Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices

[ronwagn + 6,290]

2 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

I try to rib him hard enough to get him to think. 

Interesting to hear about using batteries as a welding power source. I'm in the process of lending out my electric EGO lawn mower to all my neighbors. They've all been shocked by how well it works. I'm a Honda engine guy when it comes to power equipment. The EGO puts Honda gas mowers to shame. I haven't been as successful lending out my electric Echo (not EGO) string trimmer for whatever reason. A few guys tried it but I didn't get the same feedback as with the lawn mower. 

You must have a big EGO. 😁

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

24 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Wow! Here you go again.. linking North Africa and Norway. There has been some talk of high-voltage DC links which might span that distance and, funnily enough, it is one of the few ways to overcome the problem of intermittency, but at a huge cost. We're not talking billions but tens of billions and right across Europe. High voltage lines in Europe are running into planning problems. The citizens around the lines don't like them.  As that post notes they are still trying to improve the connections between parts of Germany. But I forgot, reality is not an issue in this. Incidentally, you do know that the Germans have been drawing power from wind generators in the North Sea and Baltic for many years? 

Norway - UK North Sea Link

The cable will be 730 kilometres (450 mi) long.^[1] It has a planned capacity of 1,400 MW.^[2] It is estimated to cost €2 billion and become operational in 2021.^[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link

Doesn't sound that expensive and this will be the longest in the world when completed. Cost will just go down from here.

Edited May 16, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[ronwagn + 6,290]

36 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Not sure how serious you were with this one but even in sunny areas like Southern California there would be huge problems. In Coober Pedy in the South Australian Desert where people live underground due to the heat, the microgrid that services the town (its way too far out for main grid connection) has an average of 70 per cent penetration of renewables. Note that's an average  - obviously there are long periods when its reaches 100 per cent. That's very good and the best I've ever heard of, but its still very expensive to run - note that a government authority had to stump up half the upfront cost - and requires conventional backup. The article talks of using the Coober Pedy experience on larger networks, but micro-grids are very common in Aus and they are all very, very expensive.. Also - huge problem - the populous parts of Australia are not desert.   

Thank you Mark. I am not familiar with the outback of Australia. I have always wanted to live in an beautiful isolated area, off the grid, with good internet, low taxes, plentiful water and fishing, good soil, ideal weather, an abundance of wildlife, etc. I would want to be airlifted quickly for medical emergencies however and at reasonable cost. Oh well, maybe New Zealand would be better. 😁

Seriously, I often bring this thought up because it does bring things into the realities versus the claims and dreams. Thanks for your input. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

@footeab@yahoo.com

Yes you can bury HVDC

A $601 million line item also provides for a buried high-voltage direct current (HVDC) cable aroun

Working from the premise Naam's solar price forecasts are accurate: The USA is a web of pipeline easements. Wind is cheap today but not cheap enough to strand natural gas pipeline assets. In contrast, Naam's solar prices may put NG pipeline owners in a tough spot. 


 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Working from the premise Naam's solar price forecasts are accurate: The USA is a web of pipeline easements. Wind is cheap today but not cheap enough to strand natural gas pipeline assets. In contrast, Naam's solar prices may put NG pipeline owners in a tough spot. 


 

I don't think they need to be stranded. Just offer them money to run the cable down their easement in a new trench. The key to picking up stranded assets would be being able to use robots to pull the cable down the pipeline and save the trenching cost.

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

5 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Renewable Natural Gas seems to be less expensive than water splitting hydrogen. However, I don't know if the existing natural gas infrastructure is that much of an advantage. 

Natural gas turbines can be designed to be fueled by either natural gas or hydrogen. Natural gas pipelines certainly make CH4 easier, however, if we do distribute electric via HVDC from low cost solar in the Sunbelt we wouldn't have to distribute hydrogen through pipelines. The USA has excellent water infrastructure. We'd use the electricity from New Mexico solar farms to split water locally. 

Also, with very cheap solar, we'd be electrifying space/water heating with heat pumps. 

