Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

54 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nice out of date chart from 2015.

UK average electricity rate is now .16Euro https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh

In 2015 renewables were 83 TW/h 

In 2019 renewables were 120 TW/h

I believe did not add VAT.  Also ~0.16 USD is starting point for how many KWh's?  What is average per household?  Always mired in the details. 

It is like saying I pay 8.5c/kWh.... Well, no.  That is starting.  If you have more than a single lightbulb, one computer, and a refrigeration you blow past this to the 10.5c mark and if you burn 3 lightbulbs, a computer and TV, well then you are into 13.5c/KWh range real quick and god forbid you use a space heater occasionally. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Nice out of date chart from 2015.

UK average electricity rate is now .16Euro https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh

In 2015 renewables were 83 TW/h 

In 2019 renewables were 120 TW/h

And if thats the case electricity prices have roughly plateaued since 2015 . So much for renewables causing prices to rocket (only on Oil Price.com....) 

Pound to Euro in 2015 = 1.4

Pound to Euro 2020 = 1.12

So in 2015 we were paying 14.30/kwh

In 2020 we are paying approx 15p/kwh

Inflation over that entire period has been about 8%

 

[NickW + 2,714]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I believe did not add VAT.  Also ~0.16 USD is starting point for how many KWh's?  What is average per household?  Always mired in the details. 

It is like saying I pay 8.5c/kWh.... Well, no.  That is starting.  If you have more than a single lightbulb, one computer, and a refrigeration you blow past this to the 10.5c mark and if you burn 3 lightbulbs, a computer and TV, well then you are into 13.5c/KWh range real quick and god forbid you use a space heater occasionally. 

VAT on domestic fuels in the UK is 5%

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

On 5/22/2020 at 7:22 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What are you smoking? Sun shines when majority are at work, running errands, doing work==> you know REALITY, not plugged in.  Cars charge when get home when the sun does not shine INCREASING load, not decreasing load. 

  V2G is useless(unless mass delusion). 

 

On 5/25/2020 at 4:16 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Nice out of date chart from 2015.

UK average electricity rate is now .16Euro https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh

In 2015 renewables were 83 TW/h 

In 2019 renewables were 120 TW/h

120 TW/h is the ammount of electricity a single itaipu dam produces in a good year, and is less than 4 powerplants like the Palo Verde System 80 Nuclear reactors, with the difference that Palo verde in the 2000s produced electricity at an average adjusted per inflacion of just 0.0173Euro per KWh, also 120TWh is around 13GWa (a is for annum-year-) which is barely more than 5% of the United Kingdom primary energy consumption of 193 million tons of oil equivalent or 256GWa

The average electricity rate hardly has to deal with the real cost of electricity because there's a lot of things involved, for example electricity subsidies, if the UK industrial electricity price is 128 Euro per MWh,  like the report i will put below it says, then that's the first flashing red light of a subsidy scheme to make electricity to household appear cheaper than really is, since generally Industrial electricity tends to be 50 to 70% cheaper than household electricity since you can use high voltage powerlines and not those extra annoying low voltage powerlines,

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875777/QEP_Q4_2019.pdf

Also, despite being MUCH cheaper and reliable than solar, wind power is still kinda expensive, ya know, Hornsea-1 will cost around 4.2 Billion euros and generate around 480MW, from the 1200MW of installed capacity (installed capacity is just how much electricity you say you can produce), if you take in mind the lifespan of turbines is around 20-25 years you get the idea of how expensive it is.

I going to compare it with the two countries that are building the most reactors in their home, Korea and Russia, they make a nuclear reactor at around a price of 1.9 billion dollars for each GWh of installed capacity, capacity they can virtually use at a 100% except for the refueling periods every 18-24 months, those reactors have a output of around 1.2GW

To match a single WWER-TOI, or the APR+ you would need 3000MW of wind power that would be at a cost of 10.5 billion euros, with the difference the rectors can last 60 years while the wind turbines last around 20-25, so that 10.5 billion euros ascends to 36 billion, which is nearly 3 times the cost of the 1.7GWe Hinkley point EPR, (altho it has been said  that most of the cost of the EPR construction is the financing from high interest rates loans and that with the same kind of loans that tend to be provided to WInd project the cost per reactor would be 5 or 6 billion EUR).The capital cost is only 2/3 of the cost of a nuclear plant lifecycle, but you get the idea

Edited May 27, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[Bob D + 562]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:59 PM, 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. 

