Solar Could Beat Coal to Become the Cheapest Power on Earth In Less Than a Decade (bloomberg.com)

Solar power is now cheaper than coal in some parts of the world. In less than a decade, it's likely to be the lowest-cost option almost everywhere, reports Bloomberg. From the article: In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power. Now, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Mexico are planning auctions and tenders for this year, aiming to drop prices even further. Taking advantage: Companies such as Italy's Enel SpA and Dublin's Mainstream Renewable Power, who gained experienced in Europe and now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home. Since 2009, solar prices are down 62 percent, with every part of the supply chain trimming costs. That's help cut risk premiums on bank loans, and pushed manufacturing capacity to record levels. By 2025, solar may be cheaper than using coal on average globally, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The solar supply chain is experiencing "a Wal-Mart effect" from higher volumes and lower margins, according to Sami Khoreibi, founder and chief executive officer of Enviromena Power Systems. The speed at which the price of solar will drop below coal varies in each country. Places that import coal or tax polluters with a carbon price, such as Europe and Brazil, will see a crossover in the 2020s, if not before. Countries with large domestic coal reserves such as India and China will probably take longer.

Comments

But

[Anonymous Coward]

Nat Gas is the cheapest.

What about at night?

[Joe_Dragon]

What about at night?

Re:What about at night?

[nine-times]

You need some method of storing energy gathered during the day.

Re:What about at night?

[ranton]

Worst case scenario you can use natural gas then (or other renewable options like hydro and geothermal). Best case scenario is battery technology is also cheap enough that it becomes more widespread. This isn't a tough question.

Re:What about at night?

[Rob Lister]

Is the cost of this method included in the $0.03/kwh?

Re:What about at night?

[JoshuaZ]

In general, we use much less power during night-time., but some solar systems (in particular, solar-thermal systems) provide power a few hours into the night. We're also getting better with storage and transmission also which helps, because one can then not only store solar power for use when the sun is not out, but also move power from areas where it is still out to where it is. High-voltage DC is really great for this, and we're also starting to have superconducting transmission lines like the Holbrook line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holbrook_Superconductor_Project and the planned Tres Amigas Superstation which will link the three major US grids (East, West and Texas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation. Honestly, the fact that we have superconducting power lines falls into the how-is-this-not-a-bigger-deal-we-live-in-the-freaking-future. Any long-term energy plan will of course not use just solar, but likely solar, with some storage and some amount of wind, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, with possibly some natural gas for quick spin-up during high load periods or when there's an unexpected drop-off in the power level. But it does look plausible at this point that a grid where the largest power source is solar is doable and may happen for primarily direct economic reasons even without the environmental considerations.

Re:What about at night?

[OneHundredAndTen]

What about at night?

There is always sunlight somewhere on Earth.

Re:What about at night?

[Chris Mattern]

"It's high noon somewhere in the world."

Re:What about at night?

[Nutria]

the fact that we have superconducting power lines falls into the ...

completely impractical fantasy realm.

From the Wikipedia article:
a 600 meter long tunnel
a 13,000 U.S. gallons (49,000 L) liquid nitrogen storage tank
a Brayton Helium refrigerator,
a number of cryostats

Now run that across 200,000 miles (heck, let's chop it by 67% because of better efficiency: 66,000 miles) of transmission wire: that's 2.3 billion gallons of liquid nitrogen, and certainly more helium than we have access to.

Re: What about at night?

[RabidReindeer]

When you burn coal or gas, it doesn't turn magically directly into electricity. The heat of combustion is applied to an intermediary medium (such as steam) that then runs the generators.

Why is it that everybody thinks that the only way to use solar energy is direct from collector to powerlines??????

Re:What about at night?

[Rei]

No. But it's not prohibitively expensive, generally adding a couple cents per kWh to your total costs**. The amount of peaking/storage required depends on a lot of factors, including climate, diversity of generation (e.g. wind + solar has much higher statistical reliability than just wind or solar, as they tend to run counter to each other), and the amount of long distance transmission (HVDC/HVAC), for 1) geographic diversity of weather, 2) sharing common peaking resources, and 3) timeshifting of loads/generation. A recent study in nature estimates that a nationwide US HVDC network would cost 0,3 cents per kWh but save 1,1 cents per kWh in generation/peaking hardware costs. The cost of peaking (and type) depends on location. Hydroelectric turbine house uprating makes for very cheap peaking where available (transforming baseload hydro into peaking hydro). Pumped hydro can be affordable, but only in limited areas. Batteries are marginal at present, but are likely to become highly competitive over the next decade. In the US, where natural gas is cheap and plentiful, the vast majority of new peaking capacity is NG. In countries where natural gas is expensive, other fossil fuels are used.

Also note that up to a certain level of penetration, solar actually does more to help remove variable generation (load following plants) than it imposes (peaking), as daytime loads are higher than night, and are higher on sunny days than cloudy days.

** - A peaker that's used only several hours a year may charge $2/kWh or so... but you're not buying a lot of kWh from it. A load following plant that's used a bunch every day may only charge $0,1/kWh... but you're buying a lot of kWh from it. It all depends on what sort of power you're needing to buy.

Re:What about at night?

[operagost]

It's 5 o'clock somewhere! *hic*

Re:What about at night?

[coastwalker]

Oddly enough cock-womble appears to have the march on you. The UK at least uses a lot more power at night during the winter. See http://www.gridwatch.templar.c... As ever a mixture of power sources is likely to provide the best results globally.

Re:What about at night?

[JoshuaZ]

No one is suggesting that we run superconducting lines everywhere. They work best in specific types of locations where the total amount of electric power going through a very tiny area is very small; that's why they choose to use superconducting lines for Tres Amigas. Holbrook itself was more experimental but it works fine. Note also that the refrigeration equipment actually scales pretty well, so the amount of helium you need scales at a much less than linear rate, so even if one did want to make continent wide superconducting lines (which we're not suggesting anyone should plan on doing with the current technology) it would be substantially easier than your numbers suggest.

Re:What about at night?

[higuita]

In Portugal, the excess energy from solar (during day) or wind (usually during night) is used to pump water upstream back to hydroelectric dams reservoirs, back to potential energy, to be used later, when there is no enough wind or solar energy. Of course, like any solution, it have its limits and all countries know that they have to have several energy sources in parallel, so when one is weak, the remaining ones should fill the gap... Even coal, if for some reason the a boiler stop working, you have to fetch energy from other places

Re:What about at night?

[jellomizer]

We can still reap the benefits of a hybrid approach Solar by Day, other sources by night.
Normally we use less power at night. So we can still have a benefit.

Re:What about at night?

[LTIfox]

Well, you do realize, that capacity (natgas or whatever) sitting idle (not making money) is seriously expensive, right?

That's why solar _must_ be cheap for markets to clear - one needs a backup to use it. That backup (might be idle capacity or additional long distance power lines or whatever) costs money.

Re:What about at night?

[Rob Lister]

But don't you also have to pay to keep those facilities running? Isn't the 3 cents/kwh just added on top?

Re:What about at night?

[Rei]

If your "peaker" was a high capital source like nuclear, yes. But nuclear's not used for peaking, fossil plants are. And the majority of the costs of a fossil plant are the fuel, not the capital costs for the plant. A fossil peaker costs about $1/W in capital costs, compared to about $1,50/W for a new solar or wind plant. How much you can share that peaker depends greatly on your particular power environment, anywhere from 1:1 (every watt of nameplate wind/solar needs a watt of backup) to a tiny fraction of that.

Re:What about at night?

[careysub]

What about at night?

Fortunately the wind blows at night. Here is a wind resources map for the United States. Lots and lots of consistently windy areas. Wind is cheaper than solar currently and in nine out the ten nations that top the renewable energy charts, there is more wind capacity than solar, and this is likely to remain the case.

With the use of high voltage DC transmission lines (a technology that has been in use since 1930) electricity can be shipped coast to coast with minor losses. 800 KV lines can transport electricity from one coast to the other with about the same losses as existing grids, about 6%. Constructing a national long distance electrical "highway" makes most of the "problems" perceived with renewable energy disappear. Just like now, there is not going to be just one source of power in the future, so solar does not have to do it all.

Even is solar "only" supplies the daytime peak load, this is half of the total electricity demand. In North America it is convenient that 40% of the entire U.S. population lives on the Eastern Seaboard, so that when it has its evening demand peak, the sunny west is three hours earlier and would still be producing a lot of solar electricity. Then there are proven power storage technologies like pumped water storage. Just considering existing pumped storage capacity, and capacity expansion that has applied for permits, we are looking at 76.7 GW of PS capacity in the U.S. which is 7.5% of U.S. peak electricity demand.

Re: What about at night?

[haus]

"*I do not work for Scrabble"

Sure.... that's what all the darn Scrabble lobbyists say.

Re:What about at night?

[phantomfive]

Batteries are marginal at present, but are likely to become highly competitive over the next decade.

That would be great, I hope that happens.

Re:What about at night?

[ranton]

Well, you do realize, that capacity (natgas or whatever) sitting idle (not making money) is seriously expensive, right?

Peaking power plants, or power plants that generally only run when there is high demand, are generally gas turbines that burn natural gas. It is common for peaker plants to run only a few hours a day with well under 10% capacity. This is not a new problem. Electricity storage continues to become cheaper and as time goes on there will be less need for these types of power plants, but we have them now and could build more if they help us transition to more renewable energy sources.

Re:What about at night?

[LTIfox]

My point wasn't that this is an unsolvable problem. My point was that it is an expense. Peaker plants produce _horrendously_ expensive electricity. To compensate for that solar absolutely must be substantially cheaper than traditional power supplies in order to make it worth the trouble.

Re:What about at night?

[dunkelfalke]

Impractical fantasy you say? There is also a 1 km liquid nitrogen cooled superconducting installation in Essen that has been working just fine as a part of Essen power grid for several years already. This installation has replaced a 100kV AC powerline. No helium was needed and not that much liquid nitrogen either thanks to a good insulation. It just works.The reason for that installation was a different one, though - there was no room left in the underground channels for additional power lines and that superconducting cable transfers 5 times as much power as a normal copper cable with the same diameter.

Re:What about at night?

[bfpierce]

Are you somehow implying that having coal/coal redundancy is different than solar/hydro redundancy?

We run nuclear/hydro redundancy in my area. Are we doing it wrong?

Re:What about at night?

[Nutria]

No helium was needed

Good!

There is also a 1 km liquid nitrogen cooled superconducting installation ... not that much liquid nitrogen either thanks to a good insulation.

Now just enlarge that by another 105,000 km and you'll have the US electrical grid. (It's really 322,000 km, but I'm presuming that less will be needed when it's superconducted.)

There's even an absurd amount of long-haul high-tension wire in the US. (The island of Britain is a paltry 210k km^2, but the "Lower 48" of the US is 8 million km^2. Keep that in mind whenever you wonder why we like cars and don't use passenger trains.)

Re: What about at night?

[RandomFactor]

Word.

Re:What about at night?

[kaatochacha]

Batteries have been a decade away from a major breakthrough for the past 40 years.

Re:What about at night?

[Rei]

The odds of the weather across all of North America being cloudy are virtually nonexistent. Power systems don't ever guarantee 100% uptime (not today, not in the future), because that involves planning against events that are finite but absurdly improbable. You plan for whatever 99,9+% uptime targets that you deem appropriate, with plans for how to fail gracefully. A single front does not stretch the entire width and height of North America. But nonetheless, diversity in power sources is good. Low pressure systems tend to bring clouds, but they also bring wind - just like how wind peaks at night, in contrast to solar's daytime peak. Also, peak solar seasons vary a bit from region to region, while wind seasonal peaks vary greatly from region to region (in the US, the west coast has a summer peak, while the central and eastern US have a winter peak).

Don't take my word that you can achieve statistically significant uptime without unrealistic peaking costs - read any of the studies on the subject. There've been a lot of them. It requires no new tech and no storage - although those have the potential to make things even cheaper and easier.

Beyond peaking and storage, you have entire industries where their costs are predominantly driven by electricity costs. Such industries are often quite willing to engage in curtailment agreements with power companies in exchange for cheaper rates. Which basically doubles as peaking. Here in Iceland, for example, we have aluminum and silicon smelters that import all of their raw materials, and export almost all of their products; it's worth it to ship everything to and from a remote island just for the cheap power. And boy do they gobble it up - even the smallest of the aluminum smelters uses more power than all homes and businesses combined. And beyond time-shifting of entire industries, there's timeshifting for particular hardware units in other industries. For example, chillers rarely run 24/7, and can also be timeshifted.

I'll reiterate that I think diversity is important. Picture a 100% solar world in which you have even intercontinental power transmission, ultra-high voltage DC doing hops of thousands of kilometers at a time. All of North America interconnected, running into Siberia and China from Alaska, to South America through Central America, and to Europe through Greenland and then Iceland (where there's already a lot of prep work underway for power lines to the UK). You have the whole planet equallizing you out and timeshifting - virtually no peaking/storage at all required. All well and good!.... until a major volcano goes off. When Laki here went off in 1783, the huge quantities of gases it kicked out altered the global weather so much that the Mississippi River froze at New Orleans. Not from clouds, but a global stratospheric haze layer. There was plenty of wind that year, mind you, but very little sun! Being single-source dependent leaves you vulnerable. Regardless of what that source is.

Re:What about at night?

[pesho]

What about it? This is a problem that has both modern and very old solutions. Long time ago when nuclear was generating excess power at night when demand is low, people made pumping hydroelectric plants. They used excess power to pump water uphill during the night and reversed the flow to generate power during peak hours. With solar they will pump water during the day and generate power during the night. We have thermal solar power plants that can store heat in molten salt for night time generation. We have utility size batteries that can store power for night time use.

You seem to forget that solar is not the only renewable. We also have wind which is as competitive as solar. While the sun doesn't shine at night, the wind keeps blowing.

As we use less power during the night we need to generate less, so photo voltaic solar plants coming offline during the night can be compensated by storage, wind and hydro. And I would love if we maintain and develop nuclear power for baseline generation. Unfortunately this is getting more and more expensive.

Re:What about at night?

[Jeremi]

Batteries have been a decade away from a major breakthrough for the past 40 years.

The major breakthrough came in the 90s with the advent of the cell phone. Suddenly there was a huge market incentive for investing into battery research to maximize power density. That is why we have 200+ mile range on electric cars now, rather than the 30-70 mile range they could reach back then.

Re:What about at night?

[shaitand]

Seems like a poor way to collect and use solar to me. Let the Earth be the solar panel/battery and use deep wells/deep heat pipes to extract the heat converting with high efficiency. This makes far more sense especially since environmental temperature regulation is one of our biggest energy drains. No need to cover anymore surface with panels, heat loss from energy usage is recycled automatically as it warms the air which in turn replaces the heat lost to the Earth.

We are never going to put up enough solar panels to compare with the solar energy the Earth gathers across its entire surface, including/especially oceans.

Re: What about at night?

[Bartles]

Because solar generation systems turn sunlight directly into electricity. They are already inefficient enough. Converting electricity to some other medium only to convert back into electricity is very wasteful.

Re:What about at night?

[fbobraga]

--
Higuita

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:What about at night?

[skids]

Another interesting non-battery one one, though it's more economical/efficient when co-located near certain chem industrial processes like oxygen production.

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

Re:What about at night?

[rahvin112]

The supreme court just legalized the curtailment agreements too. The whole idea of baseload went out the window with that ruling because companies can now be paid to not consume electricity. There is a whole group of companies now that do managed use of the grid by paying companies not to use power during peaks. This is particularly valuable to companies with very high power use and very low labor (the new automated factor). They can basically turn the plant off when power rates are high and then turn it back on when it's low rather than running just a standard 9-5 shift, this allows them to do maintenance during these shutdowns rather than at night when power rates are the lowest.

Anyone that brings up baseload in a discussion about power frankly doesn't understand how a modern grid and power system is run. The whole paradigm of base load is a 20th century idea.

Re:What about at night?

[CanadianMacFan]

Mirrors in spaces to redirect light to the solar plant at night? /s

Re:What about at night?

[HornWumpus]

When were curtailment agreements illegal?

The rest of your post is similarly misinformed.

Re:What about at night?

[Khashishi]

Solar thermal is more expensive than photovoltaic, but comes with built-in energy storage (molten salt).

Re:What about at night?

[Khashishi]

Make it more expensive during the night and they will use less.

Re:What about at night?

[rahvin112]

I never said they were illegal. If that's your reading comprehension I don't expect reasonable discussion.

In Jan 2016 the Supreme court heard a case about new FERC rule forcing power producers to pay users that curtailed energy use during peak periods. See: http://thehill.com/policy/ener...

There are dozens of companies that have sprung up and are assisting large manufacturers and heavy power users in maximizing these payments. The result has been that the whole dynamic of the electricity market is changing. Power companies no longer are talking about base load, they are talking about demand response and power shifting. The whole idea of a dumb grid and base load is not the energy market of the future. Germany and California have already moved heavily in this direction and it won't be long before the rest of the US follows. The western states are all talking about joining California's central grid management and there is a compact already under consideration.

Re:What about at night?

[scarboni888]

Is the externalized cost of pollution included in the price of coal-generated electricity?

We need to start seriously understanding ALL the costs, not just the design, manufacturing, and distribution costs.

That's the sign of a mature civilization, IMHO.

Re:What about at night?

[Agripa]

The major breakthrough came in the 90s with the advent of the cell phone. Suddenly there was a huge market incentive for investing into battery research to maximize power density. That is why we have 200+ mile range on electric cars now, rather than the 30-70 mile range they could reach back then.

What? Power density in batteries has not been a problem in electric vehicles for a long time; it mattered in power tools though. Energy density has been and energy for price is the largest issue and that has not been solved.

Re:What about at night?

[Agripa]

... and use deep wells/deep heat pipes to extract the heat converting with high efficiency

Well, there's your problem.

Re:What about at night?

[Agripa]

Impractical fantasy you say? There is also a 1 km liquid nitrogen cooled superconducting installation in Essen that has been working just fine as a part of Essen power grid for several years already. This installation has replaced a 100kV AC powerline. No helium was needed and not that much liquid nitrogen either thanks to a good insulation. It just works.The reason for that installation was a different one, though - there was no room left in the underground channels for additional power lines and that superconducting cable transfers 5 times as much power as a normal copper cable with the same diameter.

Considering that the resistance of copper wire drops to about 1/7th at that temperature and most of the composition of the superconductive wire is silver metal, that is not much of a deal. It is really a liquid nitrogen cooled silver wire with some impurities.

Re:What about at night?

[Agripa]

In Portugal, the excess energy from solar (during day) or wind (usually during night) is used to pump water upstream back to hydroelectric dams reservoirs, back to potential energy, to be used later, when there is no enough wind or solar energy. Of course, like any solution, it have its limits and all countries know that they have to have several energy sources in parallel, so when one is weak, the remaining ones should fill the gap... Even coal, if for some reason the a boiler stop working, you have to fetch energy from other places

Well then, we can just build more dams and water reservoirs just as soon as the Green stop protesting against them and the nuclear power plants.

Re:What about at night?

[cheesybagel]

Actually in Portugal there were plenty of places to add it because most hydroelectric dams did not have pumped storage facilities. They are being upgraded with reversible pumps. It's costing a huge wallop of money but its the only way to make the make the wind power that was already installed economically viable. Ignore whatever propaganda you hear, the wind power construction is one of the reasons why Portugal (and Spain) are running a deficit and will continue doing so for probably the next 20 years. That's how long it will take to pay the goddamned windmills and reversible pumps.