Biogas is messy. I was thinking of CH4 from solar and wind electricity. It is less efficient, because it's really electricity==>H2==>CH4. It's only advantage is its use of the existing unmodified integrated CH4 infrastructure, which includes transportation (pipeline and LNG carriers) existing massive storage capacity, and existing generators. This means that you don't need expensive new electric transmission lines, new long term storage, or new types of generator.  This can then be incrementally replaced with an H2 infrastructure it that makes economic sense. as the existing systems reach end-of-life.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

I don't think they need to be stranded. Just offer them money to run the cable down their easement in a new trench. The key to picking up stranded assets would be being able to use robots to pull the cable down the pipeline and save the trenching cost.

In that case, it looks like the USA is in good shape. And if we have a HVDC distribution network I'm leaning toward hydrogen in the USA. I'm grateful to American natural gas for helping us achieve low electricity prices but I think it might be coming to the end of the line. 

If solar prices are going to be that low we will electrify everything. Plus, induction stovetops are better than gas anyway. 

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I don't think they need to be stranded. Just offer them money to run the cable down their easement in a new trench. The key to picking up stranded assets would be being able to use robots to pull the cable down the pipeline and save the trenching cost.

Jay you are on the right track; it saves a lot of money in construction. .   The other thing is you armor the cable against idiots, packed with nitrogen you increase safety,  and you shield against EMP.  What PJM  DISPATCHERS working with UDel and Del State University found in 2012 was https://www1.udel.edu/udaily/2013/dec/renewable-energy-121renewable with time shifted reneables or NG is way cheaper. 012.html that it is possible on engineering basis  to power all of the PJM grid ( 3X the entire German grid) 99.9% of the time with wind and solar using only the existing Bath County Pumped storage facility.  That means NG is only viable if its costs are less than new solar or wind sources.

In Europe, Norway has enough undeveloped pumped hydro opportunities to provide storage for 250% Europe's needs north of the Alps/Carpathian mountains  based on worst case analysis by the Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg.  As Jay McKinsey notes all you have to do is lay the  HVDC cables and build out the infrastructure.   In the US the counties of Lea, Chavez and Eddy NM have enough solar radiation to power 100% of the MWH needs of the lower 48.  Again all is required is the plant investment.  XCEL energy is already buying power at a fixed $30 /MWH (3cents/KWH)  https://www.currentargus.com/story/news/local/2016/10/06/ssolar-project-state-completed-near-roswell/91686608/

3 1/2 years already.

Grid dispatching is generally pretty sloppy. In 1971-2 , HL&P did a Simplex model of its grid power generation and distribution and found that they could cut 30 BCF from annual fuel use using Simplex dispatching using old Sperry Rand  9000's. It is simply a very large simplex problem using marginal costs of last kwh generated to determine what he grid will look like.  Wind has forced a reduction fro $67/mwh wholesale to $27/MWH between 2007 and 2017.  Adding solar to take out the first peaking turbines  on hot summer days will cut annual costs about another $4-5/MWH    Can CCGT survive on $20-22/mwh and a 65% load factor?

The the cost of adding the  last marginal kwh needed will determine who operates and who doesn't.   We already know that the wind is first on and last off in the generation stack since the bid $5/mwh.  Nuclear is about $14/mwh .  A correct marginal cost for a CCGT for fuel only is $13.71 at $2/mmbtu.  In another post in another discussion someone multiplied by 0.6 instead of dividing by 0. 6 to get fuel cost per MWH.    That  Poster (who shall remain anonymous unless they make a fool of themselves again)has never held a IBEW dispatchers card and so learn how to calculate fuel costs

Edited May 16, 2020 by nsdp
typos

[nsdp + 449]

29 minutes ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Biogas is messy. I was thinking of CH4 from solar and wind electricity. It is less efficient, because it's really electricity==>H2==>CH4. It's only advantage is its use of the existing unmodified integrated CH4 infrastructure, which includes transportation (pipeline and LNG carriers) existing massive storage capacity, and existing generators. This means that you don't need expensive new electric transmission lines, new long term storage, or new types of generator.  This can then be incrementally replaced with an H2 infrastructure it that makes economic sense. as the existing systems reach end-of-life.

Gas stoves making indoor air up to five times dirtier than outdoor air, report finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/gas-stoves-air-pollution-environment

Same for gas heating for structures which is not very efficient. 40-45% unless you have ducted combustion air from outside the building to prevent air infiltration. .

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

4 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Norway - UK North Sea Link

The cable will be 730 kilometres (450 mi) long.^[1] It has a planned capacity of 1,400 MW.^[2] It is estimated to cost €2 billion and become operational in 2021.^[2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Link

Doesn't sound that expensive and this will be the longest in the world when completed. Cost will just go down from here.

