ES

Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices

Recommended Posts

(edited)

"This incredible pace of solar cost decline, with average prices in sunny parts of the world down to a penny or two by 2030 or 2035, is just remarkable. Building new solar would routinely be cheaper than operating already built fossil fuel plants, even in the world of ultra-cheap natural gas we live in now."

 

Future-Solar-Cost-Projections-2020-Naam-2020.jpg

Edited by BradleyPNW
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Industries will adapt to the solar duck curve. Fossil fuels might find themselves in competition with hydrogen splitting. Which means they'd also lose their Haber-Bosch customers. 

This is going to be a weird decade in grid scale electricity. We'll probably have a lot of these questions worked out by the 2040s. 

960x0.jpg

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Building new solar would routinely be cheaper than operating already built fossil fuel plants, even in the world of ultra-cheap natural gas we live in now.

Bradley - sure but how many times do basic points have to be repeated before grim reality overtakes the fairy tale of renewable energy. On an installed capacity basis, renewables would certainly be cheaper than conventional plants and have been for a while. The problem is that the grid operators have to plan so that the grid will still operate 24/7 when the cheap renewable network is not delivering any energy at all (peak evening period, say, when there is no wind to speak of). Then if the wind does blow those conventional plants have to be hurriedly wound  back - run inefficiently - to accommodate green energy. Those are just the start of the problems. Proponents of renewables counter those objections with yet more fairy stories about how spreading out the wind towers will offset the variation. The problem is no one has been able to make that work. Same story with 24 hour renewable generators and all the storage we've been promised. As matters stand renewables are basically additions to conventional generators which may save some carbon but also mess up the operation of the grid and the pricing of power. Time to drop the fairy wand.. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 3
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If solar gets as inexpensive as these graphs predict the grid will innovate around solar. We would abandon current grid management practices at those prices. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A year ago NREL projected that in their best case scenario storage costs would reach $250/kWh in 2022 but it appears that the Gemini project in Nevada that was just authorized is already at that price point. 

 image.png.349d2ec13e9c61dd3093cf697bd8a1f3.png

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

"This incredible pace of solar cost decline, with average prices in sunny parts of the world down to a penny or two by 2030 or 2035, is just remarkable. Building new solar would routinely be cheaper than operating already built fossil fuel plants, even in the world of ultra-cheap natural gas we live in now."

 

Future-Solar-Cost-Projections-2020-Naam-2020.jpg

When solar becomes cheap enough why not just let individual houses and businesses use their own installations. Solar roofs would be a good start. If battery storage is real, I am still amazed that the gigantic warehouses in the Inland Empire of Southern California don't have them on their roofs. Everyone wants them in the desert and to run power lines hundreds of miles. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BradleyPNW said:

If solar gets as inexpensive as these graphs predict the grid will innovate around solar. We would abandon current grid management practices at those prices. 

Don't worry, the trend will plateau. We are not at 1% conversion any longer. We are at 20% and have 40% in the lab, where it still is for several years now. The 30% learning curve is an extrapolation ad absurdum from a narrow part of the curve due to the decline of NG prices over that period, which lowered the competitive cost and thus the bid to solar. Trees don't grow to the sky. Efficiency in conversion does not grow beyond 100% conversion. The curve is no longer 30% and if you take it back to its start it is not anywhere near 30%, but 17%. You already have most of the economies of scale you are ever going to have, you will have a Moore's law type of slowing going from 20% conversion to 40% conversion and then you will improve asymptotically to 60% and then plateau. So presuming the lab technology gets to the ground by the end of the decade, then the forward contribution to the learning curve is 8%. 