Re:What about at night?

[dunkelfalke]

If i remember correctly, Essen superconductor is an ittrium barium copper oxide one.

Re:What about at night?

[angel'o'sphere]

My point was that it is an expense. Peaker plants produce _horrendously_ expensive electricity.
We already have those peaker plants.
Their power is expensive because they are only utilized very low.
With the shift to solar plants those existing peaker plants get utilized more ... there is no problem.
A peaker plant does not care if it has to jump in because the wind blows less, a cloud goes over a solar plant or 1 million americans open the fridge at the same time during an ad during the super bowl.

And: for solar and wind we have prognosises, so we know in advance if we have to power up something. And guess what: we power up a load following plant most of the time, and not a peaker.

Re: What about at night?

[SmilingBoy]

Not really, lithium ion batteries are pretty efficient and don't lose too much energy in the process of charging and discharging the battery. However, batteries are expensive. Too expensive to be able to be used for more than overnight storage (at a large scale of course). Even lead acid batteries are quite efficient (maybe 80-95%) but are still too expensive.

Re:What about at night?

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry that is idiotic.
The amount of money put into power plants/grids is such a low fraction of GPD it can not cause a deficit.

Re:What about at night?

[higuita]

yep! :)

I got this name from my friends, after a football match where i was the goalkeeper ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: What about at night?

[Rei]

The odds of having a significant lull in wind across the entire country is actually very high

The claim was across North America. We're not talking, say, the UK here. The US and Canada are already well connected, and just the US alone is massive. There's not even a single time that is "evening" in the US, as the east coast is three hours later than the west coast. Add in windy western/eastern Canada and Alaska and you get two more time zones.

At any given time, in the US alone, there's 2-3 fronts crossing it west to east, plus significant northern/southern differences and added effects from the jet stream, oceanic systems, etc.

Blustery and multi directional wind conditions severly impact wind output.

"Multi-directional"? Sounds like you're talking near-surface winds, which have no applicability to commercial wind turbines, which are well above the turbulent boundary layer. And you size the nameplate capacity for how "blustery" (I assume you mean how high the windspeeds in your area tend to be) your area is. A typical profile is slightly-more-than-cubic rise from the minimum speed to ~25mph (at height), roughly constant from there to ~55mph or so, then reduced/stopped generation thereover. So as a severe storm moves over, turbines in the most intense parts of the storm may be shut down (feathered/braked), but the entire surrounding region is at 100% capacity.

Good wind sites with steady winds that make sense for wind farms are not everywhere

Nor do they have to be with a HVDC grid. You can shunt power from one part of the country to the next. No, there is not a "tremendous cost"; the estimated cost for a nationwide network is about 0,3 cents per kWh, saving about 1,1 cents per kWh in peaking/generation hardware. The lines themselves are actually cheaper per unit power than AC lines, and they don't need to fan out to cover a whole region like AC does; HVDC moves in large jumps between nodes and transfers power to/from local AC grids. The substations actually cost more than the lines. And the US already uses HVDC substations to share power between its disjoint AC grids.

Listen, you don't have to take my word for it, there have been many peer-reviewed studies on the subject that say the same thing: this isn't a problem. It's economical with today's tech at today's prices. And it is thus going to keep moving in that direction of its own momentum even if all aspects of the technology each stagnate.

Lastly: they're called wind turbines, not windmills. Wind turbines are where wind energy is captured by spinning a generator. Windmills are where the wind is captured for direct mechanical power, such as pumping water or grinding grain.

Re:What about at night?

[Agripa]

If i remember correctly, Essen superconductor is an ittrium barium copper oxide one.

Do to the difficult mechanical properties of high temperature superconductors, they are enclosed in metal which is usually (always?) silver. And while the super conducting element itself is super conducting, the cable or wire as a whole is not. Professor Eagar referred to this as "cold silver" and said the improvement was 20% in this video. Considering the cost compared to aluminum, superconducting power transmission is only going to be used where space and weight constraints are critical.

Re:What about at night?

[cheesybagel]

Source:
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_fi...

In 2007, the estimated production cost of electricity ranged from 110 €2005/MWh for wind on-shore farm, 145 €2005/MWh for large hydro, to 195 €2005/MWh for solid biomass and 880 €2005/MWh for photovoltaic. In comparison, fossil fuel based technologies such as coal, and natural gas were cheaper (from 50 €2005/MWh for coal to 75 €2005/MWh for gas) (11). Obviously, most of the renewable technologies were not competitive enough to be deployed through market forces alone.

These calculations do not take account of the additional costs for the overall energy systems to integrate the massive deployment of renewables. These costs involve, first of all, investment in the electricity grid to transport and balance electricity generated from renewable sources. The variability of electricity generated from renewables also requires investment in back-up power plants (gas turbines), costly hydro storage facilities or interconnectors.

Spain and Portugal have the highest tariff deficits, with their cumulative value of 2.2% to 3% of GDP. While the scope of these deficits differs between these two countries, in both of them the authorities have formally recognized the right of the affected utilities to recover the corresponding amount. They have also set up securitisation schemes that turn these credit rights of the utilities into fixed-income securities. Both countries aim at eliminating new tariff deficits as soon as possible, but have so far failed to do so.

General government deficit was extremely high in Greece and Spain in 2009-2012 and in Portugal in 2009-2010, i.e. close to or even exceeding 10% of GDP.

The tariff debt in Portugal is also substantial. The total accumulated tariff debt was estimated by the regulator at EUR 3.7 billion (2.2% of GDP) at the end of 2013; according to other government estimates, it could be even higher at 2.6% of GDP (EUR 4.4 billion) (35).

That's the tariff debt on generated power alone. It's a way to hide the electricity costs of renewables from the electric bill of the final consumer even when these countries have some of the highest rates in Europe. It's not counting the other costs to the electric grid, or even counting the long term bank loans that were used to build these facilities and which are part of the outstanding bank debt. Also don't think that the extra cost of the generated energy doesn't have an economic impact either.

Re:What about at night?

[Ol Olsoc]

What about at night?

http://www.solarserver.com/sol... Storage. A lot of traditional power stations even today do this. The paradigm is a little different, but for conventional turbine generated power, which has issues with widely varying power loads, they often use nighttime pumping of water to store in ponds, then release it during the day as a load leveler.

With solar, you would pump during the day, then release at night. This isn't a big deal, because solar can handle load levelling better than a turbine generator system.

Re:What about at night?

[Ol Olsoc]

Is the cost of this method included in the $0.03/kwh?

Is the question asked as disproval of solar?

Given that storage is already used as load leveling for conventionalpower generation, its just part of providing electricity.

Re:What about at night?

[volmtech]

I live in Florida, the wind rarely blows at night. We get a sea breeze a few dozen miles from the coast but when the sun goes down it gets dead calm.

Solar, sure, off shore wind turbines, maybe. Wave generators but our waves are usually small and the gulf stream might be tapped. I just don't believe the huge expense of constructing renewable power can be done without the wealth fossil fuels have been creating.

Re:What about at night?

[angel'o'sphere]

Interesting paper.

But was the original claim not that the government households and state debt (particular in Spain, Greece and Portugal) is driven by miscalculated energy prices? I can not follow that so far.

Re:What about at night?

[cheesybagel]

Basically the governments in these countries (e.g. Portugal and Spain) agreed to buy generated wind and solar power at a fixed price per kWh generated, regardless if the electricity was used or not, for decades on at a fixed price which was quite higher than the price you would pay with a fossil fuel power plant back then. Plus this price was calculated at a time oil and coal prices were at all time highs (like 4x higher than it is now, oil was over $100 USD a barrel at one point).

This was such a stupendous deal (it's basically a guaranteed rent from the state for decades) that large bank loans (billions and billions of €) were taken to erect these windmills and solar panels against the collateral that the state would guarantee these rents.

The prices of electricity to the consumer were raised significantly since then in these countries, but still what consumers pay for their electricity is not enough to cover the amounts agreed on the fixed power purchase contracts for wind and solar. So basically the government is covering the shortfall with deficit spending out of the regular government budget. i.e. its subsidizing it. In Portugal these subsidies are to the tune of 2.2%-2.6% of GDP each year alone.

So people have been paying quite a lot for their electricity and the government is granting large subsidies on top of that. I won't say the government deficit problem in these countries is just due to the renewable energy power contracts, because it isn't, but they are one of the major reasons for the deficit.

What type of solar

[Dan East]

What kind of solar are they talking about? Photovoltaic? Surely this doesn't include storage or converting to AC does it? The article doesn't say.

Re:What type of solar

[Maxo-Texas]

I suspect as solar becomes ubiquitous we may see more DC options.

Photo voltaic has become very compelling plus we don't fund people who want to kill us when we buy photo voltaic so that's always a plus.

But molten salt is pretty compelling for solar as well.

Coal is already uneconomical compared to other resources even without considering the pollution cleanup costs. Old coal plants didn't have to comply to the new pollution laws until last year (well 2015 so I guess now barely two years ago) and were polluting large areas with mercury.

Nuclear is great as long as you ignore decommissioning and fuel storage and human nature. i.e. humans get sloppier and cut more and more corners over time until something bad happens. I'd feel more comfortable if nuclear were restricted to small (5000 house) self contained plants which didn't even allow humans in the loop and which shut themselves down automatically. And we need to build a breeder reactor to reduce the volume of nuclear waste by 2 orders of magnitude. But it has to be crazy secure. As in put it on an army base secure.

Solar, wind, and tides are the way to go tho. All have minimal cleanup costs, minimal problems on failure, fail by tiny pieces rather than as a whole, and costs are plummeting.

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

I don't mean to pick on you so much as your question, but the limited thinking you demonstrate with mentioning AC exemplifies the self-imposed challenges we face by looking at problems with a limited frame of reference. There is almost nothing in your house that needs to run specifically on AC.

LED light bulbs run great off low voltage DC, and the lights the new ones produce is fabulous. Almost all your electronics now run on low voltage DC, which means you're facing enormous losses throughout your house through all the wall- or built-in transformers. We need to be putting low voltage DC buses in all new houses and then rely on basic voltage adjustment circuits for things that need higher or lower voltage to operate.

Your outlier appliances, like ovens and furnaces, could be handled through a heat storage form of solar with well-understood thermodynamic properties.

We *have* to stop planning our future based on faulty assumptions. It's like building an all-electric house in the 1950s and asking the builder why the plans make no allowance for a coal bin!

Re:What type of solar

[stabiesoft]

The problem with DC is up/down converting it. The power company uses 12.5KV to run for relatively short distances and it goes up from there. Transmission lines run at a few mil volts. For A/C a relatively simple transformer does the conversion. For DC, it gets very expensive. And it is all about IR losses, and the higher V is, the lower I is.

Re:What type of solar

[operagost]

Those of us who already have houses and don't wish to be forced out on the street because we can't afford to convert them to DC have a vested interest.

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

You are absolutely right. I should have mentioned I'm an advocate of generating energy where it will be used. I would suggest DC in the home based on a DC-generating energy source at the site.

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

I said "all new houses". I did omit out an important part that I think we could greatly benefit from generating energy at the point of usage which would do away with DC transmission losses.

Re:What type of solar

[Shajenko42]

I think he's talking about how terrorists often fund their operations by selling oil they've seized, among other things.

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

I don't like to reply to ACs, but your feedback seems meant to be legitimate, so I will assume you're not trolling. Even though the *facepalm* is a bit presumptive. I've clearly spent a lot more time thinking about this topic than you have.

I honestly can't imagine what you have in your house that would reach hundreds of amps on the proposed DC bus. Note that I am not advocating the DC bus running all the heavy appliance loads, but rather only all lighting and consumer electronics loads, something like 1 kW at 24V DC would seem adequate. Telecom has used 48V DC for a long time, so there is some precedent that could be leveraged for designs in this area.

Furnaces and ovens could easily be placed on exterior walls offering limited loss paths to the storage system. These are design changes that would be not dissimilar to those that happened as coal furnaces were replaced by electric ones. People adapted both existing homes and new designs.

I think the environmental concerns driving alternative energy are mostly overblown, but I'd like to see power generation at the home in the name of self-sufficiency and to decrease the global conflicts over energy.

Re:What type of solar

[swb]

The problem with DC branch circuits is the heavy gauge wire needed to keep voltage losses down, and even then you have to ask how much current you want to run via straight DC.

My guess is that unless there was a major standards push, we'd have a mishmash of DC voltages. The "safe" bet would be DC runs in the wall of 48V (smaller wires) but I would bet much of the time you would be locally down converting that to 12V a lot of the time which would be pretty wasteful.

This is a major headache on boats now, where it's better to have a 24V DC system but you still end up with a bunch of minor stuff that wants 12V because there is no 24V version.

Re:What type of solar

[Ungrounded Lightning]

What kind of solar are they talking about? Photovoltaic? Surely this doesn't include storage or converting to AC does it? The article doesn't say.

DC/AC/voltage conversion is semiconductor technology. It has been, and still is, benefiting from Moore's Law.

A few years back I worked with a networking equipment manufacturer which put at least two (and sometimes three) layers of voltage-conversion regulators (DC/AC/DC) on a board: One to down-convert 48V (needed to get enough power through a few pins to run the power-hungry board), another near the load - because the conversion losses were far less than the resistive losses in the board would have been if the primary converters dropped to the loads' required voltages. I'm currently working with chips that stretch lithium battery life. They cost tens of cents and have efficiencies in the 90s%. AC/DC/AC converters have been in every compact fluorescent for years. Most wall-warts these days, and all laptop cord-bulges, are switching regulators, which is the same basic technology as an inverter. Getting a good sine wave to keep non-electronics loads (like motors) happy is only slightly more complicated than a basic switcher's sawtooth, and the bulk of the complication lives in a simple chip.

Fifteen years ago a house-sized inverter was in the $5K range. By now the price, like that of home computers, is more determined by the market size and the costs of marketing and fulflillment than the electronics itself. With the generation down to cheaper-than-grid, economies of scale will kick in big time.

Storage battery performance and potential price breakthroughs are coming so fast that the main problem is whether you can recover a battery plant's cost before the product is obsoleted by something better. Nevertheless, the electric auto industry (and to a lesser extent portable equipment like laptops) is driving the new tech into the market. (Expect a big downside hit on prices and upside hit on availability when Tesla and a couple other battery plants go into production.)

I don't see any problem with the cost of conversion electronics or storage for nighttime and cloudy weeks inhibiting the deployment of photovoltaic, now that the basic panels are coming into competitive-with-grid prices.

Re:What type of solar

[Anonymous Coward]

but rather only all lighting and consumer electronics loads, something like 1 kW at 24V DC would seem adequate.

You realize that's 40 amps, right? And that you'd have to find an electrician willing to pull 8 GA copper wire? That would be hugely cost-prohibitive. You could always switch to aluminum and pull 4 GA - 6 GA aluminum wire, I suppose, but then you're probably talking running huge-diameter conduit everywhere since wire gauges that size don't typically come in 2-, 3-, or 4-conductor varieties like 12 GA or 14 GA Romex.

Yeah, telecom used 48V DC for a long time and they pulled 0000-GA cable to do it. You won't be using that anytime soon.

Plus, since you need to keep 120VAC around for the appliances, presumably you've got your 1kW 24 VDC power supply running off your 120VAC or 240VAC mains, incurring a switching loss of 3-5% there; then, for each DC device that you plug in that doesn't run at 24 VDC (hint: most of them) you get to step down for another switching loss of 3-5%, so you lose 6-10% on most or all of your DC devices.

If you really want LVDC outlets your best bet is to put a switching power supply in the box where you want the LVDC. Or, you can just put switching power supplies into every appliance connected to the 120VAC mains like everyone does because it really is the cheapest and most efficient way to do it.

Re:What type of solar

[Dan East]

You're overlooking the simplicity to the solution. You put the batteries IN the oven, dryer, washing machine, etc. They charge slowly during daylight, and consume from their own batteries on demand, and can have very short distance conductors large enough to consume whatever amperage the batteries can supply with little to no loss. They are already large appliances so accommodating batteries of significant size wouldn't be a problem. If the industry could adapt a standardized battery module that would roll into the bottom of the unit for easy replacement then so much the better.

Re:What type of solar

[currently_awake]

DC to DC power converters have gotten much cheaper and more efficient, it's now cheaper to use DC for everything than AC.

Re:What type of solar

[careysub]

And we need to build a breeder reactor to reduce the volume of nuclear waste by 2 orders of magnitude.

No we don't, and it doesn't.

Currently nuclear waste volume consists of spent fuel rods which can be stored safely and permanently in dry casks. Currently power reactors need a core change every two years, one core load takes 4 dry casks to store. Dry cask storage takes about 25 square meters per cask (with generous "walk around space"), so that load could be stored in 100 square meters. Over a 50 year period this is only 25 fuel rod loads, or 100 casks, taking up 2500 square meters. Throw in all 100 reactors operating in the U.S., and that is 250,000 square meters, or about 65 acres. This is not a problem that needs "solving". It is already solved.

And reprocessing with breeder reactors does NOT "reduce the volume of nuclear waste by 2 orders of magnitude"! This is a made-up number. What reprocessing can do is remove the long-lived actinides for burning up in special actinide burner reactors (which need not be "breeders"), but the cost of this is very high. Currently the problem nuclear power has is its high capital cost that makes it financially unattractive to build new reactors. For any chance at commercial viability nuclear power must keep the fuel cost part of the system as low as possible. Cheap cask storage is the best option for this, which is why the nuclear industry is opting for it.

Re:What type of solar

[HornWumpus]

As a bonus, 1 kW at 24V DC makes a great arc welder.

You'd still need a wire feed and a tank of Argon.

Re:What type of solar

[stabiesoft]

Note even the panels on my roof ship the juice to the inverter at around 300VDC so they don't have to put really big wires from the roof to the inverter. I think you are underestimating the cost and difficulty of working with sub 10 gauge copper needed for high amperage circuits. As to DC appliances, it is chicken and egg. If you are a manufacturer of say washing machines, why would you spend the design effort to build a mass production DC version when there are no houses that use it. Conversely, if you are a builder, who would buy your DC house that costs 20% more to have the extra DC plugs everywhere? Even getting the required extra inspections may be nontrivial for the nonstandard DC outlets. I imagine that city code inspector is going to look at it and go WTF.

Re:What type of solar

[MightyMartian]

Solar doesn't lose that much efficiency at higher latitudes. "Work's best" isn't the same as "only place it works."

Re:What type of solar

[MightyMartian]

Fossil fuels are basically being subsidized by the future. We're passing off the costs to our children and grandchildren.

Re:What type of solar

[ShooterNeo]

Why bother? Readily available inverters like SMA TL inverters are 96.5% efficient. So Solar (high voltage DC) -> 120/240 V AC. Computers and LED light bulbs and various other consumer electronics need different DC voltages. So their power supplies work by either using the AC from the wall to run through a transformer, or in some cases, they do AC->DC->high frequency AC->transformer->low voltage high frequency AC->DC. That's how things like laptop power supplies work.

As you can see, you already do a shit-ton of conversions, since the way you voltage convert DC efficiently is to convert it to high frequency AC first. Using 60 Hz AC for the house wiring only reduces the efficiency of the system a few percent. And it's a standard that very large sums of money were already sunk into. Not enough benefit in replacing it to even bother.