Let’s see if it is still a going concern after this pandemic is sorted and the economies of every country on the planet is destroyed...

[NickW + 2,714]

13 hours ago, ronwagn said:

I have three electric trimmers and one small electric chainsaw. I would bet you are spending a lot more money on the electric trimmers because of the batteries you need to keep charged. I love the fume free, easy to start, relatively quiet operation but I only have one acre that needs small portions weedeated. I just ordered another 16 inch corded electric chainsaw even though I have a gasoline chainsaw. 

The capital outlay is higher but not significantly so

That's offset by:

Not having the work crews have to mess around with gasoline

Electricity is much cheaper than gasoline

Servicing of electric chainsaws is much simpler

Exposure to exhaust gases are eliminated

Exposure to noise significantly reduced. 

Exposure to vibration moderately reduced

 

 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, nsdp said:

Gas stoves making indoor air up to five times dirtier than outdoor air, report finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/gas-stoves-air-pollution-environment

Same for gas heating for structures which is not very efficient. 40-45% unless you have ducted combustion air from outside the building to prevent air infiltration. .

We bought a house last September  with an induction oven. We ain't going back to gas. Aside from the elimination of cooking gases its so efficient - all the heat goes into the product you are cooking. I'm fairly certain the efficiency of an induction hob using electric from a CCGT is  about the same as using the gas directly where 60% of the heat dissipates into the air. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

10 hours ago, nsdp said:

Gas stoves making indoor air up to five times dirtier than outdoor air, report finds

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/may/05/gas-stoves-air-pollution-environment

Same for gas heating for structures which is not very efficient. 40-45% unless you have ducted combustion air from outside the building to prevent air infiltration. .

In heating season the gas stove is 100% efficient. In cooling season it is much worse than 60% efficient.  I'm not advocating for continued use of residential NG. Those stoves, furnaces, and water heaters should be replaced at end-of-life with efficient electric systems, ideally ground-exchange heat pumps for hot water and heating. Some commercial and industrial operations need so much energy that electricity is not a good substitute, and these might stay on CH4 for longer. This includes kilns, bakeries, and some commercial kitchens. CH4 is also an industrial feedstock, so replacing NG with green CH4 is useful there also. However, all of these are minor side effects compared to using green CH4 to generate electricity.

1 hour ago, NickW said:

We bought a house last September  with an induction oven. We ain't going back to gas. Aside from the elimination of cooking gases its so efficient - all the heat goes into the product you are cooking. I'm fairly certain the efficiency of an induction hob using electric from a CCGT is  about the same as using the gas directly where 60% of the heat dissipates into the air. 

I've never heard of an induction oven, but an induction cooktop heats the pot, not the food. The pot heats the food. If you want to put all of the energy into just the food, use a microwave.

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In heating season the gas stove is 100% efficient. In cooling season it is much worse than 60% efficient.  I'm not advocating for continued use of residential NG. Those stoves, furnaces, and water heaters should be replaced at end-of-life with efficient electric systems, ideally ground-exchange heat pumps for hot water and heating. Some commercial and industrial operations need so much energy that electricity is not a good substitute, and these might stay on CH4 for longer. This includes kilns, bakeries, and some commercial kitchens. CH4 is also an industrial feedstock, so replacing NG with green CH4 is useful there also. However, all of these are minor side effects compared to using green CH4 to generate electricity.

I've never heard of an induction oven, but an induction cooktop heats the pot, not the food. The pot heats the food. If you want to put all of the energy into just the food, use a microwave.

I meant induction hob. I'm aware it heats the metal but you get very little heat given off the cooking pot beyond the radiant heat you would feel if it was sitting there with the unit switched off. 

However induction ovens do exist

https://www.whirlpool.co.uk/innovation/induction-oven.content.html

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

Biogas is messy. I was thinking of CH4 from solar and wind electricity. It is less efficient, because it's really electricity==>H2==>CH4. It's only advantage is its use of the existing unmodified integrated CH4 infrastructure, which includes transportation (pipeline and LNG carriers) existing massive storage capacity, and existing generators. This means that you don't need expensive new electric transmission lines, new long term storage, or new types of generator.  This can then be incrementally replaced with an H2 infrastructure it that makes economic sense. as the existing systems reach end-of-life.