Better start every conversation about renewables cost with an "IF".  I'm surprised you didn't provide a graph illustrating free electricity or even better yet Negative rates!!  Why not?  It's just your guess.  

[BradleyPNW + 282]

51 minutes ago, Bob D said:

Better start every conversation about renewables cost with an "IF".  I'm surprised you didn't provide a graph illustrating free electricity or even better yet Negative rates!!  Why not?  It's just your guess.  

Thank you for emphasizing the fact I said IF. That means it is one of several potential scenarios. We can also use "what if" counterfactuals to assess past events. Like, "what if" you had been familiar with scenario planning and strategic forecasting, would you have made your comment? In my counterfactual I think the answer is no. 

[Bob D + 562]

22 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Thank you for emphasizing the fact I said IF. That means it is one of several potential scenarios. We can also use "what if" counterfactuals to assess past events. Like, "what if" you had been familiar with scenario planning and strategic forecasting, would you have made your comment? In my counterfactual I think the answer is no. 

So   IF you were to make another guess, this time regarding my knowledge or use of planning or forecasting, would you use IF or What if?  I'm on the edge of my seat hoping you'll respond.  NOT!  

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

6 hours ago, Sebastian Meana said:

 

120 TW/h is the ammount of electricity a single itaipu dam produces in a good year, and is less than 4 powerplants like the Palo Verde System 80 Nuclear reactors, with the difference that Palo verde in the 2000s produced electricity at an average adjusted per inflacion of just 0.0173Euro per KWh, also 120TWh is around 13GWa (a is for annum-year-) which is barely more than 5% of the United Kingdom primary energy consumption of 193 million tons of oil equivalent or 256GWa

The average electricity rate hardly has to deal with the real cost of electricity because there's a lot of things involved, for example electricity subsidies, if the UK industrial electricity price is 128 Euro per MWh,  like the report i will put below it says, then that's the first flashing red light of a subsidy scheme to make electricity to household appear cheaper than really is, since generally Industrial electricity tends to be 50 to 70% cheaper than household electricity since you can use high voltage powerlines and not those extra annoying low voltage powerlines,

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/875777/QEP_Q4_2019.pdf

Also, despite being MUCH cheaper and reliable than solar, wind power is still kinda expensive, ya know, Hornsea-1 will cost around 4.2 Billion euros and generate around 480MW, from the 1200MW of installed capacity (installed capacity is just how much electricity you say you can produce), if you take in mind the lifespan of turbines is around 20-25 years you get the idea of how expensive it is.

I going to compare it with the two countries that are building the most reactors in their home, Korea and Russia, they make a nuclear reactor at around a price of 1.9 billion dollars for each GWh of installed capacity, capacity they can virtually use at a 100% except for the refueling periods every 18-24 months, those reactors have a output of around 1.2GW

To match a single WWER-TOI, or the APR+ you would need 3000MW of wind power that would be at a cost of 10.5 billion euros, with the difference the rectors can last 60 years while the wind turbines last around 20-25, so that 10.5 billion euros ascends to 36 billion, which is nearly 3 times the cost of the 1.7GWe Hinkley point EPR, (altho it has been said  that most of the cost of the EPR construction is the financing from high interest rates loans and that with the same kind of loans that tend to be provided to WInd project the cost per reactor would be 5 or 6 billion EUR).The capital cost is only 2/3 of the cost of a nuclear plant lifecycle, but you get the idea

Hinkley is a disaster. If it is completed the power price will be  £92.50/MWh. Off shore wind in the 2019 auction was at  £47/MWh, projects to be online by 2025 same year as Hinkley. Intermittency will be solved by HVDC from pumped hydro in Norway and local batteries in the UK, both of which will add some cost but nowhere near as expensive as Hinkley.

I thought China and India were building the most reactors?