Really, the only thing needed to be done is to make some of those power supplies used by consumer electronics more efficient. 96% efficiency is possible, but as you may know, 80% is more typical.

Re:What type of solar

[SoftwareArtist]

Really good post, and then at the last moment you had to throw this in:

I think the environmental concerns driving alternative energy are mostly overblown

Why do you think they're overblown? Do you not believe in global warming? What about the fact that pollution in Beijing is so bad this week, they're having to shut down freeways because the visibility is too bad to drive safely. Pollution in India is even worse. The World Heath Organization estimates that air pollution causes 7 million premature deaths a year. What exactly do you think is overblown?

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

Thank you for the useful comment. It is very good food for thought. I am a ham also, which I think correlates highly with a desire to constantly tinker with things!

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

I guess I may be cynical enough to believe humanity is likely to drive itself to a new equilibrium through another global conflict before the ultimate fears of climate change are fully realized.

Re:What type of solar

[Dutch Gun]

I suspect this is the electrical equivalent of the conversion to metric in the US. Yes, it makes sense. Yes, it has a lot of advantages. No, it's not going to happen so easily, because of simple inertia. Lots of good ideas never happen because it's hard to make a transition to anything new once the old system is well established and functional. I mean, look at how long IPv6 is taking to get off the ground, even with the pressure of having run out of IPv4 addresses.

I'm just thinking about the enormity of the change this would require. First, consider building and construction codes, and electrician licensing and training. Next, we need whole new sets of standards for lights and wall sockets, as you obviously need to make them different to prevent accidents. Consumer electronics would need to support both standards for the next 50 years (at least with converters), because most people are not going to rewire their house. And that doesn't even get into the question of how to deal with different power requirements. They'd have to run off a common standard, but I'm not really qualified to say if that's even practical. I've always presumed electronic devices are designed with different volts/amp requirements for a reason. There are probably other issues that I haven't even considered as well.

The logistics of all this are a bit staggering if you consider the whole picture.

Re:What type of solar

[trg83]

Loss is a really interesting thing to think about. Most people think about the losses just disappearing, and relative to the electrical circuits, they do. I had an interesting experience when I started converting to CFLs and LEDs a few years ago. I found several new drafts in my house I had not been aware of and eventually bought all new windows. The incandescent lighting had basically been functioning as a distributed space heater system. It was significant enough to be noticeable, to me at least. If those lights were sufficient to function as space heaters in cold weather, they must have also been sufficient to cause my A/C unit to overwork in hot weather when the lighting was powered on.

That led me to: what exactly are the cascading impacts of loss in the form of heat in a home?

Re:What type of solar

[HornWumpus]

Nice lie. It _doesn't_ lose efficiency, it loses sunlight.

Re:What type of solar

[ShooterNeo]

Do you want to have an in depth discussion about this? The net TLDR is that if your house is heated electrically and you live in a "heating climate", where the majority of the year you need heat, those incandescent bulbs weren't hurting anything. Most people, especially in heating climates, burn fuel for heat or use heat pumps. In that case, while yes, you were getting heat from the bulbs, this was at a rate of 1 joule electrical = 1 joule heat, minus losses in the summer. That sounds good, but burning natural gas is about 3 times better. That is, if you replaced all the incandescent bulbs with LED and worked your natural gas furnace a little harder, you get 3 times as much heat per dollar and this is a significant net improvement.

Another factor is that most of the benefit from going to LED is the diodes produce light very efficiently. 100 lumens/watt on some of readily available bulbs. So a small % loss in the power supply inside the LEDs (which you wouldn't have if the house had a DC power bus) is not a big deal, because it is a small % of an already small number.

If you already have all LEDs, the next bang/buck upgrade for your house is cellulose insulation in your attic. It's very cheap to apply - $200-$400 bucks at Home Depot or Lowes will get you enough to drown your attic with a foot or more of the stuff. (and rent you the machine to blow it in)

The next upgrade after that is a mini-split retrofit. In most homes, the majority of the load is heating and cooling. The most efficient way to do heating and cooling, except in extremely cold climates, is electric mini split AC/heat pumps. Some of the higher end Fujitsu and Mitsubishi models are over 30 SEER and 15 HPSF. More than twice the efficiency of central ACs and heat pumps. If you DIY the installs, you can retrofit in several of them and heat/cool your house at double efficiency for a modest investment. Hell, people with trailer homes and campers have figured this out and also are starting to retrofit them in, because they are vastly more efficient than RV made ACs. They are simple to install if you put them in an outside wall - just run a new electric line in conduit outside or through the attic, drill one hole, install brackets on both sides of the wall, and connect a small number of wires and tighten 4 hoses. Evacuate with a pump borrowed for free from autozone and done.

Re:What type of solar

[Maxo-Texas]

http://thebulletin.org/rising-...

âoeThe most reliable estimate of the cost of decommissioning [a nuclear power plant] is 10-15 percent of the construction cost, contrary to some highly inflated estimates ... Modern serious studies of the disposal problem indicate that satisfactory isolation is technologically feasible, even for the long term.â So wrote MIT nuclear engineering professor David Rose in the November 1985 issue of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

How misguided that view seems now, with the advantage of decades of experience. The Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Rowe, Massachusetts, took 15 years to decommissionâ"or five times longer than was needed to build it. And decommissioning the plantâ"constructed early in the 1960s for $39 millionâ"cost $608 million.

So it was estimated to cost $6 million (*inflation adjusted- about $39 million) to decommission and as of 2014, it instead took $608 million dollars.

So.. no... we haven't built the actual cost of decommissioning plants into the bill. We've collected about 5% of what will actually be needed to decomission them. And the difference will either result in a rotting husk that isn't cleaned up or a $560 million dollar bill handed to the tax payers by the nuclear power plant industry (which keeps the profits).

Coal is horrifically uneconomical. At this point. And it's not solar- it's natural gas.

The only place tidal is called a disaster that I can find is in flat out propaganda by the oil industry. Perhaps you have a citation?

Solar is being sold in huge quantities without subsidies to power companies. German power companies bought up 2 years of Nano Solar's new "printed" solar cells that were crazy cheap (an order of magnitude cheaper than solid substrata and much lighter and easier to install).

Re:What type of solar

[cheesybagel]

Photo voltaic has become very compelling plus we don't fund people who want to kill us when we buy photo voltaic so that's always a plus.

I wouldn't bet on it considering a large part of the solar PV manufacturing facilities are in China.

Re:What type of solar

[cheesybagel]

I just consider it as putting the carbon back in the atmosphere where it came from.

Sure carbon monoxide, NOX are issues, but carbon dioxide isn't.

Re:What type of solar

[cheesybagel]

Do you not believe in global warming?

*yawn*

What about the fact that pollution in Beijing is so bad this week, they're having to shut down freeways [slashdot.org] because the visibility is too bad to drive safely. Pollution in India [slashdot.org] is even worse. The World Heath Organization estimates that air pollution causes 7 million premature deaths a year [ibtimes.co.uk]. What exactly do you think is overblown?

That's a different problem. China is building a lot of hydroelectric power, nuclear power, and yes even renewables to try to clean up their electricity generation. They are also building electric subways and rail like mad. I wouldn't be surprised if they cleaned it up substantially in a couple of decades and reached levels similar to, say, Japan. Now India might be a much bigger issue.

Air pollution near places where people live is a problem. I don't think you'll find a lot of people who disagree with that.

Re:What type of solar

[Maxo-Texas]

Things move too fast. Nano solar which was crazy cheap was enormously undercut on prices by even cheaper competitors and went out of business because it was too expensive.

lol.

Re:What type of solar

[Gamasta]

Someone else tried it out in Germany. Lived with 480kWh a year from the grid; remainder was from own photo-voltaic generator. He had some appliances custom made to run off 12V, since these batteries are readily available pretty much everywhere around the globe.

The whole process was documented (1200 blog entries), however the homepage is in german. On the left side there's an automatic translator.

http://www.dasgleichstromhaus....

Re:What type of solar

[SoftwareArtist]

*yawn*

I'll take that to mean, "Yes, I live in a fantasy world and am immune to facts."

Re:What type of solar

[cheesybagel]

There are facts pointing both ways. It is questionable if there is a warming and its even more questionable how much of an impact does human activity have on it.

Re:What type of solar

[SoftwareArtist]

Every major scientific organization in the world says otherwise. But I guess you know more about it than they do.

Re:What type of solar

[angel'o'sphere]

It is a talk about grids, not households.
A grid has no need for storage unless you are approaching a share of minimum 40% - 50% of wind/solar.

Re:What type of solar

[Maxo-Texas]

yes, we do...

Not only is the volume of waste reduced by 2 orders of magnitude (:a factor of 100") but the great reduction of transuranic products in the waste reduces the lifetime of the radioactive waste from breeder reactors is much shorter than the lifetime of radioactive wastes from normal reactors which means there are a LOT more safe places to store the waste (you don't need to find a place that's going to be stable for 10,000 years).

"Since breeder reactors on a closed fuel cycle would use nearly all of the actinides fed into them as fuel, their fuel requirements would be reduced by a factor of about 100. The volume of waste they generate would be reduced by a factor of about 100 as well. While there is a huge reduction in the volume of waste from a breeder reactor, the activity of the waste is about the same as that produced by a light water reactor.[39]

In addition, the waste from a breeder reactor has a different decay behavior, because it is made up of different materials. Breeder reactor waste is mostly fission products, while light water reactor waste has a large quantity of transuranics. After spent nuclear fuel has been removed from a light water reactor for longer than 100,000 years, these transuranics would be the main source of radioactivity. Eliminating them would eliminate much of the long-term radioactivity from the spent fuel.[13]

In principle, breeder fuel cycles can recycle and consume all actinides,[9] leaving only fission products. As the graphic in this section indicates, fission products have a peculiar 'gap' in their aggregate half-lives, such that no fission products have a half-life longer than 91 years and shorter than two hundred thousand years. As a result of this physical oddity, after several hundred years in storage, the activity of the radioactive waste from a Fast Breeder Reactor would quickly drop to the low level of the long-lived fission products."

9 "www.ne.anl.gov/pdfs/12_Pyroprocessing_bro_5_12_v14%5B6%5D.pdf" (PDF). Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved 25 December 2012.

13 Bodansky, David (January 2006). "The Status of Nuclear Waste Disposal". Physics and Society. American Physical Society. 35 (1).

39 Fast BreederReactors
by
Richard L. Garwin
IBMFellow Emeritus
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598

Re:What type of solar

[Maxo-Texas]

It's an interesting point tho there is a difference in the way china wants to kill us and the way middle east terrorists want to kill us.
Given nuclear capability, ISIS would use it to destroy cities and kill millions of people.
China has been nuclear for decades and while an enemy, they've been sane and sober in their use of nuclear weapons.

Makes Sense When You Consider...

[Anonymous Coward]

We can let the sunshine reach the earth,
where it gets absorbed by a plant,
which dies and gets buried deep underground,
and after many millenia and crushing pressure turns into coal,
then we build machines to dig holes in the ground,
then we send miners down into the coal mine to extract the coal,
then haul the coal up to the surface,
and we ship the coal to a power plant,
and finally we extract the energy.

Or... we can let the sunshine reach the earth,
where it gets absorbed by a solar panel.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[debrain]

> Nat Gas is the cheapest.

Natural gas is highly subsidized, and even still no company has pulled a profit on natural gas since 2008.

Plus the costs, which can be huge, are externalized onto taxpayers and landowners.

Take Pennsylvania, which made $204 million on taxing shale, but road damage from nat. gas was over $3.5 bn. That's just one state.

Plus, many natural gas companies have stopped paying landowners en masse. What happens when their class action lawsuits start to come through?

Natural gas being cheap is a short term aberration.

For reference:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[Sique]

China might not be building coal plants anymore in 10 years, when Solar becomes cheaper. If you really read the article, you will find out, that there still are regions in the world, where at current prices, Coal is cheaper than Solar.

And also for coal, someone has to pay for the land and subsidy. Coal doesn't fall from the sky (other than sunlight, which literally does so), it has to be mined, and beside the coal mines you need tracks or roads to transport the coal to the plants. So Coal is also a big consumer of land, especially if the coal is mined by surface mining, which is by far the cheapest option.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[91degrees]

You can put them pretty much anywhere though. The countries that like this have a decent amount of pretty worthless land - Deserts and the like.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nat Gas is still the cheapest

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[ranton]

China knows about real costs, and they are building new coal plants at about 1 a week.

China is overbuilding unnecessary coal plants for the same reason they are overbuilding everywhere else. Cheap money and perverse incentives. Their coal plants are already operating at below 50% capacity. Their coal consumption has dropped for the past two years and the drop is accelerating.

Photovoltaic degredation

[Jamlad]

Is this really a wonderful win-win thing?

Won't the panels have to be continuously replaced every (other?) decade as they degrade? Aren't we just shifting the pollution from coal to the panel production plants and rare-earth mining? What do we do with all these panels at their end-of-life? I presume there is some inclusion of heavy and rare-earth elements in the panels. Where does that go?

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the greater efficiencies at which we run our world, but how much of this is virtue and virtue signaling?

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[ColdWetDog]

EVERYTHING has to get replaced sooner or later. In a solar installations, panels are a significant part of the cost, but hardly the only one. Do you think that coal boilers run forever? That nuc plants never need maintenance?

Engineering has long figured out how to plan on replacing large, expensive things and still (oftentimes) making money.

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[ventsyv]

Rare earth elements are used in some special application panels, but the vast majority of panels are silicon based and require no rare earth elements. Also, rare earth elements aren't actually rare, what's rare is commercially viable ores deposits. If the demand for rare earth elements keeps increasing, I expect new technology will be developed to mine rare earths from sources that are currently not considered viable. Finally, a word on the degradation - the current standard is 20% degradation within 25 years. Worst case you can still generate at 80% of the original efficiency after 25 years, but I expect that at that time you'll be able to buy panels that are significantly more efficient at a much lower costs thus making the replacement cost a non issue.

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[currently_awake]

Solar electric panels have an estimated lifespan of 50 years, It's possible to make solar panels without air pollution, and most rare earth mining is for making electric motors. Panels can be recycled. Rare earth metals are not rare, they are just diluted making mining expensive- meaning extracting rare earth metals is cost effective. The massive cost savings from reduced medical bills is by far the largest benefit of using solar, and we don't even count it.

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[rahvin112]

Solar panels are warrantied to maintain 80% output for 25 years. The total life of a solar panel is unknown at this point. Providing there is no electrical failure they could presumably generate electricity for a century with declining efficiency as time passes.

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[Whorhay]

Even when the panels are less efficient you can leave them up and producing. Just add the newer panels and increase the size of the installation. The only reason I can think of off hand to replace a panel is if it is actually not functioning, or you don't have room to expand the installation.

Re:Photovoltaic degredation

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Aren't we just shifting the pollution from coal to the panel production plants and rare-earth mining? What do we do with all these panels at their end-of-life? I presume there is some inclusion of heavy and rare-earth elements in the panels. Where does that go?

Two huge problems. Pulling new rare-earth elements out of the ground (mining) and disposing of excess rare-earth elements (trashing old panels). It's quite probable that you could recycle the materials for a closed loop. Now, it's energy intensive, but that's supposed to be solved by the solar panels that work.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[PopeRatzo]

Yes, and once that happens, people will switch in large numbers. Until that happens, neither government incentives nor carbon taxes make much sense. That's precisely why government should just stay out of it.

If the government were to "stay out of it", the oil, gas and nuclear industries would close up shop tomorrow.

Beep Beep Beep

[WhiteWolf666]

"now seek new markets abroad as subsidies dry up at home" Yes, that sounds like solar products are now well on the way to being the cheapest form of power generation. Oh wait, we are talking about exclusive solar contracts in the petrostates? Yeah, I'm sure the market has spoken. Much of the world has demonstrated that nuclear power can be safe, cheap, and effective. Nuclear power should be regulated like the airlines; constant oversight, well regarded industry organs, and responsible, established manufactures serving well capitalized operators. We know it can be done, and for less $$ than some of the social moonshots we try (war on drugs, Obamacare, war on poverty (at least the worst elements), heck, climate change subsidies). Establishing a long term framework for national and global power generation, emissions free, with prices "too cheap to meter", would change the future of humanity drastically.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[ColdWetDog]

OK, so just WHERE has nuclear actually worked long term? Ignore Chernobyl and Fukushima for a bit - even with various and disparate types of governments and payment options, civilian nuclear has gone exactly nowhere. Well, not exactly nowhere, but hardly to the point where it was 'too cheap to meter'. IIRC, that was precisely the terminology that nuclear power adherents were spouting.

Fission has failed as a significant civilian power source. It is too complex, too dangerous and Capex costs are too high to be viable. Too big to fail doesn't work in power plant world. Which is an interesting thought when everyone's dreams move on to fusion. Unless a Mr. Fusion type device gets developed, the 'classical' fusion plants are going to be enormously expensive and have multi decade lead times. Exactly the kind of thing that is killing fission. Nobody, not even governments, can afford to put that much down for that much time without an return. Especially when much cheaper technologies exist.

Might was well move on to fantasizing about warp drives.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[ventsyv]

Do you want a nuclear plant in your community? It doesn't matter how safe it is, nobody wants huge industrial installation in their backyard. The distributed nature of PV solar has a number of other benefits as well - it's much more resilient in case of a natural disaster, it's not a target for terror and cyber attacks, etc, etc. Finally, nuclear is not as cheap as you think. The upfront costs are enormous and cost and schedule overruns are the norm, in other words, it's very risky investment that requires government incentives and guarantees.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[currently_awake]

There are only 3 cost effective uses of nuclear power: 1-weapons production, 2-medical isotopes, 3-mobile power. The reason nobody is building nuclear power is because it's crazy to spend $0.25/kwh when oil is $0.05/kwh and solar is $0.06/kwh with batteries.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[Mashiki]

OK, so just WHERE has nuclear actually worked long term? Ignore Chernobyl and Fukushima for a bit - even with various and disparate types of governments and payment options, civilian nuclear has gone exactly nowhere. Well, not exactly nowhere, but hardly to the point where it was 'too cheap to meter'. IIRC, that was precisely the terminology that nuclear power adherents were spouti

Canada? South Korea? Take your pick. The medical reactor near Ottawa that supplied around 50% of the worlds supply for specific radioactive isotopes used in cancer treatment is over 60 years old. The new reactor that was supposed to replace it has had multiple problems...almost all of them due to NIMBY's and environuts complaining about the new reactor. Even about the old reactor -- when they wanted to upgrade and have a 4th safety pump and storage fallback...environmentalists were protesting that. So that old reactor keeps chugging alone. Then there's places like Bruce Nuclear 2nd largest nuclear generating station in the world. It's been in continuous operation since 1977 at one reactor or another(8 reactors total), and they're looking to expand and build 4-8 new reactors to go along side the existing ones. It's also the 2nd cheapest operating per kWh plant around, including referb costs for B1 and B2, it's around $0.07-0.08kWh(base price is around $0.04kWh). Compared to solar which has an initial cost of between $0.52-1.50kWh in "recuperation costs" for the deployment.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[Mashiki]

Solar works really good when you have 83 days in a row overcast, and lots of snow. Or 3-5 hours of direct sunlight in the winter too right? And tidal works very well in landlocked places like Manitoba or Alberta. And geothermal works very well on those chunks of Canada where the rock is 3.5-4B years old and is nice and geologically dead. Hell geothermal is incredibly and hugely hit or miss even in the rockies of western canada. At least with nuclear reactors, you can have that replacement fuel sitting there.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[MightyMartian]

Not every alternative will work everywhere, but at least one alternative will. And we have this thing called the "electricity grid", which, amazing as it may sounds, allows us to produce electricity in one place and transport it to another place.

Re:Beep Beep Beep

[Mashiki]

So now you're saying that in order to use green energy, we should run thousands of km of wire to sources where there is no population in order to produce it. Which of course then becomes a prime target for terrorists/thrill seekers/etc to cause damage to the equipment. FYI, in most of the "cold parts of the world" most green energy sources rank between terrible, no good, useless, or fucking useless. Unless you're in Iceland then geothermal works great. In Canada, most of the country has some form of hydroelectric which works -- unless the winter becomes so cold that it freezes up(does happen every 5-8 years). Top that out that if you want to build any of that stuff, those environmentalists are going to start crying over the death of snuggly bunny #1278 that some activist told them would lose their home.

The absolute stupidity of the entire environmental movement can be discovered by looking at Line9 in Ontario. Where a pipeline that's been moving product from south to north has operated for 30 years. But the second that they want to reverse the flow because a better, safer, and newer pipeline had been build. And the old one would be used at less capacity. The environuts break from the woodwork decrying manmade disasters of all kinds, and the deaths of thousands.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural gas is highly subsidized, and even still no company has pulled a profit on natural gas since 2008.

If they pulled a profit, they would have to pay taxes on it.

Plus the costs, which can be huge, are externalized onto taxpayers and landowners.

Take Pennsylvania, which made $204 million on taxing shale, but road damage from nat. gas was over $3.5 bn. That's just one state.

This is what we voted for when we elected Reagan in 1980; shit hasn't changed.

many natural gas companies have stopped paying landowners en masse. What happens when their class action lawsuits start to come through?

As long as those lawsuits happen within the next few years, pretty much nothing.

Natural gas being cheap is a short term aberration.

People still buy into the fairy tail of trickle down economics.

Coal workers

[DogDude]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The only thing is, all of these dumb rednecks desperately want to die early from some kind of coal-related illness. Is there some way we can still make their dream come true, even as solar gets cheaper by the day? What hope is there that they can still die of black lung in mid-life, like they so desperately want? Won't somebody please think of the coal miners?!?!?!?

Re:Coal workers

[ventsyv]

They've been powering my lifestyle for decades and what do they have to show for it? Staggering poverty even in at the height of the coal industry. Dependency on coal a sole industry has devastated many communities. You should demand an alternative from your politicians or you'll be left behind yet again.

Re:Coal workers

[T.E.D.]

Not really. However, all those mountains they live in would be great places to put big wind turbines. Somebody local has to construct and maintain those things.

Perhaps it doesn't have quite the glamor of living 8+ hours a day underground breathing coal dust in constant terror of a gas leak or mine collapse, or ripping the entire side of a mountain off to get at the goodies underneath (incidentally drinking the runoff). But it is something.

Re:Coal workers

[DogDude]

http://www.npr.org/2016/12/15/505577680/advanced-black-lung-cases-surge-in-appalachia
Yup. Exactly this.
How do you help a group of people who are absolutely, positively determined to kill themselves for some stupid cause? Can people like this be helped?

He is also left gasping for air and grasping for words. He worked hard to feed his family and now, as his life leaves him one breath at a time, he wonders about the cost.
Branham has "never been scared of death," he says, as he chokes back tears. "It don't bother me a bit. It's just not seeing my kids grow up. But if I had it to do over I would do it again, if that's what it took to provide for my family as long as I have."

Re:Coal workers

[DogDude]

There's lots of things they could do and lots of things that could be done in that part of the country. Unfortunately, there seem to be vast swaths of population (ex-coal miners in Appalachia... ex-farmers in the Midwest... ex-factory workers in the Rust Belt, etc.) who seem hell bent on not learning to do anything new, and insisting that the world stop advancing decades ago, or whenever it was that they imagine times were good for them.

Re:Coal workers

[MightyMartian]

You help them by basically ending the use of coal. Then they have to go find something else to do.

Re:Coal workers

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"And, by gum! Imma put the coal industry out of business!" -- a politician recently

Re:Coal workers

[MightyMartian]

Meanwhile, the high arctic has been as warm as 30C above normal seasonal temperatures. You do understand, I trust, that whatever you think Trump's attributes are, overlordship of the laws of physics is not among them.

In reality, neither is economics. If he pursues his attacks on the automakers, he will end up severely fucking over domestic auto manufacturers. You have elected someone who, whatever his alleged business acumen, appears utterly ignorant of economics.

Re:Coal workers

[pesho]

You miss the point. Obama through ACA (obamacare) helped the miners by increasing their healthcare benefits and providing the families of deceased miners with benefits. They hated him with passion in return, now they stand to lose those benefits. They are decent hard working people, but this doesn't change the fact they have been brainwashed to absurd levels and because of that every choice they make ends up hurting them. There is no future for coal and not because Obama hates miners, but because it is no longer economical, even with the subsidies and underhand tricks that are being played out. It cannot sustain the Appalachian region economy. Yet most people in the region consistently vote for representatives that promise them to bring back the old coal jobs. They even elected Jim Justice for governor of West Virginia. This is the guy whose mines repeatedly placed miners lives at risk by skirting safety regulations. Then he screwed them again by not paying millions in fines, local taxes and severance fees.

Re:Coal workers

[mcolgin]

Great comment. I hope it doesn't go on deaf ears. I'll add... For decades, the GOP has been convincing poor, white, religious, laborers to combat social programs designed to help the poor... and in turn, these poor, white, religious, laborers have chosen to gut the very system that is designed to help them.

Re:Coal workers

[Perl-Pusher]

Those "dumb rednecks" could always manufacture guns. Wouldn't that be nice. From the election map by counties most liberals are either completely surrounded or have only an ocean at their backs. I bet only a portion of the billions spent subsidizing solar could build a very good filter for miners to use.

Re:Coal workers

[MightyMartian]

Coal is dying, and it's never coming back. Even without the CO2 emissions, it's an expensive and dirty fuel source that is hazardous to mine, and expensive to mitigate the damage from.

Re:Coal workers

[CanadianMacFan]

Even if the coal mines were economical in the short and long terms the jobs wouldn't be there because the mines are becoming automated. Their way of live is over.

Re:Coal workers

[Razed By TV]

Why don't we just set up solar industries near coal mining hubs and transplant the workers?

Re:Coal workers

[wyHunter]

Ah, an elitist liberal hypocrite again. They're worried about losing their MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING. Go drown yourself in a latte please.

Re:Coal workers

[wyHunter]

Unless, of course, they lost their health cover because the rise in premiums required by Obamacare meant their employer no longer provided health cover.

Re:Coal workers

[DogDude]

I understand that. Their way of making a living A Doesn't exist any more and B. Was harmful to them and millions of other people which C. had to be subsidized by us latte drinking liberals who pay the big tax bills. It's time for those people to move on.

Re:Coal workers

[hyades1]

I'm less forgiving than you. If their own choices wind up biting them in the ass, too bad. The only sad thing is that these cretins are pulling the rest of the country down with them, including people who have supported policies that actually helped them.

Re:Coal workers

[cheesybagel]

You wish. The Russians have been waiting for the Arctic to defrost since the Novgorod Republic collapsed. Last I heard their investments at Archangelsk have been mostly frozen (hah) because the Arctic isn't defrosting as the warm mongers told us it would.

Re:Coal workers

[wyHunter]

They're not asking for your subsidy. They want to keep their jobs.

Re:Coal workers

[DogDude]

The coal industry doesn't pay for the thousands of deaths and illnesses and injuries it causes. The coal industry is very heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.

Re:Coal workers

[Uberbah]

Obama through ACA (obamacare) helped the miners by increasing their healthcare benefits and providing the families of deceased miners with benefits.

And hurt the miners by opposing any cost controls in the ACA, twiddling his thumbs while banks illegally foreclosed on their homes, supported the privatization of public schools through charters, not increasing the minimum wage while he had the chance and most certainly did not wear holes in his walking shoes to support any unions.

Acting like an abusive spouse - treating constituencies crap yet scream in their face when they don't swoon over the croutons on top of the shit salad - is one of the many reasons the party just lost to an orange pussy grabbing baboon.

Re:Coal workers

[Uberbah]

I'm less forgiving than you. If their own choices wind up biting them in the ass, too bad.

The fallacy in this voter-shaming is the fact that voting for the Democrat would have meant a nasty bite ripped out of their left buttcheek, as opposed to a nasty bite taken out of the right buttcheek. It wasn't Reagan who signed NAFTA and it wasn't Obama who signed the last minimum wage increase. Treating the working class like unwanted dog shit and then having a tempter tantrum when voters don't reward you in the next election is one of the many reasons the party just lost to an incompetent sexist right wing demagogue.

Re:Coal workers

[Uberbah]

The only thing is, all of these dumb rednecks desperately want to die early from some kind of coal-related illness. Is there some way we can still make their dream come true, even as solar gets cheaper by the day?

Republicans could repeal all their voter ID laws and just pay you to speak to voters - such a steaming pile of eugenicist, elitist bullshit would ensure Trump not just a second term, but a third and fourth after the 22nd Amendment is repealed.

The black lung provisions of the ACA are croutons on the shit salad they've been served since the start of 2009. No cost controls on insurance premiums, no drug reimportation, no jobs program, no increase in minimum wage, supporting junk charter schools over public institutions, not doing a damn thing about the Wall Street fraud that blew up their retirement savings, doing nothing while banks illegally foreclosed on their homes, tried to cut their Social Security and Medicare benefits, and flushed money down more bullshit wars abroad while pushing austerity at home.

Democrats: beating the dog three times a day, then gets outraged when the dog wont do tricks after being a quarter of a biscuit.

Ah, an elitist liberal hypocrite again. They're worried about losing their MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING. Go drown yourself in a latte please.

I understand that.

No, you don't. If it was your family depending on an industry showered with bipartisan love, you'd be fighting to save it too.

There's lots of things they could do and lots of things that could be done in that part of the country.

Like put up wind farms on all those mountains instead of blowing them up as another poster said - too bad no one in either party had any interest in doing so.

Unfortunately, there seem to be vast swaths of population (ex-coal miners in Appalachia... ex-farmers in the Midwest... ex-factory workers in the Rust Belt, etc.) who seem hell bent on not learning to do anything new

Whether your elitist nonsense is liberal, conservative, or Randian, it's still nonsense. The Randian solution is for these poor people to materialize new jobs through sheer force of will. The conservative solution is to tell them to get off their lazy ass and move to where the jobs are. The liberal solution is to sign them up for retraining classes for jobs that don't exist.

It's not the coal. It's the jobs, stupid.

Re:Coal workers

[wyHunter]

And what about the deaths and injuries that electricity prevents?

Re:Hmmm...

[Rei]

Wow, variability in the power grid, we've never had to deal with that unsolvable problem before!

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Freischutz]

> Nat Gas is the cheapest.

Natural gas is highly subsidized, and even still no company has pulled a profit on natural gas since 2008.

Plus the costs, which can be huge, are externalized onto taxpayers and landowners.

Take Pennsylvania, which made $204 million on taxing shale, but road damage from nat. gas was over $3.5 bn. That's just one state.

Plus, many natural gas companies have stopped paying landowners en masse. What happens when their class action lawsuits start to come through?

Natural gas being cheap is a short term aberration.

For reference: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

I've been waiting for this to happen for a few years. The numbers are just getting more and more red. Even the Financial Times is comparing the shale industry to the dotcom bubble. The bit about crappy shale stock being sold by the cargo pallet to insurance companies and pensions funds sounds worryingly like the mortgage bubble. People are openly talking about similarities between the housing market crash and this shale bubble except, the shale bubble is 'only' 1/4 the size of the mortgage bubble. Well tell that to the people who will lose a large portion of their pension. Oops, the free market did a boo boo, nothing personal just business! Cold comfort if you ask me.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[operagost]

Gee, if we were allowed to build pipelines, then road costs would approach 0.

Re:Hillary lost, get over it, buttercups.

[higuita]

USA is not the all WORLD!! This story talks about solar cost in the WORLD!!

Now go back to your hole and take Trump and Hillary with you.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[Rei]

Except that your analysis is not based on reality. Most of China's growth to 2030 is expected to be renewables. And the unexpectedly fast drop in the price of solar since that Bloomberg energy analysis was conducted (2013) will only be expected to increase that share.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[Cajun Hell]

Somebody pays for the land

Competing techs don't have this little term in their cost formulas too?

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[Rei]

Indeed, and that's exactly what China does. Their HVDC / HVAC lines run almost exclusively from the interior to the coast, bringing power from worthless land to the power hungry urban centres.

Re:Trump Needs to Ban Solar

[Sique]

Once you are out of a job and can't pay for a gun and ammunition anymore, it's definitely you losing.

Coal is quite expensive and inflexible. It takes literally decades to open a coal mine, extract the coal and close it up again. And it is only feasible if there is either someone constantly requesting the coal, or if you have large storage capacities for unused coal, or if some governmental body pays subsidies for the time you can't sell the coal, and thus have to stop mining.

Re:Storage: concrete flywheels

[higuita]

IMHO, flywheels, water pump and electrolysis of water are the future for large amount of energy storage. All are simple to implement, cheap, reusable and can scale. Of course, not all places can use all of then, but all can use at least one of then.

Not news

[DeathToBill]

This is not exactly news. On the one hand, it's true; solar is considerably cheaper than anything else in large swathes of the developing world and has been for a while now. It's only going to get more-so. However, that's only the case if you use it to offset grid usage; a complete off-the-grid solar system, with enough storage to see you through the night and the odd cloudy day, is still going to cost you more over its life than the equivalent grid supply. The costs are heading down, and it's not far off being worth doing in some places, but it's not there yet. There are a few cases where supply costs aren't the only consideration where solar-with-storage is already reliable for other reasons; we came across a mining outfit with a very large crusher and a very unreliable grid. Every time the grid cut out, their crusher stopped, and someone had spend a couple of hours climbing through it clearing out the half-crushed rubble before they could restart it. Concerns about the 'unreliability' of renewables are a very first-world thing, where the grid alternative has several nines of reliability; when there are more sevens than nines involved in the grid reliability, renewables suddenly look pretty reliable.

But. On the other hand, the cost numbers are a bit deceptive. The comparison, especially in the first world, is always for _new build_ capacity. So if you're looking to add 100MW capacity and the choice is between solar-with-storage and a new 100MW coal plant, solar might well out-perform coal in a few years. But if the choice is between 100MW of existing coal capacity and 100MW of new-build solar-with-storage, there's no competition and won't be, probably ever, for two reasosn: One, you've already spent the sunk costs of the coal plant and they're being amortized over the remaining life of the plant, so replacing it with solar means there is a sudden 'cost' to account for, which you've actually already spent but which you were planning to make back in the years to come but now can't. And two, because almost all the costs of renewables are in the construction phase (ie there is no fuel to buy), you need the money sooner than you do with fossil fuels, so you don't get to spend the money on something else. As a crude example, suppose you have two 100MW projects, each with a life of 20 years, one coal and one solar. The coal plant costs $50 million to build and you'll spend $50 million on fuel evenly over its 20 year life, while the solar plant costs $100 million to build with no operating costs. The overall cost is equal, but with the coal plant you have $50 million to invest in something else until you actually need the coal, while with the solar plant you've already spent your whole $100 million.

The exact difference depends on the (assumed) discount rate, and what number to use is a matter of considerable controversy. See eg. the Stern review, which assumed a very low discount rate, to make spending now look more competitive than spending in the future. To go back to the example, assuming a discount rate of 3%, the solar project has to cost around $88 million to be competitive with the coal project.

Burning gas directly drives turbines

[PeterM from Berkeley]

When you burn natural gas in a gas turbine, which is I think routinely done in the USA, the burning gas/air mix directly spins a gas turbine. There is thus no intermediary medium as you claim.

That is one of the reasons gas is cheap to use. There's simply less capital involved in handling the intermediary medium. No boiler, steam generator, steam turbine, condenser, heat exchange.

https://powergen.gepower.com/r...

--PM

Re:It will

[ventsyv]

We might be at a point where it won't matter who is the WH. The last 8 years got the ball rolling, the technology has matured and has entered the mainstream, so it's almost to at a point where there is no stopping it.

pricing

[bugs2squash]

Just let electricity prices vary more dramatically throughout the day depending on supply. People will soon enough adapt. I can remember overnight storage heaters full of bricks that were heated with less expensive off-peak electricity, people will install their own in-home or in-community storage facilities when they get sick of paying the premium for non-solar electricity.

In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren't

[raymorris]

Rei mentioned a lot of interesting factors. The bottom line, the tldr, is basically:

We can store energy from afternoon sun for a few hours and use it to cook dinner.
On the other hand, when a big storm system covers half the US for a week, there's no storage that is going to come anywhere close to providing a week of energy for half the country.

Another HUGE factor is energy needs versus current electricity usage. Right now, most of the world's energy usage isn't electricity. We heat homes and businesses with natural gas and heating oil, transportation is by diesel and gasoline. One European country that brags about its clean solar energy burns trash for heating, as well as diesel. If we want electric cars, electric trucks, electric heating, etc we're going to need eight times as much electricity as we have now. So suppose there was a major breakthrough in physics that allowed us to store as much electricity as California currently needs for a cloudy week. That would still be only 12% of their ENERGY needs for the week.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on what? Cites please.

Batteries will win.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

[startup with concrete flywheels]

And superflywheels (of glass fiber) were considered for hybrid electric vehicles, decades ago. (They might even have been practical then. And might have gotten to market if the bogus silicon-breast-implant suits hadn't broken Dow Corning.)

But the battery technology just coming on line (driven by the electric and hybrid autos) will eat flywheels' lunch.

Re:just in time for the maunder minimum of 2030!

[Ungrounded Lightning]

A maunder minimum doesn't appreciably reduce the amount of power from a solar panel.

Remember that the cosmic background is about 4 degrees Kelvin, and room temperature nearly 300. A few percent drop in solar output can cause a lot of cooling but only about the same few percent of impact on solar panel output. (Less, actually, or maybe even a gain, because the panels are a lot more efficient when they're cooler.)

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[ranton]

In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren't

Peaking power plants typically run at under 10% utilization year round. During cloudy days these typically natural gas burning plants could handle 10x their normal load to cover for idle solar panels. Combine that with the fact that typical solar panels still run at around 20% efficiency with dense cloud cover you could reduce the number of traditional power plants by at least a factor of 10 by replacing them with solar plants. And this is without trying to store electricity as an alternative.

All of the "problems" with solar energy are very easily solvable and most are hardly even worth mentioning, other than to refute myths that is.

What about it?

[sjbe]

What about at night?

Ever heard of a battery? Plus just because you use solar during the day doesn't preclude you from using other sources of energy when it isn't available.

One of the best things about solar is that solar is particularly useful for air conditioning and refrigeration. Peak costs for those systems are highest when the sun shines the strongest for obvious reasons. A solar array can flatten those costs out very nicely. Honestly it's a mystery to me why every grocery store doesn't have a solar array on their roof. On days where there is lots of sun they'll get lots of solar power and when it isn't shining so strongly they probably don't need as much solar.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[nasch]

Wouldn't wind farms produce more power during a storm? Or do they have to be shut down?

