for efficent shipping and so on.
Personally my intuition says that we will go to solar, but at great cost. We will be forced to switch due to rising oil costs and even after the switch the energy supply will be so diminished that we will no longer be treating energy as frivolously as we do today.
As a means of electricity production, it's already better than fossil fuels in large parts of the world but fossil fuels are storable and that makes all the difference.
I checked again last year about installing an array on my roof. My original outlay would be in the 30-40K range with an ROI of over ten years. If you want solar to take over the world and be a viable alternative to low income families, this isn't going to cut it.
Also, does the author know there's a limited amount of lithium in the world while his projections are pretty rosy for electric, the facts don't seem to align with his assumptions:
William Tahil, the founder of Meridian International Research, a technology consultancy in Martainville, France, has argued that there simply isn’t enough economically recoverable lithium on the planet to support the auto industry’s ambitious plans. Tahil estimated that only 4.4 million tons of the world’s lithium resources can be extracted without prohibitive cost, a supply he believes will be quickly exhausted if lithium-ion batteries become a staple of next-generation cars.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2008/1124/034.html
So why people are focusing on lithium to herald in the new electric car revolution, we should probably already be looking beyond electric cars as a viable long term solution.
These technologies are currently only accessible to highly-determined and resourceful people (those willing to make fundamental changes to their electricity consumption patterns, or those with 2+ sigma annual disposable income to fund their individual solution), and are still not ready for mass, de-centralized adoption. Grid-scale deployments might be another story, but any talk of a mass wave of private individuals adopting this technology is not matching up with the numbers I've run.
A combination of energy conservation and energy production technologies and techniques, I can see gaining traction, but that is a long, long (2+ decades) ways off in the US (Germany is potentially leading the way here IMHO).
http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_re...
The problem with both is extraction cost. How can we effectively extract it that provide a profits at this current price. It wasn't until recently US mastered the technique of flasking oil we have more then what we need.
So you'd be getting (saving) 4K annually from a 40K investment? Try getting that kind of return elsewhere.
Seriously though, the best solar strategy for the homeowner is do-it-yourself ground mount installs. If DIY is not your thing at a minimum get separate quotes for install and supply. The markup solar installers add to equipment is outrageous.
I can't remember who said it, but humans tend to over-estimate change in the long term, and under-estimate change in the short term.
It will be interesting to see what changes do occur in this time frame.
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara