Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/15/2020 at 7:06 PM, 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

You seem to ignore fact that MANY companies are building new battery manufacturing plants?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/16/2020 at 1:31 AM, NickW said:

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. 

They are phasing out coal + gas because they will have 140% renewable and will use to make H2. This not opinion, it fact. I have read article on Bloomberg a few weeks ago on RWE (Maybe it was E.on, they have changed their name recently). Anyway, one of German "big two" utilities, and they plan to burn green H2 in the coal plants within 10 years.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/16/2020 at 8:47 AM, 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. 

I am waiting for electric "ride-on" mower. Love my electric trimmer.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:25 AM, 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.

Longest in the world but not for long. Australia building 3400km cable from NT to Singapore. Google "Sun Cable".

[0R0 + 6,251]

12 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 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.

Our area was built in the 1970s for all electric. Despite a nice discount from the electric co. the folks who move to all gas (heat water stove) typically save 70 80% on their electric bills leaving two two digit bills.

Generally speaking, you use a fume hood with the gas stove.You should have no substantial emissions to the house from it. I despise cooking on electric stoves. 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/16/2020 at 10:45 AM, 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.   

Mark, how long ago were the solar panels installed? 10 years ago, they cost 5x what they do now?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 5/16/2020 at 9:11 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

NOT what he was talking about.  Guy made his HVDC map of entire USA and getting those Million volt or higher cables run is a permitting nightmare.  Everywhere the cables are run the property abutting them, under them drops in value.  Not all that bad out west as it is mostly federal land, but East of the Rockies?  Still not that bad up to the Mississippi river as mostly LARGE farms, but those farms are also sprayed via plane... but East of there... oh my, not a pretty situation for ever running a HVDC line unless you place on existing right of way and can massively upgrade the power density of existing lines(possible)

*** No, you cannot bury 1million volt cables. ***

Why not? They go under salt water in the ocean?

[0R0 + 6,251]

44 minutes ago, Wombat said:

You seem to ignore fact that MANY companies are building new battery manufacturing plants?

But Tesla is still the largest. More capacity is possible, but we need either more Irridium for crucible liners or a battery chemistry and structure that can use dirtier Lithium with bits of dissolved crucible liners in it so you could skip Iridium.

[Wombat + 1,028]

22 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

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...

Actually Doug, investment in renewables is only major industry that still growing right now. Time to embrace it?

[Wombat + 1,028]

11 hours ago, NickW said:

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

The best thing about gas cooktop is you can still make coffee or dinner during blackout. That very handy when u have a lot of severe thunderstorms like here in Australia where branches of trees fall on power lines despite efforts of utility companies to keep trees trimmed.

[Wombat + 1,028]

2 hours ago, nsdp said:

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.

I disagree, Germany needs more solar but does not have good solar resources. Southern Europe rich in solar, do not need Africa.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 hour ago, Bruce Hendrickson said:

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. 

Wrong. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero today, it will take centuries to get back to pre-industrial levels. That is why it so important to cut now. Unless you have no children and don't care at all about plight of humanity?

[Wombat + 1,028]

39 minutes ago, 0R0 said:

But Tesla is still the largest. More capacity is possible, but we need either more Irridium for crucible liners or a battery chemistry and structure that can use dirtier Lithium with bits of dissolved crucible liners in it so you could skip Iridium.

Well you better tell the Chinese! They are building a battery factory with output 10x as much as Tesla. Then there are the Sotuh Koreans etc etc, all quadrupling output over next 3-5 years.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

1 hour ago, Bruce Hendrickson said:

Ok guys:

    I am a Bering Sea fisherman.  

I've said I'm not concerned about climate change but I've never explained why I'm not concerned. This is one example, AquAdvantage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon

"These GE salmon are a commercially competitive alternative to wild-caught salmon and to fish farming of unmodified salmon."

In 50 years humans will have long separated themselves from reliance on natural ecosystems. A farmed GE salmon is far superior to a wild caught and that's just today's technology. 

[0R0 + 6,251]

34 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Well you better tell the Chinese! They are building a battery factory with output 10x as much as Tesla. Then there are the Sotuh Koreans etc etc, all quadrupling output over next 3-5 years.

Well, then battery prices will likely rise because the Lithium won't be there. Or some of these projects are not going to complete, and many that do complete will go bust in short order. .

[0R0 + 6,251]

26 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

I've said I'm not concerned about climate change but I've never explained why I'm not concerned. This is one example, AquAdvantage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AquAdvantage_salmon

"These GE salmon are a commercially competitive alternative to wild-caught salmon and to fish farming of unmodified salmon."

In 50 years humans will have long separated themselves from reliance on natural ecosystems. A farmed GE salmon is far superior to a wild caught and that's just today's technology. 

Farmed fish are pretty much poisonous and don't carry the nutritional value of the wild ones. Look it up. Fish farming practices are appalling, the fish are overcrowded and sick. Being genetically engineered will assure them low pricing so they will be poor people's fish like tilapia.

Fortunately, I do like the fishy tasting fish that most people dislike, so those are easy to find wild caught at low prices.

[0R0 + 6,251]

50 minutes ago, Wombat said:

Wrong. Even if we cut CO2 emissions to zero today, it will take centuries to get back to pre-industrial levels. That is why it so important to cut now. Unless you have no children and don't care at all about plight of humanity?

IIRC the half life of CO2 in the air is 7 years.