Just Burn Coal

[Maritz]

Seriously you're Americans. What's with all this hippy commie renewable bullshit. Burn the fucking coal. It can't hurt anything or anyone.

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[im_thatoneguy]

Free to the state unless the operator spills and goes bankrupt without insurance. Just require insurance.

Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[SensitiveMale]

Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but you don't punish consumers by forcing more expensive energy on them when it isn't ready.

Solar will get here. It may be here in 10 years. It may take 20 or 30 or even 50. But it will get here.

Until then, use the cheapest energy possible, the best energy for the application, and the best energy source available for that region. For example, Africa needs coal. Now. However, people who hate coal are punishing Africans.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[JustNiz]

>> people who hate coal are punishing ....

Yes, and rightly so, because burning coal is literally destroying our ecology and ultimately, planet.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[MightyMartian]

Are you seriously asserting that dung-burning in developing nations somehow produces more pollution and CO2 than burning coal?

Fuck me, the people who want to keep digging it out of the ground just keep reaching further and further and making ever more moronic claims to justify their position.

Coal is dead.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[randallman]

I suspect Africans will skip coal just like they skipped land lines for cell phones.

For electricity, African's don't have the demand we have. They need to charge their cell phones and run lights. Currently they travel hours just to charge their phone and use candles for light. As for heating, wood works well in many places and is much easier to gather than mining coal. These guys http://www.azuri-technologies.... have a pretty decent effort for solar electric in Africa.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[edtice1559]

Burning dung may be stinky but it's carbon-neutral!

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[SensitiveMale]

Are you seriously asserting that dung-burning in developing nations somehow produces more pollution and CO2 than burning coal?

Yes. That is exactly my point. People are BURNING SHIT TO COOK THEIR FOOD & FOR WARMTH and I am totally focused on pollution & CO2. Let's completely ignore COOKING FOOD WITH SHIT and stay focused on CO2.

But hey, screw them right? They probably aren't smart enough to use recyclable cups at their Starbucks, right?

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[MightyMartian]

Not decreasing CO2 emissions will fuck them over. Let's be clear here, most of those who suddenly have this great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up couldn't give a burning piece of shit about the fate of people in the developing world. It's all about trying to stave off the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels, and, presumably, the decline in returns from fossil fuel company stocks.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[fbobraga]

We are ranking bad things now? "That thing is bad, but something's worse, so fuck it!"

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[SensitiveMale]

Not decreasing CO2 emissions will fuck them over. Let's be clear here, most of those who suddenly have this great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up couldn't give a burning piece of shit about the fate of people in the developing world. It's all about trying to stave off the inevitable decline in the use of fossil fuels, and, presumably, the decline in returns from fossil fuel company stocks.

That's a nice stock answer, but it's bullshit. First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well, but I think we can both agree that even on the most extreme scale presented, your worst case of global warming is half a century to well over a century away. Again, I think it's bullshit, but it's far enough to not matter.

Second, I don't think anyone has a "great concern for the plight of the developing world when the topic of fossil fuel use reductions come up." Coal is the best tool for the job. You're thinking "Hey, these coal people suddenly give a fuck about these dirt poor Africans when they can make a sale" when you should be thinking "Coal is the best and cheapest option for dirt poor people and, BTW, it keeps them from cooking their food with shit."

Third, it isn't trying to "stave off the inevitable decline of fossil fuels." I have no money involved in fossil fuels. But I do believe in common sense. Fossil fuels, which is a misnomer, are cheap energy. Extremely cheap. There are other options available but use the best option for the job.

Fourth, it's liberals like you that are fucking those people over. Again, they are cooking food with shit. SHIT. While liberals have been fawning over themselves with cries about how the planet is doomed in twenty years for over fifty years, they jet all over the world while ignoring people are cooking their food with shit. Even worse than ignoring, actively denying these needy people cheap fuel.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[SensitiveMale]

Ignoring every other element in the environment, terrestrial & galactically, makes you an idiot.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[cheesybagel]

The Chinese have been quite busy building coal power plants in Vietnam and elsewhere. Africa is just another of their destinations.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[cheesybagel]

Jesus, not this shit again, burning wood is even more polluting than burning coal.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[david_thornley]

First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well,

That pretty much destroys your credibility. You can accept what the smart people who study this in depth say all over the world, who have a wide array of funding sources, or you can look into it for yourself, and find that it's happening. If you have an argument against AGW happening that is evidence-based and hasn't been refuted dozens of times before on Slashdot alone, please post.

I think we can both agree that even on the most extreme scale presented, your worst case of global warming is half a century to well over a century away.

The worst effects are considerably in the future. It's hard to pin down, since climate change is statistical, but we appear to be having bad effects from it now. These effects will disproportionately hit those in undeveloped countries.

they are cooking food with shit.

I'm aware of that. Camel crap is locally and easily available. I don't know how much the problem is that it's unhealthy and how much is first-world feelings of ickiness. Coal is not locally and easily available. If we're going to bring new technology in, we find that coal plants require considerably more in the way of logistics, and they require transmission lines. .Solar panels can be installed locally, and a solar power system is therefore much less vulnerable to disruption.

Re:Solar has ALWAYS been the future, but

[Uberbah]

That's a nice stock answer, but it's bullshit. First, you think there is "manmade global warming." Personally, I think that's bullshit as well

Because you're a deranged religious fanatic, that's why. For Christmas, you probably didn't give your nieces and nephews a pack of Camels, asbestos mittens and lead-painted toys. Because scientists long ago came to a consensus that smoking, asbestos and lead all cause cancer or other health defects. So:

1) You fighting the good fight against the lilbrul conspiracies on those products?
2) Are you engaging in willful dumbfuckery, because reasons?

Pick one.

Solar "activity" not same as solar output.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels:

Solar "activity" is not the same as solar output. It's the sunspot / solar flare / solar wind output. Last I heard the main issue was ts effects on weather (mainly via changes in cloud cover), not a reduction in insolation. (The sun cools VERY gradually, due to heating from gravitational contraction. If all nuclear processes stopped the sun would still be good for millenia.)

Calm down, everyone.

[Jawnn]

We've managed to get our puppet government installed, so there will be no crisis for the fossil fuel industry any time soon. You'll have plenty of time to move your personal interests out of those companies while staying below the radar of what regulators may still be on the job later this year.

- Your friends, The Fossil Fuel Lobby

Re:It will

[SensitiveMale]

However, it will not matter in US. At least for the next four years, the US has a government in denial..

Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."

Or are you saying that just because someone disagrees with you, he knows less than you and is just in denial. After all, disagreeing with you means he has to be in denial, right?

Moot point

[sjbe]

On the other hand, when a big storm system covers half the US for a week, there's no storage that is going to come anywhere close to providing a week of energy for half the country.

Doesn't have to be. When you have a big storm that knocks down the power grid would you rather have some power for part of the day or no power for any of the day? Having solar cells on your roof insulates you from some of those problems. Furthermore solar cells still work even when the weather is bad and it is cloudy. Not as well of course but it doesn't have to be a bright clear day for them to provide some utility.

That said it's a moot point. Not like the grid is going away and you have the option of a generator for local emergency power. Germany generates something like 20-30% of their power from solar and they are routinely cloudy there.

Right now, most of the world's energy usage isn't electricity. We heat homes and businesses with natural gas and heating oil, transportation is by diesel and gasoline.

True but it doesn't have to remain that way in the long term. If we have efficient and clean electric power then there will be plenty of incentive to convert those fossil fuel systems to electric ones. Won't happen overnight but if the economics are right it WILL happen.

All forms of power need backup

[sjbe]

Well, you do realize, that capacity (natgas or whatever) sitting idle (not making money) is seriously expensive, right?

Using fossil fuels sources and not forcing them to pay the full cost of the pollution and carbon they generate is even more expensive in the long run. Fossil fuels are what should be the alternative break-glass-in-case-of-emergency fuel source. They're useful but dirty and we should be trying to minimize their use as fast as possible.

That's why solar _must_ be cheap for markets to clear - one needs a backup to use it.

Every source of power needs backup. Powerplants of every description have to be idled for maintenance now and then. Storms knock out parts of the grid. Demand sometimes exceeds local supply. Solar is nothing fundamentally different in that regard.

Just the idea that solar power will expand

[pjv936]

will reduce the number of coal power plants being built. It will be harder to get the financing needed if the banks believe you won't be able to sell the power generated since it will cost more. Also since the cost of generating the next MW of solar power is zero which is less than the cost of generating the next MW of coal power, the coal power plant must burn coal, solar power plants can undersell coal power plants. This means as solar power plants increase generation coal power plant will sell less and less power. There will come a point where they will go out of business.

Let's be careful when talking economics

[SensitiveMale]

The future is solar but when Hillary talked about the economic boon from solar, she fails to mention all of those brand new solar panels will be built in China.

Re:Let's be careful when talking economics

[hyades1]

The main reason those panels will be built in China is that the conservative-dominated US government refused to provide the kind of backing any new manufacturing technology needs when it's trying to make the jump to the big time. Instead, Uncle Sam shoveled billions of taxpayer dollars into the pockets of defense contractors for planes that don't work most of the time and ships that break down after less than a month in service.

All the Global Warming deniers, Koch Brothers trolls, PR firms and lobbyists got exactly what they wanted...a few extra years of fossil fuel subsidies and friendly regulations. And now American taxpayers will just have to live with the fact that a whole industrial sector they could have dominated for the next 50 years has developed in China instead.

Thank your right wingers for giving China a gold-plated opportunity to move right in and eat America's lunch. No the righties will be looking for somebody to blame for their poor choices.

Re:Let's be careful when talking economics

[Mindbridge]

The future is solar but when Hillary talked about the economic boon from solar, she fails to mention all of those brand new solar panels will be built in China.

Well... Let's check the news to see if this is really the case:

Tesla Motors Inc. and Panasonic Corp. completed work on an agreement to begin manufacturing solar cells and modules at Tesla’s factory in Buffalo, New York, eventually bringing some 1,400 jobs to the region.

Production will begin this summer, with the factory’s output capacity expanding to 1 gigawatt by 2019

I guess there will be solar production jobs in the US after all. There will be many more related to solar installation and servicing, of course.

Re:Let's be careful when talking economics

[cheesybagel]

The future was solar back when Carter was President too.

Re:Let's be careful when talking economics

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

My kingdom for mod points. This is what all those conservatives are missing, we had the opportunity to dominate the technology and production of solar panels and blew it because of our unwillingness to invest the dollars.

Unfortunately, no. Wind cube law vs structure

[raymorris]

> Wouldn't wind farms produce more power during a storm? Or do they have to be shut down?

Unfortunately they don't produce more power when the wind is stronger than normal, and as you mentioned most have to be shut down for storm winds.

That sucks because the power of the wind is proportional to the CUBE of it's velocity. Wind at 40 MPH has 64 times as much power as wind at 10 MPH, but we can't harvest all that extra power. Instead, power captured by turbines is basically capped at their normal production, so power output only falls with lower wind speeds, it doesn't increase with higher speeds.

This is really frustrating, being unable to capture most of the available power on windy days, but it's unlikely to change. The difference in the amount of force applied to the turbine and it's parts is really significant. Imagine trying to build a keyboard that works with light touches on the keys, and also works well when you bang it with a hammer.

Re:Unfortunately, no. Wind cube law vs structure

[nasch]

Are they designed to only generate power at a specific RPM or something? It seems like stronger wind = faster spinning = more electricity.

Re:Unfortunately, no. Wind cube law vs structure

[angel'o'sphere]

Unfortunately they don't produce more power when the wind is stronger than normal, and as you mentioned most have to be shut down for storm winds.

That is wrong. They produce 8 to 16 times more than nameplate during very high winds, below storm strength.

so power output only falls with lower wind speeds, it doesn't increase with higher speeds.
Sorry, that is wrong.

The difference in the amount of force applied to the turbine and it's parts is really significant
That is wrong, too. The turbines tilt their blades so that they can handle the pressure.
The whole machine: generator, turbine etc. is constructed to have over nameplate yields if the wind is over "normal specs". At least all german wind parks report far over name plate production in stormy times.

Re:Unfortunately, no. Wind cube law vs structure

[trawg]

raymorris: I think I've read posts by you on this topic before in other threads and I found them really interesting; I had no idea about the cube power issue in wind generation.

Are there other more efficient ways to harvest wind that would mean more of the energy is "captured"? Or is this the best we can do?

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[pr0fessor]

Kansas is a great place to wind farm but when the winds get to high during storms which is particularly common in the spring during tornado season then some of them simply disengage and allow the blades to spin freely at a certain speed or manually and others have blades that are secured some even fold down.

The same goes for windmills that are frequently used for irrigation. Usually there is a small tower with a float that releases the pump using a clutching system when it's full and the blade is allowed to turn freely along with a manual over-ride for times when the wind is to high and will damage the pump.

2%, not 20% (pedantic? maybe)

[raymorris]

> Germany generates something like 20-30% of their power from solar and they are routinely cloudy there.

Something like 2% of their energy. 20% of their domestically produced electricity (they import).

Re:2%, not 20% (pedantic? maybe)

[angel'o'sphere]

Something like 2% of their energy. 20% of their domestically produced electricity (they import).
Ever european country imports and exports.
The question is: is a country a net importer or a net exporter. Germany is a net exporter, we have the highest surplus energy production in Europe. In the last ten years I doubt we had more than 10 month of "net import", and those months get completely wiped out by the remaining months where we export 25% - 50% of our power production.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[HornWumpus]

'Perverse Economic Incentives' would make a good porn movie title.

China's bubble is the elephant in the room. Until it pops, keep your finances very conservative. It is time to preserve value, not chase growth.

Depends if you want to solve the problems or cheer

[raymorris]

> natural gas burning plants could handle 10x their normal load to cover for idle solar panels.

Yep, natural gas and nuclear can provide power when solar isn't providing enough at the moment, for whatever reason. That's a great mix. The cheapest, cleanest energy when it's available, reliable energy that's still clean and reasonably cheap when the more preferred energy isn't sufficient at the moment.

> All of the "problems" with solar energy are very easily solvable [by using natural gas instead] and most are hardly even worth mentioning

Whether or not it's worth an honest analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different sources of energy depends on whether you want to actually solve some problem, such as environmental problems, or you just want to be a cheerleader for your "team", without actually accomplishing anything.

Suppose you just want to be a cheerleader, so you just sing the praises of solar electric, and pretend that it can replace, rather than supplement, other sources. Then you end up encouraging people to think solar is "the answer" and they therefore oppose natural gas and nuclear infrastructure, leaving you stuck burning coal for 50 years longer than necessary. That's what has happened. We could have gotten rid of coal in the US by 1975. We're still burning a shit-ton of coal, which spews radiative substances directly into the air, because rather than talking honestly about an energy mix that actually works, half the population decided to romanticize solar and wind, and avoid mentioning in what ways they don't work so well. If, 50 years ago, the leaders of Greenpeace said what you said above (use solar when you can, natural gas and nuclear when you can't), we wouldn't be burning coal today.

Yeah, it sucks

[raymorris]

> It seems like stronger wind = faster spinning = more electricity.

Yeah stronger wind = a LOT more power, and could be a LOT more electricity, if you had infinitely strong, infinitely light materials with no friction.

> Are they designed to only generate power at a specific RPM or something?

Yeah they are designed to produce power most of the time, meaning they operate at the lowest normal wind speed. All the parts, from the bearings to the wire gauges etc are designed for that low-normal speed. To work well at higher speed (and MUCH higher power), they'd have to be designed differently and therefore not work at lower speed. Obviously there's a lot of engineering, but one example is easy enough to picture, a bearing. Imagine a shaft and bearing designed to handle 500 horsepower. You grab the shaft and try to turn it with your hands. It's probably not going to turn - a big beefy part designed for a lot of power will have a lot of friction.

Did I just tell you to imagine grabbing your shaft in your hand and feeling the friction?

Re:Yeah, it sucks

[edtice1559]

Since you seem to know more about this than the average person here, how do they prevent generating power at higher wind speeds. Do they apply a mechanical brake? Turn the paddles away from the wind?

Re:Yeah, it sucks

[deadweight]

Back when I sold wind generators, they used some combination of electrical braking, controllable blade pitch, "extra" blades that were centrifugally active spoilers essentially, or turning the blades at an angle to the wind.

Re:Yeah, it sucks

[SmilingBoy]

Wouldn't a transmission with different gears be able to solve this issue? Probably none of the experts have thought of this, whilst I can come up with it sitting in my armchair. So, let me rephrase: Why would a gearbox not be able to solve this?

Bad data: local versus global

[LynnwoodRooster]

In 2016, countries from Chile to the United Arab Emirates broke records with deals to generate electricity from sunshine for less than 3 cents a kilowatt-hour, half the average global cost of coal power.

So you took solar power costs from two high-sunshine areas and spread it versys worldwide coal costs. How about ideal solar places versus ideal coal places? Or average global solar costs versus average global coal costs? Cherry picking at its finest, here...

Re:Bad data: local versus global

[hyades1]

I guess you weren't aware that a decent business case can be made for solar and wind power in just about any isolated community...including those in the Arctic.

If you really want a fair comparison (which I doubt, frankly), then cut all the fossil fuel subsidies out of the evaluation when you talk about "average global coal costs". And while you're at it, let's add in coal-caused health care problems, since taxpayers usually have to foot the bill for them. In an article called "Choking our Health Care System with Coal" Forbes Magazine, which is hardly a lefty propaganda rag, estimates about 15,000 deaths a year directly due to burning coal and health care costs of between $300 billion and $800 billion annually.

If you want an apples-to-apples comparison, solar is probably already ahead. If it isn't it will be very soon.

Re:Bad data: local versus global

[LynnwoodRooster]

And the population in those isolated communities, relative to that of the entire world, is? Yes - local power generation can be cheaper for some populations, but to take those tiny corner cases and extrapolate them over the entire world is incorrect. And you can find the LCOE table right now, you'll find that solar can get competitive with NEW generation coming on-line right now, but still loses to natural gas pretty significantly. Note this is for newly planned plants, and does not include hydro (which cleans everyone's clock).

Re:Bad data: local versus global

[hyades1]

Those communities still use power. Currently that's Diesel generators. And, of course, there's major unsubsidized market penetration by solar in places like Arizona.

And natural gas only wins if you don't count all the subsidies relating to getting it out of the ground and to the point of use.

Re:Bad data: local versus global

[LynnwoodRooster]

LCOE takes into account all subsidies. It's a levelized cost. And natural gas wins.

Re:Bad data: local versus global

[cheesybagel]

The Emirates are also building nuclear power plants with South Korean help.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[Rei]

A fun thing about solar thermal plants is that it's easy to integrate a peaker directly into them, using natural gas to generate steam when there's not enough solar heat and demand is high. SEGS was the first large scale plant I'm aware that combined both solar and natural gas, although there's a lot of them now.

Re:Offgrid in Nova Scotia

[LynnwoodRooster]

So to summarize:

IF we ignore storage and conversion costs, and IF we ignore deployment/construction costs required for other power distribution systems, we can ALMOST reach the average DJIA return on investment.

Re:It will

[LynnwoodRooster]

I haven't seen anything coming out from President Elect Trump that he wants to kill solar. Rather, I believe he's stated it's time to look at the subsidies and costs all around and let the markets compete. Apparently solar supporters believe solar can compete with coal - so let it. Cut the subsidies and see what happens.

Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[fyngyrz]

Nat Gas is the cheapest.

A comprehensive home solar plant will pay for itself within a reasonable number of years by eliminating the gas / coal / electric bill entirely, and from there on out, it won't incur any regular costs other than storage (battery) replacement until it dies, which could take decades. And if ultracaps reach sufficient price/performance, even the recurring storage costs will dry up. Including those for pre-existing systems.

You let us know when gas power presents these kinds of cost advantages. No one will be holding their breath.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[minstrelmike]

Main problem with this economic analysis is that solar is only half the equation.
Solar requires batteries, unlike coal, gas. (There are "pump batteries" which refill dams during daylight hours and thus act as a battery to store power for nighttime use).
I like solar energy but there are additional issues besides mere production.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[shaitand]

Actually there is a huge cost in most places. First all of all those "other than battery replacement" costs are a huge part the system and second anywhere you actually have a period of winter you have hail damage escalating what would have been a $10,000 roof replacement to at least a $50,000 roof/solar replacement.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[fyngyrz]

You should go back and read the post you replied to. I specifically described that storage is an associated and recurring cost with battery-driven solar plants.

Also, solar does not require batteries. That's just the most common way to do it. For instance, the solar system in my radio trailer is 100% ultracap based. No recurring costs of any kind in the power systems. Right now, a home system requires a lot of space for such a thing, and new ultracaps are still pretty expensive (I haunt Ebay for used ones, though, and they aren't so costly.) But those curves are changing in increasingly favorable ways.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[fyngyrz]

First all of all those "other than battery replacement" costs are a huge part the system

Depends on the system size and if, in fact, you're actually using batteries, and what batteries you're using. There are entirely battery-free systems that are grid-tied, for instance. There are UC-based systems. For larger systems, other storage methods are used, and some of them are like UCs in that they have no particular recurring costs either.

second anywhere you actually have a period of winter you have hail damage

Yeah, no. First of all (and what tells me you have no idea what you're talking about), hail is not a winter problem. Hail is a warm-weather problem. Secondly, in a hail-prone area, you use appropriate protection with the panels. It hailed all over my panels last year, big hail, too, and there's not a scratch on any of them.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[Sri Ramkrishna]

What about the increasing use of electrical devices and even now electric cars? The demand for electricity is rising...

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[bigwheel]

Secondly, in a hail-prone area, you use appropriate protection with the panels. It hailed all over my panels last year, big hail, too, and there's not a scratch on any of them.

About 4-5 years ago, I lost 2 of my panels to softball-sized hail. But they were 23 year old (Arco) panels. Newer panels are built to withstand a much bigger hit.

I've never heard of "appropriate protection" for panels that spend their life facing the sky. Best protection I had was my insurance policy. The same storm also dented the hell out of my steel roof.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[jedrek]

Solar requires batteries, unlike coal, gas.

I like solar energy but there are additional issues besides mere production.

And coal and gas require transportation. You can eliminate the (costliest) part of energy delivery with solar: the last mile.

Re:Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[kenai_alpenglow]

look at some lignite mines--power plant right next to mine making transport costs negligible.

Re: Solar: Not only cheapest. Often a total win.

[WebCowboy]

Solar most definitely requires batteries. Super capacitor banks cannot store enough energy to meet household demand for most people in North America during the winter for example. The days are too short. Especially where I live where solar panels can only function six to seven hours a day in December and January.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[edtice1559]

The one time that I really want to moderate and all of my points are expired. +1

Propaganda Piece

[djinn6]

Whether the prediction is true or not, this is a propaganda piece with no data backing it. Even by their own charts, solar is currently much more expensive than everything else. They basically drew a bunch of lines with coal and natural gas trending up and solar trending down, completely ignoring the fact that coal and natural gas are also trending down.

Take a look at their cost breakdown. The "other hardware" cost had tripled since 2009 (currently 20% of the total cost), but they conveniently made it fall by 2/3rds by 2025 with no explanation at all.

Re:Propaganda Piece

[Uberbah]

Sounds like a propaganda post. Looking at your own link, the "other hardware" cost was a small fraction of the total. It also looks like you cherry picked a single year, because it looks pretty consistent for the rest of the chart. Sort of like how denialists like to pretend that climate monitoring began in 1998, so they could blow smoke about succeeding years being "cooler".

Re:Propaganda Piece

[cheesybagel]

For all we know it could be Chinese dumping solar panels until the day comes their competition dies and they jack the prices back up again.

Global warming?

[galabar]

Can we stop worrying about global warming now?

Re:Global warming?

[MightyMartian]

The fact that the arctic has been as high as 30C above season norms somehow doesn't suggest to you that the problem is still here?

Re:Global warming?

[fbobraga]

No

Re:Global warming?

[Uberbah]

Sure - in the same way you can stop worrying about forest fires or hurricanes, because you haven't been personally affected by one in the last month or so.

Re:Global warming?

[galabar]

It seems we are on the path of replacing the burning of carbon-based fuels with solar (and others). Do we still need to throw a massive wrench into our economy, or have we solved the problem?

Yes and yes, feathering and brakes

[raymorris]

> Do they apply a mechanical brake? Turn the paddles away from the wind?

Yes and yes, both are used. Sometimes the blades / sails fold up completely out of the wind. Many techniques are used, but you hit on the two most common.

> Since you seem to know more about this than the average person here

I've studied it a bit. One particular research paper I read was very informative; I wish I could remember the author's name in order to pass that along. There are two people who comment here who know more about the subject than I do.

Re:Yes and yes, feathering and brakes

[shmlco]

I believe it's more common to apply the brakes and feather the blades into the wind. I've yet to see a wind turbine around here with blades that fold.

Re:Yes and yes, feathering and brakes

[angel'o'sphere]

With "fold" the GPs likely meant that 2 of the 3 blades rotate around the axis and join the third one and all three hang down parallel with the mast and get secured there.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[edtice1559]

Unlikely. They would operate in an unsafe way, pay massive salaries to their owners, then go bankrupt with the owners keeping the profits and the costs pushed onto the tax payers. That's the thing. Government can't really "get out" of these industries because if a bad actor causes terrible damage and goes bankrupt there's nobody else to clean up the mess. And since the government and therefore the tax payers are going to get stuck with the bill, it's pretty reasonable that they have a say in how things operate.

Ps turbine RPM limited by transonic tip speeds

[raymorris]

> faster spinning = more electricity.

Along with mechanical considerations, another issue with increasing RPM is transonic effects at certain points along the blade. The tips of the blades currently move at nearly 200 MPH. That means airflow at certain points alomg the airfoil is probably close 250- 300 MPH relative to the blade. At 500 MPH (mach 0.7) things start getting real weird, there are a lot of problems. So much so that it was once believed that going faster than mach 1 was impossible. It turns out that planes can fly at mach 1.3, but the range between mach 0.7 and mach 1.2 is a bitch. All of that to say, you can't allow the blades to spin twice as fast because then transonic effects ruin your day.

Re:Ps turbine RPM limited by transonic tip speeds

[blindseer]

It turns out that planes can fly at mach 1.3, but the range between mach 0.7 and mach 1.2 is a bitch.

Passenger jets regularly cruise at about 0.8 mach and have max safe speeds near 0.9 mach. I don't dispute your claim generally just the margins you give.

Re:Ps turbine RPM limited by transonic tip speeds

[dywolf]

but they are designed to operate in that range safely, with various principles and design features to reduce drag and eliminate transonic shock forces as Area Rule, swept wings, air fences, etc.

remember that the wings were swept specifically because it delays the onset of the sonic shock compared to straight wings, which begin experiencing it at a lower velocity.

and those surfaces aren't 200 feet long, high aspect ratio, rotating arms rotating at ~200mph, which adds another layer of considerations.
wind turbine blades take their cues from sailplanes and helo rotors.

Cloudy weeks don't have to be a problem

[fyngyrz]

On the other hand, when a big storm system covers half the US for a week, there's no storage that is going to come anywhere close to providing a week of energy for half the country.

You're doing it wrong. And "cloudy" is not the same as "solar plant produces too little energy"

If you own a house, your system can cover your house for quite some time. And should. Weeks is not an unreasonable design goal, particularly with an energy-efficient home. Also, solar still produces energy when overcast; just not as much. The linked video shows a 75 watt panel generating about 6-7 watts on a 100% overcast day, which is about 10% of the panel's rated rated power. You can be frugal (and on a temporary basis, extremely frugal) with your power use. You can construct an energy efficient environment (even in an older home.) You can insulate (and if you're trying to save money, you should. One of the best money-saving investments you can make. Trade some space for a constant reduction in expenses. And noise. And increase in comfort and temperature stability. Sheets of insulation are very inexpensive, particularly when compared to heating and cooling costs. Read up on, and pay careful attention to, condensation and moisture barrier issues when building internal secondary insulating layers.)

If you live in other than a home you own, then you get what they give you. Sorry about that. You might want to consider trying to GTFO of there.

It already has.

[hAckz0r]

Solar is already cheaper once you factor in the cost to our Ecology, health, etc. The only thing holding back wind and solar is a good mechanism for load leveling the differences between day and night, wind and no wind. While some regions are capable of pumping water uphill to level out the power availability, what is missing is a more general mechanism such as huge banks of "flow batteries" that charge an electrolyte that can be stored in mass quantity and used to put power on the grid when needed. This temporary energy storage problem should be where the real research grant money should be invested, but don't hold your breath for Trump to do anything like that. For the next four years its up to private investors to choose and invest wisely in technology that has the potential to fix things.

Re:It already has.

[Uberbah]

The only thing holding back wind and solar is a good mechanism for load leveling the differences between day and night, wind and no wind.

Baseline power (or as I prefer to call it, the Baseline Zombie) isn't holding us back, as generating capacity can be spaced across the grid. Same as we do today for coal and nuclear power, which can and is moved hundreds of miles over power lines. The chances of a non-arctic region being both windless and sunless for an extended period of time is small.

While some regions are capable of pumping water uphill to level out the power availability, what is missing is a more general mechanism such as huge banks of "flow batteries" that charge an electrolyte that can be stored in mass quantity and used to put power on the grid when needed.

Just build water towers - use redundant power from grid to pump water up, then use the outflow to move a turbine and generate electricity when needed. Even if we make breakthroughs in molten salt batteries (or something), a municipal water tower battery should have a long lifespan with low maintenance costs.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[fbobraga]

On the other hand, when a big storm system covers half the US for a week, there's no storage that is going to come anywhere close to providing a week of energy for half the country.

a big network avoids this problem (but "half of the US" will be temporarily empowering the entire country...)

* it's funny how "Americans" (not from the entire continent!) use only USA as example of "a country" :P

Re:It will

[Jeremi]

Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."

You're right, the businessman will indeed choose the cheapest option -- for him. Which in this case means the option that lets him pay off the political debts to his oil-company backers, stick it to the liberals, and ignore climate change completely, because who cares?

Of course that will be the most expensive option for the rest of humanity, but that hardly matters for Mr. Trump, by the time the shit hits the fan, he'll have already earned his money.

I don't know where this idea came from that businessmen always consider "the big picture" and do the optimal thing. A glance at any given newspaper should suffice to show that businessmen mostly consider only the next quarter's earnings, and sometimes not even that.

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Thud457]

Solar energy spills cause CANCER and even third degree burns.
Natural gas just safely floats away into the atmosphere and is biologically disposed of by Nature.

Re:Depends if you want to solve the problems or ch

[ranton]

All of the "problems" with solar energy are very easily solvable [by using natural gas instead] and most are hardly even worth mentioning

Whether or not it's worth an honest analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different sources of energy depends on whether you want to actually solve some problem, such as environmental problems, or you just want to be a cheerleader for your "team", without actually accomplishing anything.

Considering the solution to the solar power deficiency being discussed was to use non-solar to fill in the gaps, it is clear I didn't even suggest the problems with solar energy are always solved by more solar energy. I didn't say the problems with solar energy don't exist, just that they are easily solvable. Cost is the only significant hindrance in all but the most extreme cases, and it is becoming less of an issue every year.

Insensitive clod

[fbobraga]

Now just enlarge that by another 105,000 km and you'll have the US electrical grid

it's a US-only tech?

Re:Insensitive clod

[Nutria]

Yes. It's only allowed to be used in the US. :eyeroll:

How big is the electric grid in Germany or France? Heck, why hasn't the superconducting grid in GB been extended? (I bet the answer doesn't have anything to do with a conspiracy by the copper mining industry...)

by well known French troll Jules Verne

[Thud457]

I bet you hated "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea".

Re:It will

[prefec2]

a) The article says that it can become the cheapest option (in some countries).
b) Fossil fuels are highly subsidized (even if you ignore the ecological problems they cause).
c) The power companies control grid and grid access (to some degree). Therefore, it is harder for renewables to get into the market. Also there might be consumer bias.
d) It does not matter whether it may become cheaper or not. We have to get rid of fossil fuels, extensive methane production and oxides of nitrogen to prevent further damage through climate change. However, your upcoming government denies climate change and will, therefore, not take action. He even considered stopping initiatives pushing renewables.

insensitive clod!

[fbobraga]

It's 17:02 here!

Re:It will

[SensitiveMale]

Dude, that's just stupid. I love how people make such arguments. "This is the cheapest option available but because there is a businessman in charge, he'll pick more expensive options."

You're right, the businessman will indeed choose the cheapest option -- for him. Which in this case means the option that lets him pay off the political debts to his oil-company backers, stick it to the liberals, and ignore climate change completely, because who cares?

Of course that will be the most expensive option for the rest of humanity, but that hardly matters for Mr. Trump, by the time the shit hits the fan, he'll have already earned his money.

Funny you should say that because Obama was notorious for picking the most expensive option for the very reasons you listed.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[kenaaker]

There's another option that's rarely discussed here. There's a pretty good article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that has a description of functional prototypes that use intermittent power sources to generate different gas products (methane, towngas, hydrogen...) that can be handled by existing power and gas infrastructure equipment. The typical capacity of a national gas system is weeks to months of supply.

In short, take intermittent power sources like solar, wind, tide,.. generate methane, feed it into the standard natural gas infrastructure to be delivered and used by the natural gas power generation plants. Sufficient storage without additional huge investments in power storage research, development and construction.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[SoftwareArtist]

Unfortunately, solar thermal isn't cost competitive. Everywhere the summary says "solar", they really mean "photovoltaic". The cost of solar thermal is way higher.

One other thing

[prefec2]

It is stupid to believe that a country can be run like a company. In a country you have to understand macro economics and pursue the interest of all people, while as business person you only need to be concerned with your company (that is micro economics). In addition in politics the world is not about deals it is about treaties and common understanding. A deal is a singular event. It is often not necessary to consider all the side effects of selling a product or service. In a political context, it is not helpful to make a treaty your partner suffers from or third party suffer from, because there might be a time in future where you have to make another treaty with the suffering party. We do not live on Ferenginar and the US President is the Grand Nagus. Still in the TV series the Ferengi have a bad reputation which harm trade and commerce.

Re:It will

[prefec2]

I hope you are right. I also hope that Mr Trump will leave office in 4 or 8 years. I have the bad feeling that is might not be the case.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[skids]

Until that happens, neither government incentives nor carbon taxes make much sense.

That's sort of like saying we should have waited for business interests to build us a road system. Incentives is part of what got us to this point.

You *can*. Do you? Will most people? Anybody work?

[raymorris]

You *can* do all that stuff. It's expensive to buy and maintain the batteries and auxiliary equipment, most lots of people *could* do it. Do you do so, do you use only electricity from your own solar panels?

If so, congratulations. Do you also drive to work? There's a bid difference between 6-7 watts for an LED in a room versus 10,000 watts to charge your Tesla.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[rahvin112]

This is the reason people should encourage their retirement funds and accounts to divest from fossil fuel assets. In 30 years they could all be worthless and the drop when it comes will be so fast no one will be able to react to it.

Re:It will

[suutar]

I doubt he'd do it _just_ because he's a businessman. It is conceivable, however, that he would do so because he or his friends have vested interests in the more expensive options.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[Whorhay]

Energy storage isn't an intractable problem, even with today's technology. The following is largely quoted from a reply I made some months back to similar concerns.

A week sounds like a crazy long time to try and store energy reserves for. The only situation I can think of where that would be a likely occurrence with solar would be the far north where you might get snow coverage and for whatever reason don't clear off the panels/mirrors. That said though you'd just need to plan for a larger insulated storage container for the molten salt. The larger the storage container the more economical because the ratio of volume to surface area where you can lose heat favors you.

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

The wiki page above mentions tanks 30 feet tall and 80 feet in diameter being able to provide 100megawatts for 4 hours. If you use the average electricity consumption of the US as a baseline a city of 7m people would need 11.8 gigawatts of continuous power. So you'd need 118 of those tanks, or fewer tanks with a combined volume in the same ballpark, for every 4 hours of total darkness. My rough as hell calculations say something like 17.5 acres of storage tanks for every 4 hour block, if you go with 24 hours of storage it'll take up 420 acres, or about 2/3 of a square mile. All of that is presuming 30x80 foot tanks, you could save a lot of space by going with larger tanks and at least partially burying them. If you scaled these numbers up you could store 24 hours worth of electricity in molten salt tanks occupying just 30 square miles, for the entire USA.

I would also add that I've never seen a weather event that blanketed the entire lower 48 for even a couple hours, let alone a week solid. Solar also produces energy even during cloud coverage, just not at 100%. So your proposed week of no power production would require an unprecedented weather event of ridiculous proportions and duration, or one of shorter duration but with a populace that does nothing to mitigate it's affect on power generation. But even if we decided to plan for such an improbable event it is a readily attainable project to accomplish, we'd roughly need 210 square miles of tanker farms spread around the country.

Good news for Pennsylvania and West Virginia!

[Sri Ramkrishna]

That said, we live in an age where we less and less blue collar jobs to run the world...

Re:Only because of a free ride of coal, gas, and n

[MightyMartian]

There are several ideas out there, but so long as we're not pricing fossil fuels for their true cost, solar still has an uphill battle, a battle which, BTW it is winning anyways.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Sri Ramkrishna]

That's because it is part of the Republican platform and people identify themselves as conservative vote Republican without any actual idea if conservatism is actually being practiced including using outdated economic models that doesn't provide any benefit to voters.

It's the country where I vote. Funny how Europeans

[raymorris]

> * it's funny how "Americans" (not from the entire continent!) use only USA as example of "a country" :P

The US is the country where I can vote and otherwise influence policy, so it makes more sense for me to discuss what US policy should be versus what Germany's policy should be.

It's funny how "Europeans" (not the entire continent) currently aren't sure where the live - Europe/EU or Belgium or whatever "country" they live in. Be careful with that, guys - a bunch of states in North America were convinced to join a federation, an alliance in which they delegated a specific list of powers to the union government, declaring that:
--
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
--

The union government completely ignored the list of things they were allowed to do, of course, and starting acting as *the* government of the whole federation, completely usurping almost all power from from the constituent states.

$20? Aww I wanted a peanut...

[Thud457]

Good grief, do I have to tell you apes how to do everything?!!!
Obviously the optimal way to store solar power is to use the electricity to run bitcoin mining servers. Then the bitcoins can be used to buy electricity at night.

I, for one...

[fbobraga]

... welcome to the new coal miner overlords!

Re:It's the country where I vote. Funny how Europe

[fbobraga]

It's funny how "Europeans"

I'm a Brazilian (and, thus, an "american" [from the continent]), insensitive clod!