Same thing goes for storage. The improvements are still large in Li storage tech, but the main contribution was a glut of over investment in Lithium mining and production capacity, as a result of the low prices, storage prices improved faster than they would have had Li investment been rationally paced (same kind of problem as shale). Now we need to increase production of Li while iridium crucible liners are in short supply if this production growth is to continue. There is one iridium rich mine to be had where the iridium has to be processed separately from the other metals, same problem as we have with the supply of Tellurium, which depends on copper production volumes and the one Tellurium rich mine also can't be processed by cyanide leaching. Tellurium is the limiting element of thin film solar. Otherwise these are byproducts of Nickel and Copper/gold production. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Industries will adapt to the solar duck curve. Fossil fuels might find themselves in competition with hydrogen splitting. Which means they'd also lose their Haber-Bosch customers. 

This is going to be a weird decade in grid scale electricity. We'll probably have a lot of these questions worked out by the 2040s. 

960x0.jpg

You do understand that the greenfield installation for a primary grid with no existing fossil plant to pick up the slack, the storage has to cover not only the 4 hr peak, but the night period as well. So you need to exceed fossil fuel capacity to at least 400% in order to charge the batteries to operate during the evening peak and overnight. 

In the context of an existing fossil fuel grid, the application of solar that makes it useful is that no capital is needed to cover the peak and overnight, so the solar generator gets to cherry pick some of the peak demand period. Add storage and the capital displaced by the solar plant will be the difference between peaking capacity and overnight levels of demand. You need to add to the capital cost of displaced fossil fuel capacity to get the net grid cost of the solar plant. 

  • Like 2
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 0R0 said:

Don't worry, the trend will plateau. We are not at 1% conversion any longer. We are at 20% and have 40% in the lab, where it still is for several years now. The 30% learning curve is an extrapolation ad absurdum from a narrow part of the curve due to the decline of NG prices over that period, which lowered the competitive cost and thus the bid to solar. Trees don't grow to the sky. Efficiency in conversion does not grow beyond 100% conversion. The curve is no longer 30% and if you take it back to its start it is not anywhere near 30%, but 17%. You already have most of the economies of scale you are ever going to have, you will have a Moore's law type of slowing going from 20% conversion to 40% conversion and then you will improve asymptotically to 60% and then plateau. So presuming the lab technology gets to the ground by the end of the decade, then the forward contribution to the learning curve is 8%. 

Same thing goes for storage. The improvements are still large in Li storage tech, but the main contribution was a glut of over investment in Lithium mining and production capacity, as a result of the low prices, storage prices improved faster than they would have had Li investment been rationally paced (same kind of problem as shale). Now we need to increase production of Li while iridium crucible liners are in short supply if this production growth is to continue. There is one iridium rich mine to be had where the iridium has to be processed separately from the other metals, same problem as we have with the supply of Tellurium, which depends on copper production volumes and the one Tellurium rich mine also can't be processed by cyanide leaching. Tellurium is the limiting element of thin film solar. Otherwise these are byproducts of Nickel and Copper/gold production. 

Ramez says the 17% curve so widely cited is based on faulty data and in error. He has done a rework and has come up with the 30% learning curve. https://rameznaam.com/2020/05/14/solars-future-is-insanely-cheap-2020/ 

The correlation between solar cell efficiency improvements and the slope of the learning/experience curve is actually very weak. 

There is nothing at all to indicate that economies of scale are ending. And you are not accounting for new technology development that is a key part driving the manufacturing experience curve. 

Since its inception everyone was always saying Moore's Law was going to end in a few years, even Gordon said it a couple times over the decades. But it is actually still chugging along fairly well even at this late date. Intel had some problems but others picked up the slack. Still has a little life left in it.

Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ronwagn said:

When solar becomes cheap enough why not just let individual houses and businesses use their own installations. Solar roofs would be a good start. If battery storage is real, I am still amazed that the gigantic warehouses in the Inland Empire of Southern California don't have them on their roofs. Everyone wants them in the desert and to run power lines hundreds of miles. 

Often roof structures on those buildings are not strong enough to take the additional weight.

Another stumbling block is often the occupiers are not the owners so the occupiers would be reluctant to install solar unless they have a very long lease term. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

fairly well even at this late date. Intel had some problems but others picked up the slack. Still has a little life left in it.

Moore%27s_Law_Transistor_Count_1971-2018.png

 

When they break out the moore's law table, you know they are up shit creek without a paddle.  Trying to equate a Kumquat, to a peanut which in their minds correlates; strawberry.   A better graph: commercial solar cell efficiency over time... hint(has barely changed in 2 decades) A better graph; ice engine efficiency over time.  No one has moved the efficiency needle for going on 4 decades now.  Everything being brought to consumer cars, was done in the 70's in the racing circuit, but was simply too expensive.  Reliability of said engines has drastically improved though.  Efficiency?  No.  Look at turbines, anything new in efficiency?  Actually, yes, but there they have had massive technological breakthroughs in single crystal growth developed for fighter jet engines in the 80's being applied to commercial allowing them to create a much higher temperature/pressure at exhaust.  Does anyone see further advancements?  .... sorry, no, miniscule at best.  Biggest "advancement" has been creating VERY big low pressure turbines which are enormously expensive. 

High efficiency solar cells have been around for a VERY long time and are in the 35% range.  Too expensive to make using rare minerals, very slow processes etc.  They are essentially up against a physics limit already... I mean ... yay, commercial solar panels in 2 decades of "growth" have gone from 19% top end to 23% when brand new.... Nothing new with solar cells and has not been anything new for decades now.  Just eeking out the thin boundaries. 

Essentially the entire honest wind/solar proponents are banking their ideology(not science) on breakthroughs in materials science which do not exist.  And somehow they have gotten their idealogy pushed into the school systems where they do not bother ever doing actual science and crunching numbers.

Only thing that can save solar/wind are dirt cheap batteries that last forever using common materials, store energy without loss for a long period, and not horrifically environmentally deadly cobalt, nickel, graphite, etc(LI-ion batteries).  --> Good luck trying to open one of these mines in anywhere other than the developing world or has already been grandfathered in.  Ah, but all those "beknighted" oh such glorious crusaders of renewables will proudly push to open these mines in their own backyards right?  HAHAHAHAHA, try the opposite. 

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets do a walk on the side of reality and not perfect conditions for a tiny subset of the world who lives in a desert shall we? 

Lets look up Germany's actual wind/solar output in January 2019 instead of playing in "perfection" make believe world of "potential" as Germany is a very large place.  So real data provide by the German government: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=

Solar capacity is ~45GW currently

Wind capacity is ~60GW currently( I think this is a bit high, but hey)

2019 January wk by week.  Wmin = Wind min GW; Smin = solar min GW

  1. Wmin = 4GW  ~1.5 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  2. Wmin = 3.5GW  ~1 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  3. Wmin = 0.6-->3GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~7GW ~4hrs/day
  4. Wmin = 0.6-->4GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~5GW ~4hrs/day

End of wk 3 coincides with beginning of wk 4 for a total of one week with nearly zero wind/solar, when a standard winter high moves in.  No wind/No Solar.  Fine, you wish to quibble and call less than 5% capacity factor "power", uh, you go!  Somehow I prefer looking at the 95% of reality where needing power is required. 

Look at the surrounding months.  They all have week/weeks when wind/solar are very low to non existent. 

This is not even the extreme.  This is a standard winter HIGH. A 3 week high with little solar and no wind is not out of the ordinary extending from the UK to Moscow, from Svalbard to Italy. 

Note: Germany ~80Million ppl; ~70/80GW required every second; Now if you wish to go all "renewable" Add ~25% more to electrify transportation and another 35% more to get off NG used for heating/pwr even before we talk pumped hydro storage inefficiencies, lets just call it 100GW when add in population increase before heating consideration.  This jumps to 150GW required with heating considerations in winter for maximum load.

So, One Week ~zero wind, ~zero solar.  This is standard.  Several weeks are the largest.  You build for worst case, not average.