Biogas processes render down nasty smelly waste into something that is easy to handle as a fertiliser / soil conditioner without losing the nutrients. The benefits of biogas go well beyond the energy content. 

[NickW + 2,714]

16 hours ago, markslawson said:

Not sure how serious you were with this one but even in sunny areas like Southern California there would be huge problems. In Coober Pedy in the South Australian Desert where people live underground due to the heat, the microgrid that services the town (its way too far out for main grid connection) has an average of 70 per cent penetration of renewables. Note that's an average  - obviously there are long periods when its reaches 100 per cent. That's very good and the best I've ever heard of, but its still very expensive to run - note that a government authority had to stump up half the upfront cost - and requires conventional backup. The article talks of using the Coober Pedy experience on larger networks, but micro-grids are very common in Aus and they are all very, very expensive.. Also - huge problem - the populous parts of Australia are not desert.   

When I lived in Newman in 2012 BHP* were paying 25 cents a kwh and that was virtually all from OCGT / distillate. If they are paying comparable rates now then solar (and possibly wind) are no brainers. 

* I identified a $50,000 a year estate saving for a one off investment of less than $5000 but no one was interested. The Iron Ore and Coal price will stay high 4-eva ya dum pom! 😂

[markslawson + 1,058]

22 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The connection to Africa can be buried or placed in rivers to get from the Mediterranean coast to Germany. 

Jay - I suspect you hurriedly looked up undersea links when I mentioned the problems of connecting, and missed the point I was making. Such connections are common, incidentally. Britain is linked to Europe, Ireland to Britain and Denmark to Norway and Sweden among a number of others. I never said it wasn't possible. What I was saying was that it will be prohibitively expensive which your link confirms. Now get out an atlas and compare the distances involved in your cited link and the one you fondly imagine someone might build, to channel the output of projects not yet built in North Africa, to Germany! Laying the cable along rivers, while an amusing suggestion will cover only a part of the on-land route. You will still have to cover big stretches of land containing angry residents. Outside you rich imagination this isn't going to happen. Sorry! Leave it with you.

[markslawson + 1,058]

22 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Seriously, I often bring this thought up because it does bring things into the realities versus the claims and dreams. Thanks for your input. 

Oh right - sorry, I hadn't quite got the tone of your original comment. The outback has the Flying Doctor service but mostly you wouldn't want to retire there.. the Australian gold coast would be a better bet. I believe or perceive New Zealand to  be a windy place, although if you're into fishing or skiing it would be very good.. 

[markslawson + 1,058]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

When I lived in Newman in 2012 BHP* were paying 25 cents a kwh and that was virtually all from OCGT / distillate. If they are paying comparable rates now then solar (and possibly wind) are no brainers. 

Nick - your post is confusing but just to go over a couple of points. The economics of wind/solar changes in remote locations. In those places it is often worth the trouble of using renewables as the alternative is to ship in diesel by the tanker full, and the conditions for green projects are often better. Also the grids can be small enough for batteries to make a difference. Such grids are still extremely expensive to set up and individual consumers rarely seem to pay the actual cost, as they can't, but it would make a lot of sense for a major company to set up a grid using renewables.   

[nsdp + 449]

9 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

In heating season the gas stove is 100% efficient. In cooling season it is much worse than 60% efficient.  I'm not advocating for continued use of residential NG. Those stoves, furnaces, and water heaters should be replaced at end-of-life with efficient electric systems, ideally ground-exchange heat pumps for hot water and heating. Some commercial and industrial operations need so much energy that electricity is not a good substitute, and these might stay on CH4 for longer. This includes kilns, bakeries, and some commercial kitchens. CH4 is also aisn industrial feedstock, so replacing NG with green CH4 is useful there also. However, all of these are minor side effects compared to using green CH4 to generate electricity.

I've never heard of an induction oven, but an induction cooktop heats the pot, not the food. The pot heats the food. If you want to put all of the energy into just the food, use a microwave.

ASHRE will disagree with you since the flame of a gas stove burner is at best 85% efficient. If it were 100% efficient it would not have the high incidence of NOx,PM2.5 and 10.  Also the combustion  has draw oxygen from outside unless the house can create negative pressure and you have CO2 scrubbers.   You also have carbon monoxide as a combustion  component.