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[rahvin112]

The Chinese central government is under intense public pressure to solve the air pollution problem. Most people in the US don't realize how bad the air in China is, their "red" air warning is IIRC almost 10 times the values the EPA uses in the US. The Chinese public has grown tired of this and is getting disgruntled about it, and the one thing the Chinese administration fears more than anything it's their public getting angry about something. They are well aware that all it takes is one big public revolt and the entire communist party could lose their heads.

Gas storage is awesome, if efficiency works

[raymorris]

Yeah that's a very promising concept, which is may or may not eventually work well at scale. Hydrocarbons are a very effective way to store and transport energy.

It sounds really great and works, in practical terms, at small scale - much like solar energy in the 1950s (and somewhat still today).

Re:yes, and that's why...

[rahvin112]

Based on the facts of the system. Fossil fuels are subsidized at rates that no other industry achieves. Oil alone nets close to 5 billion dollars in incentives and tax benefits and this doesn't even count underpaying the tax payers for the oil by as much as 50%. Coal is even worse, massive subsidies, free use of federal land and resources and often paying the taxpayers less than a penny per ton for the coal. Nuclear wouldn't even exist without the Federal loan guarantees and the federal government backstoping the disaster insurance. That doesn't count the tax cuts and subsidies the industry receives.

Solar and Wind receive two tax breaks, an accelerated depreciation schedule and a tax credit that goes away in 2020 for wind and 2024 for solar with both credits scaling down yearly until their final year.

Compared fairly the tax credits to fossil fuels over the past 50 years could have paid to replace the entire electricity gird a dozen times over. Fossil fuels receive more government subsidies than any other industry.

90% reduction is common, not unprecented

[raymorris]

> So your proposed week of no power production would require an unprecedented weather event of ridiculous proportions and duration

Very frequently, either the west coast or the east coast is cloudy for several days. And people still need to drive to work during cloudy weeks, so you can't cut energy usage by 90%.

I appreciate you doing some math. I think because you'd like it to work, you're being a bit optimistic with your assumptions, but I appreciate you showing your work. For example it's a bit optimistic to pretend that all or most of the west coast isn't covered in clouds pretty regularly - I'll bet that happens this month. It certainly happened last month. Right now, the northeast, a significant portion of the population, is covered by a storm system.

> If you use the average electricity consumption of the US as a baseline

Multiply that by eight if you want to provide for our *energy* needs, if you want electric cars, semi trucks, electric heating, etc.

Re:90% reduction is common, not unprecented

[Whorhay]

Obviously some part of the nation can easily be covered by cloud cover for a few days. But this is only a serious problem if you put all of your generating capacity into a few small areas that are likely to be affected by this type of weather. We already have a national power grid, it'd be dumb as hell not to use it. So install many generating stations and storage facilities throughout the country, then when a region can't generate their own power for some period of time they pull from the national grid. So long as we've got a grid and take the average cloud cover for the country into consideration when building out capacity there is no reason for it to be a show stopper.

I've only been speaking in terms of current electricity usage. But so what if we decided to go all electric and replace all energy usage with electric. You say we'd need eight times more, why not just go with ten and say that we need 2,100 miles of storage tanker farms. That's still not a big deal considering with deeper/taller tanks you could shrink the foot print, that'd be enough energy for the entire USA for one week with not generating at all and replacing all over energy usage.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[SoftwareArtist]

China knows about real costs, and they are building new coal plants at about 1 a week. Coal trumps solar. Simples.

That's mostly to replace older coal plants that are being retired. China's overall coal use has been dropping for the last few years. It went down 2.9% in 2014, and then 3.7% in 2015. Meanwhile, they've come the world's largest producer of solar energy, and the fraction of their electricity coming from renewables is going up fast.

Yes 0.8 with a lot of engineering / compromises

[raymorris]

True, if you're very careful (and spend billions of dollars on development), and accept compromises regarding noise levels and other considerations, you can get up around 0.8 mach or slightly higher. My understanding is that a lot of additional engineering goes into planes to get from 0.7 to 0.8 or so.

It's certainly not impossible to operate at 0.85 mach, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not as simple as "just spin twice as fast".

Re:Depends if you want to solve the problems or ch

[blindseer]

>> natural gas burning plants could handle 10x their normal load to cover for idle solar panels.

>Yep, natural gas and nuclear can provide power when solar isn't providing enough at the moment, for whatever reason.
>That's a great mix. The cheapest, cleanest energy when it's available, reliable energy that's still clean and reasonably cheap
>when the more preferred energy isn't sufficient at the moment.

Are you including solar in your mix with nuclear and natural gas? I hope not, because nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, lower cost, and fewer deaths per energy produced than even solar. I'm finding it real hard for a utility/nation/whatever to use solar power when nuclear power is available. If new air cooled nuclear reactors meet their claim of being able to load follow then those natural gas generators would be used only in the highest peaks and for emergency on-site power for the nuclear reactors.

I don't see the USA getting away from natural gas anytime soon. We have so much of it, it's great for heating and cooking, with a bit of effort it works for transportation, it's cheap, clean (as in little to no soot, sulfur, etc.), relatively safe (which isn't saying much compared to coal but still safe), great for peak and base power, and did I mention we have a lot of it?

About the only thing that I see replacing natural gas anytime soon is an artificial gas, synthetic methane. The US Navy has been experimenting with this process, a nuclear powered "seawater to jet fuel" process to create synthetic hydrocarbons. Making methane from this is not only nearly trivial now, it is also a very good way to transport and store energy through an existing national (international?) infrastructure.

Solar and Wind are already cheaper

[WillAffleckUW]

Look, there is a simple reason why fossil fuels are dead.

Solar and Wind are both already cheaper than all fossil fuels.

Today.

In the US and Canada.

And that's even without all the massive fossil fuels subsidies from the DOE and States and the Canadian versions on the Provincial levels.

No hiding from that objective fact.

No amount of pretending will change that.

You're like the buggy whip and whale oil and shale oil kings of yesteryear.

We already moved on, and the market cares nothing for your failed religion.

Re:Obama Ban Ki-Moon Pie In The Sky

[MightyMartian]

And yet the high arctic has been 30C above normal temperatures this winter...

Keep spinning your fantasy that there isn't a problem

If that were true, politics AND technical

[raymorris]

> Are you including solar in your mix with nuclear and natural gas? I hope not, because nuclear power has a lower carbon footprint, lower cost, and fewer deaths per energy produced than even solar.

Assuming that were all true (and maybe it is, depending on how you choose to calculate your numbers), energy policy isn't decided based primarily on technical factors, on cost and safety. It's decided at least half based on political considerations. Solar + nuclear + (whatever minor sources make sense locally, geothermal or whatever) is a good approach technically which can be supported by a majority of voters after they are informed.

Re:If that were true, politics AND technical

[Khashishi]

Nuclear cost is actually fairly high if you include fuel and waste handling. It's more expensive than coal, if you don't include externalities. It's hard to compare safety of nuclear vs solar because you are getting into the statistics of small numbers. I used to be a nuclear fan, but that was when solar was really expensive. Solar is now cheaper than nuclear.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[blindseer]

If the government were to "stay out of it", the oil, gas and nuclear industries would close up shop tomorrow.

Not likely. The government simply cannot "stay out of it".

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, consumer of fossil fuels in the USA is governments. The governments (and I do mean plural, as this is a federation) need fuel for services. What is likely the most obvious is the military, all those ships, tanks, trucks, planes, trains, and automobiles, need fuel. Given the need for them to work on a fuel that is easily stored for times of war, natural disaster, and other emergencies this means hydrocarbons.

Add on top of the military the other emergency services, police, fire, ambulance, and there is another big consumer of fossil fuels. Then there are the backup generators that run on fuel oil, propane, natural gas, or whatever, for hospitals, prisons, command/communication centers, etc. Then there are trash truck, snow plows, road repair crews, and on and on.

That's the small stuff, where hydrocarbons rule. For big stuff, like airports, military bases, government complexes of many kinds, we'd want nuclear power. Even big Navy vessels use nuclear power, and I think more of them should in the future. To feed this necessary beast of government it needs energy. Energy that is fickle and difficult to store and transport like wind and solar will simply not do.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[bluegutang]

Zero Hedge? The site run by "Tyler Durden" that predicts multiple times a day that the US economy is about to crash?

I learned about Zero Henge in 2009 when they guaranteed that the US financial system was about to have a "complete economic collapse". Needless to say, this never happened. But the article scared me for a couple years, until I realized that it, and the site as a whole, are full of shit. It's time you realized this too.

Re:Only because of a free ride of coal, gas, and n

[Uberbah]

Boring FUD is boring. Couldn't you find something more imaginative?

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Uberbah]

Gee, if we were allowed to build pipelines, then road costs would approach 0.

Gee, and you can use all that saved money to pay for all those pipeline leaks and cleanup costs.

Re:It will

[LynnwoodRooster]

BP was the largest maker of solar panels, worldwide, for over a decade (until China got in and gutted the market with cheap, subsidized panels). XOM is the largest supporter/recipient of carbon sequestration processes. Big Oil is pretty deep into clean energy - energy IS their business.

Lastly, I don't know how much of a focus on energy is within the purview of the SecState - I would think having a guy who knows how not to flinch when in deep, decade-effecting negotiations is of more importance than his past stances on green energy.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Namarrgon]

Road damage is a real problem, but it's a fraction of that wild figure. ZeroHedge doesn't cite a good source, but this study finds around $5k to $23k of road damage per well (around 1700 wells were drilled in PA in 2011). This is partially covered by the energy companies, leaving an estimated net total taxpayer cost of $8-39 million, not including aggravation to the local drivers.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[amiga3D]

I got this for the lastest year I could find, 2013.

        Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
        Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
        Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
        Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

Those are federal subsidies. It appears that we are only funding Fossil fuels at less than half of renewables.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[jedrek]

It's been a couple decades since the Republicans were actually about small government and conservatism.

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[wyHunter]

I don't think an LNG pipeline would be an issue -- remember, it boils away.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[wyHunter]

My state has an excise tax of >20% IIRC for resource extraction. What state pays less than a penny per tonne?

GOPsayNO

[sdinfoserv]

Not if the GOP gets their way - slash costs on fossil fuel production by rolling back EPA requirements or gutting them all together. Dismember unions to lower wages, eliminate watch dog groups to turn on the payola spiggot, cut research and federal $$ support for any renewable program...
We're going to be like Beijing by the time the next election rolls around.

Actually five separate regional grids

[raymorris]

> We already have a national power grid, it'd be dumb as hell not to use it.

Actually we have five regional grids, and there are reasons for that. For example, in Texas, where I live, ERCOT is most of Texas, while SPP is north Texas and Oklahoma.

I appreciate your passion. It might be helpful to learn just a little bit about how the power grids work, and why they work that way, before you redesign them and declare the engineers who designed them to be "dumb as hell". Specifically you might also want to look up "transmission losses" and learn why the northeast power grid failed and New York was without power for 2-7 days. Then consider what would happen if that had been a national grid, the whole country without power for a week - and we're all relying on electric cars and trucks that suddenly stop running.

Re:Actually five separate regional grids

[Whorhay]

I offered no insult to the designers of our power grids. I just said it'd be dumb not to use power grids where they exist. You seemed to be saying that a part of the country having cloud cover for a short period would spell doom and gloom. Such is not the case, you can shunt power from other areas, whether it is efficient or not, or you can build in power storage that is spread out among the regional grids, or do both. Our current system has very little in the way of power storage that can actually replace base load, and the grids aren't designed to transfer power from one to another very well.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Sri Ramkrishna]

Were they ever to begin with? It just seemed like small government was just another way of saying less interference in making money. That said we do need a conservative thought to help curb government excesses. I'm not saying government is a friend, more of a beast that needs to be properly chained. :-)

only 10 years away

[0111 1110]

Well nuclear fusion is also only 10 years away, right? How does fusion power compare in terms of cost per kwh? Is there any reason to believe it would be less expsnsive than electricity generated by fission?

Re:yes, and that's why...

[rahvin112]

You are apparently unaware of how the companies game the system.

They create two companies, the company that mines the coal and pays the taxes sells the coal to company number 2 for pennies per ton and as a result pays almost no royalties or taxes (because they are determined by the sale price). Company number 2 then takes the coal and sells it commercially and then pushes the profit back to company 1.

I'm sure a similar scam exists in any fossil fuel extraction where royalties are due the tax payer.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[rahvin112]

Those numbers are garbage, like statistics they can be manipulated by deciding how it's counted and what's counted.

Looking at the numbers my bet is they've only counted accelerated depreciation writeoffs which are rarely used in coal and nuclear because they don't build new plants. Where did you pull those numbers, the Koch brothers back pocket?

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[Zemran]

In places like Denmark and Germany you get paid for the electricity that you produce in excess of what you use so it is cheaper than cheap can be. Wit a solar array on your roof you pay one rate for what you draw from the grid and they pay you about 10% less for what you supply to the grid.

Hard, an apples and oranges comparison

[raymorris]

Agreed, the comparisons are hard. On safety, it is small numbers for the options.

It's apples and oranges for nuclear and solar though. From my research, it's like trying to decide between cake and frosting. Solar electric is really good, and should definitely be used - on a sunny afternoon. Nuclear is reliable. Both are clean and safe. They work very well together. Natural gas can be quickly throttled up and down to match short-term fluctuations in demand, so the three together meet our needs well.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[Khashishi]

Also, if we go heavy solar, it's not like all the hydrocarbon infrastructure will disappear overnight. We can still turn on the gas if the hyperblizzard hits.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[ooloorie]

That's sort of like saying we should have waited for business interests to build us a road system. Incentives is part of what got us to this point.

No, it's not like saying that at all, since roads aren't solar cells. Incentives for solar cells have done nothing to bring down the price faster or increase innovation, and solar cells don't need rights of way, centralized infrastructure or distribution, or eminent domain.

Furthermore, the first road systems in the US and UK were private. The US only got massive federal interstate highway system when a bunch of US presidents got a boner for a Nazi-style Autobahn system and its military applications.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[ooloorie]

Based on the facts of the system. Fossil fuels are subsidized at rates that no other industry achieves. Oil alone nets close to 5 billion dollars

Sorry, but your math is wonky. $5 billion is a negligible amount of subsidies relative to the amount of energy derived from fossil fuels. In fact, renewables are subsidized at rates about 10x that of renewables.

You can find the numbers here. You need to set that in relationship to the amount of energy delivered by these sources; see here.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[ooloorie]

Those numbers are garbage, like statistics they can be manipulated by deciding how it's counted and what's counted.

Those numbers are from Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office testifying before Congress in 2013. If you want to use arguments about subsidies to talk about government energy policy, you ought to use the government's numbers to do it.

Even if you take numbers from the Environmental Law Institute, a rather biased analysis, fossil fuels are still subsidized at a much lower rate: they claim $72 billion for fossil fuels and $29 billion for renewables, but for that money we still get nearly 10x as much energy from fossil fuels.

It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 miles

[raymorris]

> Long distance power transmission works just fine. I don't see any reason why you can't use solar power from the other side of the world

There are five regional power grids in the US, and 7,658 power plants. So most people live within 250 miles of the power plants that provide their power. Over that 250 mile distance, 5% of the power (on average) is lost in the line (source: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... ).

If you want to get electricity from "the other side of the world", that's 12,000 miles, so you lose 48 times as much. 5% loss over 250 miles times 48 times as far = you lose basically all of the power. Practically none makes it to the user.
 

Re:yes, and that's why...

[amiga3D]

Those numbers come from the Feds. Who better than the feds to know what numbers they're paying out? If they don't know who the hell would?

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[dog77]

What is your definition of "highly subsidized"?

If you look at the numbers compiled by the US government for direct subsidies, it is not even close. Natural gas is subsidized at 62 million and Solar is 2.9 billion for 2013. If you include other subsidies such as tax subsidies it is much closer, but still in solar's favor. Natural gas is subsidized at 2.3 billion and Solar is 5.3 billion for 2013. If you consider that natural gas produced was 28,353 Million BTUs versus Solar of 218 Million BTUs, or 130 times as much, your subsidy per BTU is enormous for Solar versus Natural Gas.

https://www.eia.gov/analysis/r...

There is a great deal of debate on what the costs to roads is and how much the industry pays versus the state, but if we take Pendot's 2010 estimate (from this link http://www.naturalgasintel.com...) it said the state was paying 30 to 35 million more than the industry. Pennsylvania was the 2nd biggest producer in natural gas in 2013, producing 12% of the US's natural gas. If you extrapolate that number for the US you get 291 million. If you add that to the 2.3 billion number above, it makes a very little dent in the comparison.

So using government numbers, comparing Solar versus Natural Gas subsidies, solar is at least 130 times more subsidized per BTU than natural gas.

Re:Depends if you want to solve the problems or ch

[Agripa]

Yep, natural gas and nuclear can provide power when solar isn't providing enough at the moment, for whatever reason. That's a great mix. The cheapest, cleanest energy when it's available, reliable energy that's still clean and reasonably cheap when the more preferred energy isn't sufficient at the moment.

This works well for natural gas because the consumable is a large part of the cost but not for a nuclear power plant where you want to operate at as large a capacity factor as possible. One of the deliberate ploys the greens use is to push for mandatory use of solar and wind power because it will lower the capacity factor of nuclear power making it less economical.

Of course if people want to pay for both the energy delivered *and* when it is provided, then night time power provided by nuclear and hydroelectric plants will be a lot more economical considering that solar power will not be available at any cost. I wonder how much overcapacity in wind it would require to provide reliable power at night.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[DamnOregonian]

* it's funny how "Americans" (not from the entire continent!) use only USA as example of "a country" :P

To be 100% fair, unless you're from just a few places, either your population, or your land mass makes you more akin to a "State" for us.

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[angel'o'sphere]

You have two misconceptions: a storm half as big as America (assuming you mean USA and not the northern continent) can not exist, and if it indeed would approach that size it can not last that long, because unlike over the ocean, there is not much energy in the landmass and the more or less humid air over land.
And secondly: a big storm is a weak storm. With hotspots of high wind speeds ofc. And you would be surprised at what wind speeds a turbine shuts down. Especially the big ones that get deployed about now. The wind speed is not as low as you think :D

So suppose there was a major breakthrough in physics that allowed us to store as much electricity as California currently needs for a cloudy week.
That has nothing to do with physics or break throughs. You only need land to place pumped storages ... and yes: you can place them everywhere. Albeit setting one up in a plane would cost a bit of land, while setting it up in a mountain is more easy, and likely ore economic.
California actually could benefit from them during droughts.

Re:Depends if you want to solve the problems or ch

[angel'o'sphere]

So suppose there was a major breakthrough in physics that allowed us to store as much electricity as California currently needs for a cloudy week.
No it has not.
Solar panels are made from sand, which is melted with ... electric energy, which can come from nuclear plants or solar plants.
So bottom line Solar panels can be 100% green except for mining and transportation of materials. The greenness only depends on the actual existing energy mix in the country where they are produced. A country that produces 40% of its energy without CO2 production, obviously produces Solar panels where 60% of the power input produces CO2 ... and 40% not.

Regarding Nuclear: the infrastructure around nuclear is o energy intensive that there are studies that claim they produce more CO2 than an equivalent coal plant. Just google ...

Your idea that Nuclear plants produce less CO2 than photovoltaic plants is absurd. As soon as a photovoltaic plant is set up, it produces ZERO CO2. A nuclear plant produces CO2 with every step of refilling, waste handling, transport, mining, fuel production etc.