Capacity factor 75% of battery available at best and average capacity of battery will be 75% so, by nameplate capacity ~50%

Germany requires 75GW daily and if transporation goes electric ~100GW * 14 days *24 hours = battery required is 33,600 GWh of battery is required * capacity = 67,000 GWh. 

Biggest battery factory in the world: TESLA makes 50GWh/yr.....  And cannot expand because the minerals are not available even though everyone is begging for their batteries. 

So, JUST FOR GERMANY: Tesla has to build batteries for 67,000/50 = 1340 YEARS

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets do a walk on the side of reality and not perfect conditions for a tiny subset of the world who lives in a desert shall we? 

Lets look up Germany's actual wind/solar output in January 2019 instead of playing in "perfection" make believe world of "potential" as Germany is a very large place.  So real data provide by the German government: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=

Solar capacity is ~45GW currently

Wind capacity is ~60GW currently( I think this is a bit high, but hey)

2019 January wk by week.  Wmin = Wind min GW; Smin = solar min GW

  1. Wmin = 4GW  ~1.5 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  2. Wmin = 3.5GW  ~1 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  3. Wmin = 0.6-->3GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~7GW ~4hrs/day
  4. Wmin = 0.6-->4GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~5GW ~4hrs/day

End of wk 3 coincides with beginning of wk 4 for a total of one week with nearly zero wind/solar, when a standard winter high moves in.  No wind/No Solar.  Fine, you wish to quibble and call less than 5% capacity factor "power", uh, you go!  Somehow I prefer looking at the 95% of reality where needing power is required. 

Look at the surrounding months.  They all have week/weeks when wind/solar are very low to non existent. 

This is not even the extreme.  This is a standard winter HIGH. A 3 week high with little solar and no wind is not out of the ordinary extending from the UK to Moscow, from Svalbard to Italy. 

Note: Germany ~80Million ppl; ~70/80GW required every second; Now if you wish to go all "renewable" Add ~25% more to electrify transportation and another 35% more to get off NG used for heating/pwr even before we talk pumped hydro storage inefficiencies, lets just call it 100GW when add in population increase before heating consideration.  This jumps to 150GW required with heating considerations in winter for maximum load.

So, One Week ~zero wind, ~zero solar.  This is standard.  Several weeks are the largest.  You build for worst case, not average.

Capacity factor 75% of battery available at best and average capacity of battery will be 75% so, by nameplate capacity ~50%

Germany requires 75GW daily and if transporation goes electric ~100GW * 14 days *24 hours = battery required is 33,600 GWh of battery is required * capacity = 67,000 GWh. 

Biggest battery factory in the world: TESLA makes 50GWh/yr.....  And cannot expand because the minerals are not available even though everyone is begging for their batteries. 

So, JUST FOR GERMANY: Tesla has to build batteries for 67,000/50 = 1340 YEARS

 

Renewable energy's share of German power mix rose to 46% last year. And they did it with really no battery backup.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 3
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, notsonice said:

Thanks for the chart. Proves the cost of Solar overtime is falling due to technical innovation. Coal is toast. Cheap electricity is everywhere. With the advances in battery tech, Cheap EV's are on the horizon.

yes and in turn those EV's will provide a steady stream of second life (repurposed) stationary batteries* which can be used as back up. In the first instance as frequency response but as the supply builds up diurnal storage.

*They will have 2-3 decades of additional life in this form and this will resolve the 'we are all going to hell' naysayers on here in regard to battery disposal. By the time the batteries are truely dud they there will be a sufficient supply to kick start a recycling industry. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Lets do a walk on the side of reality and not perfect conditions for a tiny subset of the world who lives in a desert shall we? 