We have a 30% rise in green biomass because of the CO2 fertilization effect, thus increasing the CO2 absorption rate.

Since we are heading into a low sunspot cycle for the next 24 years, or longer, we need to have the CO2 greenshouse effect for that time. Otherwise, most of the world's second annual grain crop is gone Furthermore, cold sunspot periods are dry and produce famines.

[NickW + 2,714]

12 hours 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.   

I was just making the point that many of these large mining and O&G companies (of which I worked for back then) ignored countless small savings on the basis that it wasn't worth it because Iron Ore and Gas prices would stay high forever 🤨. The recommendation I made was an energy efficiency one based on installing about 12 timeswitches or floatswitches.

Likewise when paying those sort of prices for electricity in remote locations then going solar (especially where demand tracks solar output) its a no brainer. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, Wombat said:

The best thing about gas cooktop is you can still make coffee or dinner during blackout. That very handy when u have a lot of severe thunderstorms like here in Australia where branches of trees fall on power lines despite efforts of utility companies to keep trees trimmed.

I agree gas does have that benefit. 

To account for the power cut I have two methylated spirit stoves and a stock of spirit and bioethanol which can be used to boil water or cook small meals so we are covered there. 

I also have a Kelly Kettle (uses wood) and small paraffin stove neither of which Id use inside the house. Maybe the paraffin if desperate. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, Bruce Hendrickson said:

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. 

The clue here is 30% drop in the last 3 months . That means the other 70% are still going into the atmosphere. Ok about half gets sequestered by the oceans and land but you would still expect to see a rise in global CO2 levels this year. Weather conditions can influence short term emissions / sequestration.  

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, ronwagn said:

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. 

I wouldn't seek to dictate what people use - I simply conveyed my personal experience with an induction hob. 

I assume you live somewhere warm with a very leaky house. In a cold climate if you tried to heat a a house adequately with an unvented gas appliance last winter you wouldn't be posting here today. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

9 hours ago, 0R0 said:

Farmed fish are pretty much poisonous and don't carry the nutritional value of the wild ones.

Farmed shellfish like mussels are superior in every regard to wild caught. In the case of AquAdvantage, the salmon are farmed in tanks separated from the ocean. They are far more safe than wild caught. Taste better too. It's like cattle. We corn finish cattle because it tastes better than grass fed. They grow big on grass then get tasty at the end with corn. 

[BradleyPNW + 282]

11 hours ago, Wombat said:

I am waiting for electric "ride-on" mower. Love my electric trimmer.

Ryobi and Cub Cadet make them now. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

12 hours ago, Bruce Hendrickson said:

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. 

The Mauna Loa data (the Keeling curve) measures the current atmospheric percentage of CO2.  Since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for thousands of year, the inertia is massive. the curve registers the seasonal variation caused by the Northern hemisphere  vegetation. These variations are massive in terms of absolute amount of CO2, but they show up as a tiny sine wave superimposed on the relentless upward straight line. The scientist who study this curve have stated that they will probably not be able to see a reduction of less than 10% of one year's worth of CO2 generated by fossil fossil fuel, and that cannot be shortened because the atmosphere at Mauna Loa does not reflect the world average on a daily basis, only on a yearly basis: it takes time for the CO2 to spread out.

Because the CO2 is cumulative, even a reduction of fossil CO2 to zero will not stop global warming or even slow it much. All we can so now is slow the rate of increase. But slowing the rate of increase buys time to adapt to warming, or begin sequestering CO2, or wait for a miracle.

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

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-hawaii-scientists-seek-signs-economic-slowdown-air/

[Meredith Poor + 898]

2 hours ago, Dan Clemmensen said:

The Mauna Loa data (the Keeling curve) measures the current atmospheric percentage of CO2.  Since CO2 persists in the atmosphere for thousands of year, the inertia is massive. the curve registers the seasonal variation caused by the Northern hemisphere  vegetation. These variations are massive in terms of absolute amount of CO2, but they show up as a tiny sine wave superimposed on the relentless upward straight line. The scientist who study this curve have stated that they will probably not be able to see a reduction of less than 10% of one year's worth of CO2 generated by fossil fossil fuel, and that cannot be shortened because the atmosphere at Mauna Loa does not reflect the world average on a daily basis, only on a yearly basis: it takes time for the CO2 to spread out.

Because the CO2 is cumulative, even a reduction of fossil CO2 to zero will not stop global warming or even slow it much. All we can so now is slow the rate of increase. But slowing the rate of increase buys time to adapt to warming, or begin sequestering CO2, or wait for a miracle.

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

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/03/26/coronavirus-hawaii-scientists-seek-signs-economic-slowdown-air/

Carbon dioxide is absorbed by water which increases ocean acidity. Quite possible the other 2/3rds of carbon that can't be accounted for in the atmosphere is in the oceans, some of which has now sunk to the depths and will not resurface for thousands of years.

This suggests that efforts to reduce CO2 by sequestration will result in CO2 being released from the oceans in order to keep the atmospheric and oceanic levels in equilibrium. CO2 sequestration will take longer and involve more carbon removal than is implied by the carbon currently floating around in the atmosphere. Of course, some CO2 is taken up by plants, and some of that plant matter is washed out to sea and consumed. Some of that carbon ends up sinking to the bottom of the ocean and is eventually buried in sediment.

Edited May 17, 2020 by Meredith Poor
Fix grammar