If you spread a myth ones due t ignorance, that is ok.
But you got corrected on this topic now so often, continuing to spread that myth is lying!

Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi

[angel'o'sphere]

If you want to get electricity from "the other side of the world", that's 12,000 miles, so you lose 48 times as much. 5% loss over 250 miles times 48 times as far = you lose basically all of the power. Practically none makes it to the user.
Sigh, first of all: no one is importing power over that distances, so what is your damn point?
Secondly: the amount of power "lost" is a function of the hight of voltage. So you only need high enough voltage to cut it down to 5% again ... regardless of distance.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[cheesybagel]

Must be why the Emirates are building nice, juicy, nuclear power plants.

Re:No subsidy - then how much?

[cheesybagel]

It's mostly hydropower so far.

Re:Environmental impact on production

[cheesybagel]

Almost all of the pollution will be in the place of manufacture (i.e. China).

Re:Obama Ban Ki-Moon Pie In The Sky

[cheesybagel]

I think it was Mongolians actually. They were major promoters of biological warfare back in the day too...

Anyway that was an accident.

Hey author/editor: No, not the "Wal-Mart Effect",

[sabbede]

"Efficiencies of Scale". The Wal-Mart effect is the impact of their efficiencies of scale (and vertically-integrated logistics) on smaller. pre-existing retailers. Squeezing them out of the market by greatly out-competing them on price.

Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi

[Triklyn]

i was under the impression that the higher voltages minimized the loss. thought the loss was a function of resistance and current. so you minimize current by boosting voltage, and you minimize resistance by minimizing distance and maximizing wire diameter.

Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi

[raymorris]

I'm just curious why you think it is the voltage isn't already ten times higher, if you can just increase the voltage at will with no problems.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[debrain]

> I learned about Zero Henge [sic] in 2009 when they guaranteed that the US financial system was about to have a "complete economic collapse". Needless to say, this never happened. But the article scared me for a couple years, until I realized that it, and the site as a whole, are full of shit. It's time you realized this too.

This is ad hominien i.e. directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

ZH certainly seems histrionic at times. This has no bearing on the article at instance.

We don't dismiss all mainstream media because they touted the "WMD" line.

There are certainly facts ZH has reported that have turned out to be quite astute, including:

1. offshore oil inventories
2. OPEC failing to stick to a deal
3. pension fund collapses (particularly the Dallas FF pension fund)
4. GDP predictions
5. Interest rate hikes (or lack thereof)

There are also a slew of topics on which it appears to be entirely in outer-space.

One must therefore weight each topic on its individual merits i.e. review carefully and think critically.

On economic collapse, I feel that ZH correctly estimates the present downward pressure, but fail to account for the capacity of existing economic institutions to absorb that pressure.

All to say, dismissing the report because it comes from ZH is a logical fallacy that bears no persuasive weight whatsoever, and in any case ZH has a history of being right on some topics.

One beauty of the natural gas topic is that it is falsifiable - we'll see a collapse / consolidation of the industry, or not (unless it stays on life-support indefinitely, I suppose).

Again you're confusing energy and electricity

[raymorris]

Once again you're confusing energy and electricity.

Re:Again you're confusing energy and electricity

[angel'o'sphere]

No I don't.
I mean electric energy when I talk about electricity. Obviously.

E.g. Germany is not exporting any other form of energy in any meaningful amount.

Power, not RPM

[raymorris]

A gearbox can trade RPM for torque. It doesn't affect power, other than wasting a bit from friction. The issue is that a relatively small change in wind speed is a large change in power.

Consider a child's pin wheel, the kind you buy for a dollar and you blow on it to make it spin. It's very light weight of course. While driving home on the highway, stick the pinwheel out the window. The pinwheel won't spin too fast at 70 MPH, it'll be instantly destroyed, the blades blown off and the stick folded over.

Consider you design a turbine (or fire engine siren) for operation at 70 MPH. It's strong enough to *survive* at 100 MPH. It weighs 22 pounds. You blow on it. What happens? Nothing, of course. Your breath doesn't move it.

Cubing a number makes it grow very quickly, so there's a whole lot more power, more force, to handle with higher winds.

Re:Power, not RPM

[SmilingBoy]

I see. That makes sense. Would it therefore not make sense to have some turbines in a wind farm that can deal with high winds (even though they do not turn at all at normal wind speeds) so that power can always be produced? I think this would make sense once a country starts relying on renewable energy for a large proportion of electricity demand as it would reduce the volatility of the energy produced.

Won't work in China...

[BrianMahoney1357]

Solar power requires sunlight, something that the northern part of China, Beijing included, hasn't seen in quite a while, at least on a daily basis.

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[lsatenstein]

Solar energy spills cause CANCER and even third degree burns.

Natural gas just safely floats away into the atmosphere and is biologically disposed of by Nature.

Save the natural gas for the President Elect, Trump. He is going to make America great by bringing back coal. And of course, he is going to tax the low low cost electricity you get from your solar panel. Trump is going to claim that the sunshine belongs to him, and if you want any, you have to pay Trump or the Koch brothers.

Re:yes, and that's why...

[wyHunter]

My understanding is my state collects taxes per tonne on the current spot price of the resource (coal, oil, gas, etc.). A company can claim anything but tax collectors typically aren't that stupid.

That does seem like a good question, at least

[raymorris]

> Would it therefore not make sense to have some turbines in a wind farm that can deal with high winds (even though they do not turn at all at normal wind speeds) so that power can always be produced?

That's an interesting idea / question. I'd like to ask someone who knows a lot more than I do about wind power, and see what they think. I don't know what the engineering issues would be.

At low winds, there's not much you can do - there is just darn little power there. At high speeds, it *seems* like a few turbines designed for high speed *should* be able to produce roughly the same amount of power as many medium-speed units. That's assuming that the wind speed is roughly equal at each location across the farm, that the high-speed ones get high speed winds at the same time that the medium-speed turbines do.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[slashdotwannabe]

Well, first of all NatGas is extracted through pipelines, so no. Also, oil is shipped long distances via trains. Finally, until you can drill a well through a pipeline, then you're you are missing (by far) the largest road cost: the 600-1600 truck loads of drilling equipment required for EACH well. http://www.bouldercounty.org/d...

I'm not an expert. It's the best we've done, so

[raymorris]

I'm glad you've found my posts interesting. I find the topic interesting.

I'm no expert on wind power, I just read 100-200 pages of technical papers about each type of power production in order to get an idea of how they all fit together, what a reasonable policy overall energy policy would be. I was trying to answer questions such as "roughly what percentage of our energy needs can reasonably be provided by solar electric?" "Roughly how much by wind?" "How reliable are different combinations?" Based on my research, I concluded there are basically two options which provide the energy we need:
a) Keep doing what we're doing - with coal, diesel, etc.
b) Use a mix of renewables whenever they are available, with nuclear and natural gas providing the other 80%.

The best answer I can give to your question, based on my knowledge, is that I've posted about what the experts are actually doing with wind power. It's reasonable to think that if they could do better, they would. There is also development being done, of course, incrementally increasing the range of velocities over which wind turbines are efficient, but I don't know of any revolutionary new approaches being deployed. The problem itself is fundamental physics, so I don't expect it'll be "fixed" any time soon.

Re:I'm not an expert. It's the best we've done, so

[trawg]

Cool, that's pretty much what I figured - thanks for the reply!

Re:In summary, evening is okay, cloudy weeks aren'

[Keith Henson]

There is a way to beat the cloudy week problem, move the collectors up to 20 km.

That's the proposal for StratoSolar.

They also get relatively cheap storage by lifting weights into the sky when there is extra energy available and lowering them at night.

Estimation (which I didn't do) is 5 cents per kWh for base load power.

Another alternative is power satellites. Those could scale to 15 TW or more and displace fossil fuels entirely. Setting up the infrastructure to manufacture them in large numbers is expensive, on the order of $100 B. www.htyp.org/DTC for more. Long term cost gets down to 2-3 cents per kWh, and synthetic oil made from off peak power would be $30-50 per bbl.

That and also swing downwind, like broken umbrella

[raymorris]

> With "fold" the GPs likely meant that 2 of the 3 blades rotate around the axis and join the third one and all three hang down parallel with the mast and get secured there.

That, and another approach is like an inverted umbrella, an umbrella that has broken due to the wind. The blades swing away from the mast, downwind (with the tips of the blades coming closer to each other).

I'm sure there are other methods too. To me, the details don't matter so much, because the details of the implementation change every few years. I'm more interested in the fundamental limitations, the laws of physics that make it very hard or impossible to do more than X, for any X. Those are limitations to each technology that are unlikely to fundamentally change any time soon. (Compare solar electric in the 1950s-1960s and solar electric in the 1990s-2000's. After a hundred billion dollars in investment, a lot of things changed, and a lot of things didn't - what hasn't changed in 60 years probably won't change any time soon.)

Re:Hillary lost, get over it, buttercups.

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Global warming on not, the radiation present in the fly ash and the mercury that goes out the smokestack are sufficient reasons to stop using coal.

Not to mention what coal mining does to the rivers and mountains in the areas that it is mined.

Re:It will

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

While you are at it don't forget to cut the Coal, NG and Oil subsidies. Or maybe you don't think having a Navy to keep the Straits of Hormuz open is a subsidy for the Oil Companies.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[sr180]

In Australia you pay approx 30c for power from the grid, and they pay you 8c for what you put into the grid.

Lexan

[fyngyrz]

I've never heard of "appropriate protection" for panels that spend their life facing the sky.

Lexan - not only are my panels shielded with it, all my window panes are made of it. When we first moved into this building, a hailstorm took out all of our west-facing windows. I mean, completely, too. So I did a little research and found that Lexan was pretty much the best answer out there. Price-performance-lifetime is excellent.

If it ever shows any signs of significant decrease in transmission characteristics WRT panel efficiency, it's trivially replaced. I'm a huge fan.

Re:Lexan

[bigwheel]

Really? That sounds like a terrible idea. I'm very familiar with Lexan (polycarbonate). I have it on the roof of my screen porch, and as an insert for my garage door. I agree that it is very impact resistant.

But for panel covers:
1: It is very expensive, and would nearly double the cost of the panel
2: Mounting it would be a hassle, and not compatible with the very nice panel mounting hardware that everyone is using now
3: It can't handle the acids that come from trees, rain, etc. After 5 years, you can't even see through the ones on my porch.
4: Even when brand new, you lose about 12% of light transmission. Probably more when it has the necessary UV protection layer.
5: It scratches easily, which prohibits any methods we use to brush the snow off.
6: It is difficult to clean. You can only use mild cleaners, and you risk scratching it. And bird poop doesn't wash off as easily as with glass.
7: It can't handle temperature changes. When it gets cold (well below freezing), Panels made of Lexan warp.
8: It can't handle hail very well. My porch roof didn't break, but it does have marks where the hail hit it.

If Lexan were any good for solar panels, the manufacturers would all be using it. Same goes for windows.

With all due respect, I think you are bullshitting us and making this story up as you go.

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[WebCowboy]

Thanks for providing the reference. By disclosing that you have used a slanted, conspiracy-theory style source with no credibility whatsoever I can completely dismiss your comment with little effort!

Re: But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[MercTech]

Natural gas is still fossil fuel and increases the carbon loading in the atmosphere.

Coal is the cheapest fossil fuel way to make electrical power. But, hydroelectric is much cheaper. And nuclear is the second cheapest.

Most natural gas used for electric power became gas turbine systems in the 1990s which is great for peak loading but very very inefficient compared to base load steam turbine designs.

Since solar cells don't create more power over a service lifetime than it takes to manufacture them; solar cannot be cheaper in a total system point of view until they come up with a method of manufacture that does not require high temperature annealing.

Faux Science for faux issues seems to be the basis of the top article. If solar were not so heavily subsidized; no one would be bothering.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[debrain]

Reading your conclusion that solar is more subsidized than NG I feel it's partly because of market distortions in the USA. (This bias may, or may not be, related to the pre-existence of gas plants i.e. the absence of capital cost).

Once one looks outside the USA solar appears to be a clear leader in at least certain areas. Take Dubai, where solar beats out both coal and gas plants by a substantial margin:

http://www.apricum-group.com/d...

Another illuminating post is from the Economist:

http://www.economist.com/news/...

In any case, some thoughts below.

> What is your definition of "highly subsidized"?

The ordinary definition is something like "a benefit made by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive."

In the case of natural gas, it's a combination of:

1. ultra-low interest rates; and
2. so-called "dumb money" (including, perhaps especially, public pension funds) debt-financing of shale companies.

(I'm aware that one could argue that these are not strictly subsidies, but that doesn't deflate the point that NG is surviving on cheap credit and not competitive advantage).

Once these factors dissipate, natural gas might be substantially more expensive â" and quite a bit more expensive than solar.

Of course one could argue that solar similarly benefits from low interest rates. The key difference is that NG is a resource industry (usage decreases supply, thereby increasing cost), and solar is a manufacturing industry (benefitting from economy of scale, etc, where costs go down as more is manufactured).

Can do

[fyngyrz]

Do you do so, do you use only electricity from your own solar panels?

I own three buildings and one trailer. The trailer and two of the buildings are 100% solar. The remaining building is very large, and it will be a few years yet before I'm ready to go after it (I do all my own work.)

Do you also drive to work?

No. I consult from home, mostly based on whim these days. I spend considerably more time working on consciousness theory and software defined radio. Most consulting that comes my way is "more of the same", and as I don't have to take it, I tend not to.

There's a bid difference between 6-7 watts for an LED in a room versus 10,000 watts to charge your Tesla.

One typical residential sized solar panel is happy to provide 100 watts in full sunlight. A hundred panels in full sun would deliver your 10,000 watts, and here, I have more than enough room for same, plus the lexan shields (this is a hail-addled region.) The main roof is 60x30x2, oriented EW-ish. So I can put up about 100 panels each side. Not optimum, but not horrible -- no shade. I could also add (or start with) a S-facing system across the front of the house good for about 30 panels if it was only one panel deep. Or 60 if I went two deep, which would make a nice veranda roof for the entry ramps. I'm sort of leaning that way. However, a Tesla (or whatever) isn't likely to need a full charge on a regular basis unless you're commuting with it to the tune of max range. In my case, it'd be fine, as I live in a small town and generally don't leave it very often. If I do, I'm too far from home to take advantage of my solar installations anyway. Tesla hasn't made a model (yet) that appeals to me though. I want one with more range, as we're almost 300 miles from the nearest city in the state. I imagine it'll come within a few years.

As for who can, and who will... you just have to do the math. Solar costs less in the end than paying the electric bill. Pretty much a slam dunk for anyone who has the roof / other sunny space. If you do the math.

Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi

[angel'o'sphere]

There are two reasons:

a) most countries have a grid capable (high enough voltage) to transport what ever they want without significant losses

b) upgrading a grid is a majour infrastructure task. E.g. you have to build new lines more or less along the way where you have the old ones. Get them ready, attached to sources and destinations etc. and activated and then you have to power down and dismantle the old infrastructure. In Europe this is rarely done. It is much more economical to simply build new dedicated long distance lines, with less flexibility ofc.

Keep in mind: for economic/law reasons long transport lines are not simply wires. There are power plants attached to the wires a long the way of transportation. The idea is: if I feed in 1GWh at one end, I don't want to know or to calculate how much comes out at the other end. I simply want a price how much it costs me to transport that 1GWh. So the provider of the transport line is replacing my loss with his own power and charging me per 1MW and 1MWh for his transportation service. So upgrading an existing line means reworking all connections of the existing power plants. Building a new line means building new power plants or at least new transformers for existing plants if they are not to far away.

But the main reason this is rarely happening is a) above.

Countries like USA, that don't have nation wide spanning grids, otoh don't have those problems, they can start on the green field.

Re:It's called transmission losses. 5% over 250 mi

[angel'o'sphere]

Exactly.

OTOH alternating current lines also have losses by induction (inducting currents into surrounding infrastructure) and radiation of radio waves (I think a weather phenomena).

Direct current lines don't have those problems, hence the discussions about shifting to DC from AC (See HVDC lines ... high voltage DC)

Do you want diesel trucks and heating or electric?

[raymorris]

Diesel is the only energy source with significant use in transportation and in Europe it's used widely for heating. Do you think diesel should be replaced with clean energy?

If so, you have to start thinking about total *energy* needs and consciously watching for trick statements about *electricity*. Germany can increase their percentage of *electricity* that comes from renewables by shutting down fairly clean natural-gas burning electricity plants and replacing them with garbage-burning heating plants. That's probably not what you want. That sounds silly, but people really do make stupid statements (and policies) conflating energy with electricity in order to make their policy look better. They increase the cost of electricity with a tax, causing industry to use more coal, then claim an increase in the percentage of *electricity* from renewables.

Germany imports a lot of energy, including a shit load of diesel. For most of their energy to come from clean sources, they need either ten to twenty times as much solar (not going to happen) or nuclear.

Interesting

[raymorris]

Interesting ideas. Why do you think 34KV lines are so much higher than 240V lines, with wide horizontal clearance between 34KV lines and any residential structures? Do you think 340KV lines need towers the same height as 34KV? The same distance to residential structures? Does a MV transmission line require towers to be higher than 700 feet, do you think?

Re:Interesting

[angel'o'sphere]

I covered this with part b) in my previous post.

Obviously higher voltages require bigger infra structure ... no idea at what you want to aim with that question however ;D

Regarding 34kV lines: those are mostly underground or only in industrial complexes above the surface.

The same distance to residential structures? yes ... as the distance already is absurdly big. However I take it you live in the USA and perhaps regulations are less strict there.

Does a MV transmission line require towers to be higher than 700 feet, do you think?
700 feet is 230m ... so no, it does not require a higher tower.

Unfortunately important stuff like power heights are missing ;D : http://solareis.anl.gov/docume...

Re:yes, and that's why...

[RyoShin]

And you didn't even mention government intervention in "stabilizing" regions for companies via the military.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[dog77]

Your revised response makes more sense. I would avoid using the word subsidy in the context of this discussion. Maybe a better way to put what you are saying is that the natural gas industry has a competive advantage of being an established industry.

I like your statement "Once these factors dissipate, natural gas might be substantially more expensive and quite a bit more expensive than solar", because you used the word *might*, but I would challenge you to add some supporting evidence to this opinion.

One factor that contributes to the higher cost of solar is the initial cost of the investment.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

How long does it take an investment in a solar plant to catch up to an investment in a natural gas plant for a given region with current solar and natural gas costs? If you support the answer to that question, I will have more confidence in your opionion.

Re:But .. but but but. Bullshit.

[debrain]

Thanks for the reply.

> How long does it take an investment in a solar plant to catch up to an investment in a natural gas plant for a given region with current solar and natural gas costs? If you support the answer to that question, I will have more confidence in your opionion.

I wonder if time to investment parity is the best indicator of each industry's trajectory. Might it be better to look at the lifetime profit of comparable capital investment, after interest, risk, expenses, and maintenance?

I'd be interested in seeing some spreadsheets on this, but it's notoriously hard to come by unbiased data.

In any event though, the supply-and-demand curve for pricing NG is invariably up (as supply is exhausted), and solar is down (as manufacturing improves and pays down capital), so even if we're not at the point where solar investments are less profitable than NG, notwithstanding a complete societal collapse, that point is inevitably marching towards us.