Lets look up Germany's actual wind/solar output in January 2019 instead of playing in "perfection" make believe world of "potential" as Germany is a very large place.  So real data provide by the German government: https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm?source=all-sources&year=2019&week=

Solar capacity is ~45GW currently

Wind capacity is ~60GW currently( I think this is a bit high, but hey)

2019 January wk by week.  Wmin = Wind min GW; Smin = solar min GW

  1. Wmin = 4GW  ~1.5 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  2. Wmin = 3.5GW  ~1 days; Smin 0(22 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~2GW ~2hrs
  3. Wmin = 0.6-->3GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~7GW ~4hrs/day
  4. Wmin = 0.6-->4GW ~3+ days; Smin 0(20 out of 24 hrs) ~ wk ave ~5GW ~4hrs/day

End of wk 3 coincides with beginning of wk 4 for a total of one week with nearly zero wind/solar, when a standard winter high moves in.  No wind/No Solar.  Fine, you wish to quibble and call less than 5% capacity factor "power", uh, you go!  Somehow I prefer looking at the 95% of reality where needing power is required. 

Look at the surrounding months.  They all have week/weeks when wind/solar are very low to non existent. 

This is not even the extreme.  This is a standard winter HIGH. A 3 week high with little solar and no wind is not out of the ordinary extending from the UK to Moscow, from Svalbard to Italy. 

Note: Germany ~80Million ppl; ~70/80GW required every second; Now if you wish to go all "renewable" Add ~25% more to electrify transportation and another 35% more to get off NG used for heating/pwr even before we talk pumped hydro storage inefficiencies, lets just call it 100GW when add in population increase before heating consideration.  This jumps to 150GW required with heating considerations in winter for maximum load.

So, One Week ~zero wind, ~zero solar.  This is standard.  Several weeks are the largest.  You build for worst case, not average.

Capacity factor 75% of battery available at best and average capacity of battery will be 75% so, by nameplate capacity ~50%

Germany requires 75GW daily and if transporation goes electric ~100GW * 14 days *24 hours = battery required is 33,600 GWh of battery is required * capacity = 67,000 GWh. 

Biggest battery factory in the world: TESLA makes 50GWh/yr.....  And cannot expand because the minerals are not available even though everyone is begging for their batteries. 

So, JUST FOR GERMANY: Tesla has to build batteries for 67,000/50 = 1340 YEARS

Find me one actual example of a 3 week long anti cyclone over the whole of Europe with no wind or Sun.

In conditions like that you are generally going to have clear daytime skies so there will be some generation of solar. 

With much of the development of wind in Europe its going offshore that's going to reduce the risk of no wind scenarios and as wind is now being developed with floating models the industry can go much further offshore into windier territory. 

Right now there is a low wind anticyclone over the whole UK. Metered wind generation is still 4.5GW (probably about 5.5 taking account of all non metered production) 

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=generation/windforcast/out-turn

Of course no one is arguing for a system entirely dependent on wind and solar. Europe also has considerable Hydro facilities, Biomass, biogas, waste to energy. Other possibilities on the horizon - tidal (intermittent but entirely predictable), more geothermal, wave. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

If solar gets as inexpensive as these graphs predict the grid will innovate around solar. We would abandon current grid management practices at those prices. 

Unicorn fart....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Find me one actual example of a 3 week long anti cyclone over the whole of Europe with no wind or Sun.

In conditions like that you are generally going to have clear daytime skies so there will be some generation of solar.

1) Its winter, solar even if it shines gives you next to NOTHING other than 4 hours a day at a very reduced rate. 

2) If you bothered to look at Germany's own site I linked and went back to January 2017, there is almost a 2 week stretch with sub 10% capacity factor for wind/solar.  These are yearly events, not extremes. 

3) if you looked at the ENTIRE month of January, then capacity factor in 2017 is roughly 15%

So, my bad, for Germany alone, since pumped hydro storage seems anathema to most people(not you NickW thankfully) forcing batteries as are the only viable option, TESLA would have to produce batteries for ONLY GERMANY for 2000 years to meet Germany's 2017 January deficit. 

Obviously this can be ameliorated by having several times the needed capacity than requirements, oh right that is what is already happening as wind solar get first dibs at the grid while forcing everyone else to sit idle or burn fuel burning up $$$. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) Its winter, solar even if it shines gives you next to NOTHING other than 4 hours a day at a very reduced rate. 