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Hinkley is a disaster. If it is completed the power price will be  £92.50/MWh. Off shore wind in the 2019 auction was at  £47/MWh, projects to be online by 2025 same year as Hinkley. Intermittency will be solved by HVDC from pumped hydro in Norway and local batteries in the UK, both of which will add some cost but nowhere near as expensive as Hinkley.

I thought China and India were building the most reactors?

So, according to you, Norway is building dams left and right... Hrmm, wait, they are not building a single dam.  Currently working off old infrastructure that is at its limit.  Norway is tapped out of dam capacity.  Start adding in the cost of giant new dams, then we can talk. Norway currently has 30GW installed: Lets assume they go with 100% swap with other countries...  Norway itself still needs power and their TOTAL potential stored energy is 80TWh.  Norway uses 40TWh itself.  Norway already exports 15TWh or power.  The rest is stored capacity due to seasonal differences along with pressure head loses when levels drop.  Lets assume swap of wind for hydro DOUBLES, 30TWh(30TwH + 40TWH or 87% of TOTAL(80TWH) stored capacity... Means fish downstream essentially dry up as now the rivers are not running for large portions of the year as you are purposefully NOT flowing water to store it.  And leaves only 12% for seasonal variation. 

This is a recipe for abject disaster if wind usage doubles requiring energy swaps. 

So, unless Norway doubles the number of large dams for pumped hydro storage for a small portion of northern Europe... Good Luck with your wind power dreams.  And this is only for a SMALL portion of changing N. Europe to wind power. 

PS: I have no problem with giant dam construction: Now the people of Norway have a problem when Germany/France/Switzerland/Austria etc refuse to displace people and build giant pumped hydro storage dams. 

PPS: To Sebastion: Not one single Wind turbine design has on average surpassed 20 years of operation.  Now may the newest largest can, since they have gotten rid of their gear boxes, but no one truly believes this will happen until it happens.  When someone starts implementing segmented main bearings which can be replaced insitu, then we are talking.  OF course to make this a viable solution they will have to change from Fiberglass to aluminum if not stainless steel along the leading edges at minimum.  This has massive problems as its specific tensile forces are inferior to Fiberglass/UHDPE/CF/Kevlar which is what they are currently using.  But, those materials are way too soft to withstand wear from rain, hail, frost, ice.  It would be possible to make aluminum structure for the airfoil shape, UHDPE for its exterior, and CF for its main wing box structure.  This way at least half of the turbine blades could be recycled cheaply. 

[Meredith Poor + 895]

Solar cells, 10 cents apiece or 2 cents per watt. There are all kinds of problems with this listing - the vendor is one I've never seen before, and the quantities deliverable at this price are microscopic. It may be a loss-leader or some tactic for getting attention. it could also be an outright mistake. I'll have another look in a week or two and see if the listing has disappeared or been updated.

Usually these vendors have a range of prices, with various price breaks based on quantity. This one is 10 cents, no matter what quantity.

[NickW + 2,714]

33 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

So, according to you, Norway is building dams left and right... Hrmm, wait, they are not building a single dam.  Currently working off old infrastructure that is at its limit.  Norway is tapped out of dam capacity.  Start adding in the cost of giant new dams, then we can talk. Norway currently has 30GW installed: Lets assume they go with 100% swap with other countries...  Norway itself still needs power and their TOTAL potential stored energy is 80TWh.  Norway uses 40TWh itself.  Norway already exports 15TWh or power.  The rest is stored capacity due to seasonal differences along with pressure head loses when levels drop.  Lets assume swap of wind for hydro DOUBLES, 30TWh(30TwH + 40TWH or 87% of TOTAL(80TWH) stored capacity... Means fish downstream essentially dry up as now the rivers are not running for large portions of the year as you are purposefully NOT flowing water to store it.  And leaves only 12% for seasonal variation. 

This is a recipe for abject disaster if wind usage doubles requiring energy swaps. 

So, unless Norway doubles the number of large dams for pumped hydro storage for a small portion of northern Europe... Good Luck with your wind power dreams.  And this is only for a SMALL portion of changing N. Europe to wind power. 

PS: I have no problem with giant dam construction: Now the people of Norway have a problem when Germany/France/Switzerland/Austria etc refuse to displace people and build giant pumped hydro storage dams. 