 

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Nick - your post is confusing but just to go over a couple of points. The economics of wind/solar changes in remote locations. In those places it is often worth the trouble of using renewables as the alternative is to ship in diesel by the tanker full, and the conditions for green projects are often better. Also the grids can be small enough for batteries to make a difference. Such grids are still extremely expensive to set up and individual consumers rarely seem to pay the actual cost, as they can't, but it would make a lot of sense for a major company to set up a grid using renewables.   

The technology is actually in military service in modified form.

These subs use fuel cells to power the sub and carry an electrolyzer to recirculate water and split it back to fuel to refill the tanks by snorkeling and running the diesel generator. .   Germany and Italy have a total of ten of these boats.  The Israeli navy has six as does S. Korea.  Australia will commission  six similar short fin Barracuda class. subs over the next 15 years.

The Italian Torado did a stealth crossing of the Atlantic in 2008(NATO exercise) went into the Gulf of Mexico and took a picture  of the carrier Teddy Roosevelt from 8000 meters outside Pensacola.  No one in the Atlantic Fleet  or the TR's escort knew she had left the Med until the Italians posted the photo on a bill board outside the main gate of Pensacola NAS.

Waste product is 100% pure water.  These subs can run 21 days submerged without coming up for recharge.

[nsdp + 449]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

Jay - I suspect you hurriedly looked up undersea links when I mentioned the problems of connecting, and missed the point I was making. Such connections are common, incidentally. Britain is linked to Europe, Ireland to Britain and Denmark to Norway and Sweden among a number of others. I never said it wasn't possible. What I was saying was that it will be prohibitively expensive which your link confirms. Now get out an atlas and compare the distances involved in your cited link and the one you fondly imagine someone might build, to channel the output of projects not yet built.  in North Africa, to Germany! Laying the cable along rivers, while an amusing suggestion will cover only a part of the on-land route. You will still have to cover big stretches of land containing angry residents. Outside you rich imagination this isn't going to happen. Sorry! Leave it with you.

North Africa makes sense for southern Europe only.  The estimates of cost use ASCR cable not ACCC.  ASCR Cable design is at least 15 years out of date on ampacity and tensile strength.  Germany you connect North Sea wind to Norway for pumped hydro.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

We bought a house last September  with an induction oven. We ain't going back to gas. Aside from the elimination of cooking gases its so efficient - all the heat goes into the product you are cooking. I'm fairly certain the efficiency of an induction hob using electric from a CCGT is  about the same as using the gas directly where 60% of the heat dissipates into the air. 

We heated our entire home with a small unvented gas heater all winter long. Virtually free energy. Just cracked the window above it. Just clean the burner before the new heating season. Most people prefer gas burners for cooking. We save a lot of gas by not heating every room in the house with our central heat and fan. The open flame is an attraction all winter long. To each their own though. 

[Bruce Hendrickson + 4]

Ok guys:

    I am a Bering Sea fisherman.  We had sea temperatures 6 degrees C above normal and a record by 2 degrees C during the summer of 2019.  
     So I began an investigation on how to reduce atmospheric co2.    By calculating a material balance for co2, I found that the epa reported co2 emissions for all sources of fossil fuels and burning of forests for the 57 year period from 1960 to  2017 was 3 times as much as the 100 ppm increase in atmospheric co2.  In other words, cutting co2 emissions by 100 percent can be expected to yield a 33 percent drop in atmospheric co2 content.   The whole co2 mitigation ideal is basically useless.

     Then consider that despite a 30 percent drop in petroleum consumption this year, the famous Mauna Loa co2 has just reached a record 400 parts per million, the highest since the Pleistocene.   This means that so far the effect of the most drastic and painful cutback in carbon dioxide emissions in history has accomplished exactly zero. 
    
    Then consider Dr Andrew Moon’s NASA research that yielded a very strong correlation between actual measured solar intensity and global temperatures versus the 23 lame mathematical co2 models that rise no matter whether earth’s temperatures rise or fall.   Mark Twain once mentioned, “Just because an idea is popular doesn’t make it right.”  
    So get over your guilt based energy management and let’s make oil great again. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/15/2020 at 3:56 PM, 0R0 said:

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. 

There are always "transition costs" with any new technology. Would you prefer "horse and buggy"?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/15/2020 at 6:33 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

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. 

Perovskite cells on the way. Many different battery tech, all improving.