2) If you bothered to look at Germany's own site I linked and went back to January 2017, there is almost a 2 week stretch with sub 10% capacity factor for wind/solar.  These are yearly events, not extremes. 

3) if you looked at the ENTIRE month of January, then capacity factor in 2017 is roughly 15%

So, my bad, for Germany alone, since pumped hydro storage seems anathema to most people(not you NickW thankfully) forcing batteries as are the only viable option, TESLA would have to produce batteries for ONLY GERMANY for 2000 years to meet Germany's 2017 January deficit. 

Obviously this can be ameliorated by having several times the needed capacity than requirements, oh right that is what is already happening as wind solar get first dibs at the grid while forcing everyone else to sit idle or burn fuel burning up $$$. 

 

There you go - you have proven my point you don't need a battery to cover 100% of needs for a 3 week period. 

But as I have previously stated a German plan to go 100% renewable is unrealistic. They at least need nuclear (or coal / gas)  as a baseload which they are phasing out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) Its winter, solar even if it shines gives you next to NOTHING other than 4 hours a day at a very reduced rate. 

2) If you bothered to look at Germany's own site I linked and went back to January 2017, there is almost a 2 week stretch with sub 10% capacity factor for wind/solar.  These are yearly events, not extremes. 

3) if you looked at the ENTIRE month of January, then capacity factor in 2017 is roughly 15%

So, my bad, for Germany alone, since pumped hydro storage seems anathema to most people(not you NickW thankfully) forcing batteries as are the only viable option, TESLA would have to produce batteries for ONLY GERMANY for 2000 years to meet Germany's 2017 January deficit. 

Obviously this can be ameliorated by having several times the needed capacity than requirements, oh right that is what is already happening as wind solar get first dibs at the grid while forcing everyone else to sit idle or burn fuel burning up $$$. 

 

based on this

https://re.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pvg_tools/en/tools.html#PVP

For each KW of solar capacity (south facing) you will get the following outputs of electricity in KWH for the months of Dec and January 

Southern Germany - 35-40 kwh

Northern Germany 20-24 kwh

Capacity wise across the whole country they currently have about 45-50 GW. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solar and wind, by themselves, cannot provide electricity reliably year-round: we all know that. You need storage. In fact, to get to 100% renewable, you need both short-term high-efficiency storage, and mid-and-long term storage. Lithium batteries are great for short-term peak-shifting storage. That leaves longer-term storage, in massive amounts, to shift from summer to winter. H2 or CH4 produced from solar and wind can provide the long-term storage.  To make a proper comparison between the current grid and a 100% renewable grid, you must account for all of the costs on the renewable side, not just the installed cost of solar or wind on the renewables side, and not just the generators on the fossil side.

But the technology argument still favors renewables for short-term storage as the cost of lithium batteries continues to drop rapidly, so the analysis is driven by long-term storage. I favor "green CH4" for this: overbuild solar and wind, and use all electricity that cannot be dispatched  or short-term stored to produce CH4, then use the existing CH4 storage, transport, and generation system to produce electricity as and where needed. Since this infrastructure is the same for both fossil CH4 and green CH4, it can to a first approximation be dropped out of the equation. As the cost of fossil CH4 (i.e., natural gas) rises, the equation will shift to favor green CH4. Note that CH4 storage capacity is by far the largest existing long-term storage capacity in all major markets, far outstripping even hydro. The price of fossil CH4 will remain depressed as long as we keep pumping shale oil: NG has negative value in the Permian. But eventually (before 2030?), Permian oil will quit making economic sense, and the NG price will rise.