PPS: To Sebastion: Not one single Wind turbine design has on average surpassed 20 years of operation.  Now may the newest largest can, since they have gotten rid of their gear boxes, but no one truly believes this will happen until it happens.  When someone starts implementing segmented main bearings which can be replaced insitu, then we are talking.  OF course to make this a viable solution they will have to change from Fiberglass to aluminum if not stainless steel along the leading edges at minimum.  This has massive problems as its specific tensile forces are inferior to Fiberglass/UHDPE/CF/Kevlar which is what they are currently using.  But, those materials are way too soft to withstand wear from rain, hail, frost, ice.  It would be possible to make aluminum structure for the airfoil shape, UHDPE for its exterior, and CF for its main wing box structure.  This way at least half of the turbine blades could be recycled cheaply. 

There are thousands of turbines in operation built in the early to mid 1990's. In many cases these have been redeployed so their sites can take newer models. 

RE Norway - their plan is to buy up el cheapo power from Denmark / Uk / Germany on windy days - use this and perhaps store some but utilise their hydro and pump storage to sell premium priced power 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

21 minutes ago, NickW said:

There are thousands of turbines in operation built in the early to mid 1990's. In many cases these have been redeployed so their sites can take newer models. 

RE Norway - their plan is to buy up el cheapo power from Denmark / Uk / Germany on windy days - use this and perhaps store some but utilise their hydro and pump storage to sell premium priced power 

For pumped hydro to work, it has to be 2X cheaper to buy wind when in surplus.  Reason RT efficiency.  Transmission ~3%, Pump uphill(65% and if high head pressure maybe 75%), Downhill(best high pressure 80%), Transmission ~-3%

So, 100%-3% = 97%

97%*75% = 72%

72%*80 =~56%

56% - 3% ~= 50% once one adds in High voltage to Low voltage changes. 

So, if LOTS more wind is put on the grid till there is MORE wind power available than consumed, then prices go negative and this will pay for itself, if we assume we can install more turbines on existing dams.  This works quite well on series dams, but singular dam sites, this does not work as it dries up the downstream fisheries etc.  For true pumped hydro storage we need a HIGH dam and a LOW dam. 

Dam building better get into swing.  Big time.

[NickW + 2,714]

3 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

For pumped hydro to work, it has to be 2X cheaper to buy wind when in surplus.  Reason RT efficiency.  Transmission ~3%, Pump uphill(65% and if high head pressure maybe 75%), Downhill(best high pressure 80%), Transmission ~-3%

So, 100%-3% = 97%

97%*75% = 72%

72%*80 =~56%

56% - 3% ~= 50% once one adds in High voltage to Low voltage changes. 

So, if LOTS more wind is put on the grid till there is MORE wind power available than consumed, then prices go negative and this will pay for itself, if we assume we can install more turbines on existing dams.  This works quite well on series dams, but singular dam sites, this does not work as it dries up the downstream fisheries etc.  For true pumped hydro storage we need a HIGH dam and a LOW dam. 

Dam building better get into swing.  Big time.

You are over complicating this. 

Hydro provides virtually all of Norways electricity including baseload. 

On windy days import wind and conserve water

On calm days use Hydro - and export ideally into premium price markets. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

You are over complicating this. 

Hydro provides virtually all of Norways electricity including baseload. 

On windy days import wind and conserve water

On calm days use Hydro - and export ideally into premium price markets. 

What part of simple math is too difficult for you and other greenies?  You vote, but refuse to use a calculator. 

Why I call myself a conservationist and NOT an environmentalist or a green

What part of 2 weeks without wind and very little solar is too hard to figure out?  I suggest during that winter high, most Europeans wish to turn the lights on, work, wash clothes, cook food, and enjoy their transportation, unless you propose shutting down all of Europe for 2 weeks a year when it is coldest out...

Edited May 28, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

25 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What part of simple math is too difficult for you and other greenies?  You vote, but refuse to use a calculator. 