  • Like 1
  • Great Response! 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.rechargenews.com/transition/india-hails-renewable-milestone-after-first-deal-for-24-7-green-power/2-1-806047

 

Getty Images/NTB scanpix

India hails renewable milestone after first deal for 24/7 green power

Debut auction won by ReNew Power set to deploy wind or solar plus storage to supply utilities round-the-clock

 11 May 2020 8:05 GMT UPDATED 11 May 2020 9:38 GMT
 

India’s renewable energy sector claimed a new milestone with the awarding of the country's first tender for 24/7 green power that’s set to include storage as part of its deployment.

Leading developer and IPP ReNew Power won the 400MW ‘round-the-clock’ (RTC) tender award after a competitive process run by the Solar Energy Corporation of India (SECI), which handles renewable auctions for the Indian government.

The developer is free to deploy wind, solar or hybrid capacity in conjunction with storage to supply power day and night to two utilities – New Delhi Municipal Corporation and Dadar and Nagar Haveli. ReNew Power has been contacted by Recharge for more details.

The debut RTC auction – which unlike some recent Indian tenders was more than twice oversubscribed – was hailed by India’s power minister RK Singh as “a beginning towards firm, schedulable & affordable RTC supply through 100% [renewable] power”.

The winning price was 2.90 rupees/kWh ($0.038/kWh, $38/MWh) for the first year of the 15-year deals, rising by 3% annually.

Sidharth Jain, managing director of India-based research group MEC+, said the escalation gives a median price of around 4 rupees/kWh.

Jain cautioned: “It remains to be seen if the [power companies] will be okay to agreeing to this sort of for their power supply, as balancing is currently not in the scope of the IPP, and it is done at an aggregate level from existing infrastructure.”

India is chasing renewable deployment goals of 100GW of solar and 60GW of wind that are among the world’s most ambitious, but have faced challenges from issues such as land availability, financially weak state power companies and grid infrastructure.(Copyright)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

1) Its winter, solar even if it shines gives you next to NOTHING other than 4 hours a day at a very reduced rate. 

Solar cells work better in low temperatures. Some of the innovations going on in solar panels right now have to do with passive cooling.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/05/06/a-new-passive-technique-for-cooling-solar-panels/

People have been running solar powered robots around at the north and south poles during the summer months quite successfully.

Edited by Meredith Poor
Add qualifier to sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

When solar becomes cheap enough why not just let individual houses and businesses use their own installations. Solar roofs would be a good start. If battery storage is real, I am still amazed that the gigantic warehouses in the Inland Empire of Southern California don't have them on their roofs. Everyone wants them in the desert and to run power lines hundreds of miles. 

For you to make this comment, there must not be much solar where you live.

Since 2011, the Dept. of Energy has tried to reduce the cost for residential solar, not just commercial and utility solar. The Sunshot Initiative reached its goal of 6 cents per kwh for utility-scale solar ahead of schedule. But it has not reached its goal for commercial and residential. I've been watching this for a long time simply because I will buy a residential solar installation when it's cheap enough. You might want to look at the chart on this web page:

https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/sunshot-initiative

The cost of residential solar installation varies a lot by state. I live in a state with lots of sun, but high installation costs. You might be interested in the charts on this web page:

https://news.energysage.com/how-much-does-the-average-solar-panel-installation-cost-in-the-u-s/

Some states require Net Metering, which encourages residential solar. The customers sells his excess electricity back to the utility. The meter runs backwards. A neighbor has solar with net metering farther south in this state. He has seen the meter run backwards.  His bills used to always be way over $100 per month, but they are at most about $8 a month now.  He bought it about 5 years ago and said the payback period would be 10 years. He bought it with federal and state tax subsidies. But I don't think those subsidies will be needed soon.

https://www.seia.org/initiatives/net-metering

Without net metering, residential solar customers would need a battery. Batteries like the Tesla Powerwall are still expensive. And I don't think they give you 24-hour-a-day power. But I have learned from oilprice.com commenters that battery storage is getting cheap for utility solar installations.

https://www.tesla.com/powerwall

Residential solar installations don't have to go on the roof. They can go in the yard. Or you can build a carport with the panels on top.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.