Why I call myself a conservationist and NOT an environmentalist or a green

What part of 2 weeks without wind and very little solar is too hard to figure out?  I suggest during that winter high, most Europeans wish to turn the lights on, work, wash clothes, cook food, and enjoy their transportation, unless you propose shutting down all of Europe for 2 weeks a year when it is coldest out...

The North and Norwegian Seas are extremely windy in winter and most of the power is going to come from off-shore wind located there. Any 2 week lullls, should they happen, can be easily dealt with by using stored green H2/CH4 that was made when the wind was howling. There will also be HVDC coming into southern Europe carrying N. African solar. It is a very simple efficient model.

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

5 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Hinkley is a disaster. If it is completed the power price will be  £92.50/MWh. Off shore wind in the 2019 auction was at  £47/MWh, projects to be online by 2025 same year as Hinkley. Intermittency will be solved by HVDC from pumped hydro in Norway and local batteries in the UK, both of which will add some cost but nowhere near as expensive as Hinkley.

I thought China and India were building the most reactors?

yeah hinkley point c is overpriced, but you never wondered why? a lot to not say the most of a reactor building cost is outside the reactor unit, time, construction delays, permits, certification, balancing, financing, and basically all things bureocracy

 

if the uk only decides two make only one or two EPR the thing is going to remain expensive, because you cant establish a learning curve, the more you do something the easier it gets, if you only do a single custom one-off project of course will be expensive

now, yes, china and india make the most reactors, but they dont have single standardized designs Like Russia and Korea, but still they are the example that if you want cheap power from nuclear go big or go home, you can say what you want about India, China, Russia, South korea, but when they decide they will make 20 reactors, you can bet your family that nothing stops them

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

47 minutes ago, Sebastian Meana said:

yeah hinkley point c is overpriced, but you never wondered why? a lot to not say the most of a reactor building cost is outside the reactor unit, time, construction delays, permits, certification, balancing, financing, and basically all things bureocracy

 

if the uk only decides two make only one or two EPR the thing is going to remain expensive, because you cant establish a learning curve, the more you do something the easier it gets, if you only do a single custom one-off project of course will be expensive

now, yes, china and india make the most reactors, but they dont have single standardized designs Like Russia and Korea, but still they are the example that if you want cheap power from nuclear go big or go home, you can say what you want about India, China, Russia, South korea, but when they decide they will make 20 reactors, you can bet your family that nothing stops them

I agree that all those soft costs are very real. Off-shore wind has much lower soft costs than nuclear. 

I doubt anymore nuclear reactors will be built in the UK unless they are fusion. Off-shore wind with storage is disruptively undercutting the cost of nuclear in the UK.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What part of simple math is too difficult for you and other greenies?  You vote, but refuse to use a calculator. 

Why I call myself a conservationist and NOT an environmentalist or a green

What part of 2 weeks without wind and very little solar is too hard to figure out?  I suggest during that winter high, most Europeans wish to turn the lights on, work, wash clothes, cook food, and enjoy their transportation, unless you propose shutting down all of Europe for 2 weeks a year when it is coldest out...

Here we go again......

The risk of entire fortnight with no wind and no solar is miniscule. In any case Norway aren't proposing to use their Hydro / PS as the complete battery of Europe but they can can still offer the grid balancing / short term storage function that their Hydro permits them to. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by NickW

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Here we go again......

The risk of entire fortnight with no wind and no solar is miniscule.

Here we go again: Denial of basic weather patterns that happen every winter. 

Bravo! 

[Sebastian Meana + 278]

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I agree that all those soft costs are very real. Off-shore wind has much lower soft costs than nuclear. 

I doubt anymore nuclear reactors will be built in the UK unless they are fusion. Off-shore wind with storage is disruptively undercutting the cost of nuclear in the UK.

 

10 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I agree that all those soft costs are very real. Off-shore wind has much lower soft costs than nuclear. 

I doubt anymore nuclear reactors will be built in the UK unless they are fusion. Off-shore wind with storage is disruptively undercutting the cost of nuclear in the UK.

Yeah, because you need tens of thousands of pages to fill the permit to build a nuclear powerplant, and if you only do a one-off project you will build infrastructure to only make one reactor, and that's kinda expensive

Anyway, i too doubt the UK will build any new reactor simply because looking how many layers of bureaucracy the UK has ,is easy to comprehend why brexit did take 4 years, (i apologize if i sound way too political) . Fusion is in a best case scenario a dream, or a distant future, because the first electric power from Fusion will take place in the Mid 2030s at iter, then they will make a GW scale experimental plant if things go well in the 2060's called "DEMO" , and maybe they will commercialize it in 2070 or 2080, Fusion is always 20 years in the future.

Fission is like fusion but easy, wanna solve nuclear waste and stuff? use a breeder reactor,  there is around 269,799,150,000,000 tons of Uranium and 944,297,030,000,000 Of thorium inside the earth mantle (geothermal is only nuclear using decay heat so yeah, the planet is the biggest nuclear reactor in the planet ) that rises through volcanoes, is already a huge wasteproduct of geothermal powerplants and rare earth mines, and a 3GWt breeder reactor will use around 1.2 tons a year

Edited May 28, 2020 by Sebastian Meana

[BradleyPNW + 282]

16 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

What part of simple math is too difficult for you and other greenies?  You vote, but refuse to use a calculator. 

Why I call myself a conservationist and NOT an environmentalist or a green

What part of 2 weeks without wind and very little solar is too hard to figure out?  I suggest during that winter high, most Europeans wish to turn the lights on, work, wash clothes, cook food, and enjoy their transportation, unless you propose shutting down all of Europe for 2 weeks a year when it is coldest out...

Being a dick, again, will not get you employed with a good company. Qualified engineers with math skills are a dime a dozen. Good companies hire the qualified engineers who are also fun to work with.  

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

3 hours ago, BradleyPNW said:

Being a dick, again, will not get you employed with a good company. Qualified engineers with math skills are a dime a dozen. Good companies hire the qualified engineers who are also fun to work with.  

Ah, so you are neither an engineer, nor an employer.  You are bitter, that your "fun" math lazy non confrontational personality does not align with reality. 

In engineering world, if you are not an ass, continuously proving others are wrong and yourself right, to get a better product through, NOTHING will ever change as the management are all dumb not invented here MBA's who all pretend that milking current products without any R&D without a guaranteed ROI, is a brilliant idea.

Same is true if you want to start your own company.  You have to be arrogant enough to believe YOU are BETTER than others and can provide a BETTER service, product than anyone else. 

If you are not arrogant, and a bit of an ass, you certainly are not an engineer. 

Proving others wrong, is yes, being a bit of an ass as you are POPPING their ignorance Utopian cherry.

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/27/2020 at 3:14 PM, Bob D said:

So   IF you were to make another guess, this time regarding my knowledge or use of planning or forecasting, would you use IF or What if?  I'm on the edge of my seat hoping you'll respond.  NOT!  

Well you have not had IEEE certification for Power Generation and Transmission Relaying and Control for 45 years or an IBEW Journeyman's Dicpatcher card.

[maccjil2 0]

Solar on a home level is real.  At the present there is too much cost from the installer base but quickly solar installation is becoming a DIY even with Battery Storage i.e. Tesla powerwall or Enphase system.  Enphase offering safe ac install on roof with micro inverter technology can easily manage a homes power from grid/solar/backup through Ensemble and it is completely affordable now to virtually eliminate a home electric bill.  Still pay your grid fees meter/monthly non fuel and transmission cost and its all capable now and is being installed now.  I only need to add one switch and the 10 kWh battery an I am good to go in my area.  My electric bill will be a credit due to the net metering rules.  (I expect those to change)  I'll still pay just grid and bill fees worth it.  Coal will be done soon because gas peak plants are so affordable and access to clean gas is almost unlimited in USA at incredibly low prices

[Monk + 14]

On 5/28/2020 at 2:02 AM, NickW said:

What part of simple math is too difficult for you and other greenies?  You vote, but refuse to use a calculator. 

Why I call myself a conservationist and NOT an environmentalist or a green

What part of 2 weeks without wind and very little solar is too hard to figure out?  I suggest during that winter high, most Europeans wish to turn the lights on, work, wash clothes, cook food, and enjoy their transportation, unless you propose shutting down all of Europe for 2 weeks a year when it is coldest out...

 

On 5/28/2020 at 4:34 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

The risk of entire fortnight with no wind and no solar is miniscule.

The probability of wind generated power less than 20% name plate capacity for a fortnight over particular land region is not miniscule. Of-course people would need security of electric supply over the two week period is true. 

In-fact security of electric supply is at the core of power markets design. Typically with a capacity of  10 year peak load + 15% reserve capacity margin. Yes that's how people survive once in 10 year heat or cold  waves. 

The conclusion implied by the reductio ad absurdum argument, while being a complete red-herring/head fake suffers from fatal flaw at many many levels. It absurdly tries to compare across time lines, absurdly ignores basics of power market, assumes absurd intentions on part of the so called "greenies or environmentalists"

For the people who are open and genuinely want to understand the many issues, complex context, complexities and nuances beyond the "have a calculator, know high school math, will add to numbers and the result is the science, economics, power market design, climate science" crowd  #energytwitter  is good place to follow the commentary and analysis from experts who spend their lifetimes studying and working in those fields. 

backing up a bit:

1. Clean energy advocacy is one part of larger effort of reducing green house gasses emissions into the atmosphere which causes radiative forcing and addressing it consequent climatic, economic, social, political impacts, losses and damages.
2. 100% clean energy advocacy is a goal/target to be reached by 2045 and beyond even for the most for  forward looking jurisdictions. The advocacy is about setting the goal and mobilizing the necessary resources to reach it by 2045 or so and as economically as possible while internalizing into the market the externalized costs of GHG impacts 
3. - Just as it absurd to bring 25 year old technology, tools and costs to solve today's problems/battles it is equally absurd to use today's technology, costs, solution to 2045 issues and problem.
4. - Clean energy market participation is not binary 0 or 100 choice. Different jurisdictions currently fall somewhere on the curve between 0 and 100 depending on the past and current competitiveness of their natural resources, political choices, power market design etc. 
5. - gas plants with CO2 capture and sequestration are considered part of the energy mix as is nuclear and are likely no worse than wind or solar 
6. An example for 2019 wind as % total electricity in US by state.                                         The KS and IA have wind alone >40% of electricity generation. Blistering barnacles!!!  How does it even work? Do they have gaint batteries for this 40%? Do they have blackouts?  
7.  supply stack & merit order dispatch, will help illustrate how things work. ex: ERCOT's (TX mostly) supply stack in 2019 with different power generators and their relative marginal cost of generating/dispatching power.                                   The ERCOT demand line varied between the minimum of ~28000MW and maximum ~73000MW with an average of ~44000MW in  2019.  The variation gives a glimpse of likely resource mix of generators involved at a given demand.
8.  The following graph helps understand the merit order dispatch and variable generation and resultant prices for a fixed demand at different times:     
9.  Combing back to Kansas with increasing wind penetration means, the generator on the left side will run for shorter number of hours with each increasing wind % penetration. This kind of generators which run for short number of hours has been going on ever since the power generator industry is established: An illustrative example from the last decade hoe different generators earn their revenues, based on their operating profile:   
10.  How does increasing wind penetration affect cost of whole sale electricity? You would have to understand the components of total cost of power - an illustrative view from PJM which runs a whole sale market:  
11.  If the wind penetration increases, the gas and coal plants of the area will have decreasing energy market revenues but will have increasing capacity market and reserve market revenues. So what does it mean for Kansas whole sale electricity costs for wind to go from just > 40% to ~80% of the  total electricity? you can suspect it is certainly not double because energy market revenues is unlikely to increase, from the merit order dispatch and supply stack curves. you can suspect capacity revenues should increase because the gas/coal plants want to cover their fixed capital costs while idling when wind is available. The retails costs for residential, commercial and industrial have another layer of  fixed costs added to the above derived whole sale costs of electricity like, distribution infrastructure charges, utility administration and maintenance charges. 

 

Every year it is being shown the grid and power markets can increasingly handle once unthinkable levels of wind or penetrations. The journey for the clean energy in the next 25 years will have many fits and starts, with the facts on the ground changing every few years as good as it has changed in the past 25 years.