Ten Years of Plunging Solar Prices

[NickW + 2,714]

18 minutes ago, Monk said:

 

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. 

 

The point I was trying to make to Footinmouth was that planning battery capacity on the basis of no wind or solar (ie 0%) for two weeks is unrealistic in the extreme. Over a country,  or interconnected countries  ( Europe being a good example) its reasonable to assume some wind as baseload. I believe in Europe its now considered to be 8% of capacity when it counts (5-6pm in January) . You can also account for some solar on a daily basis even in the depths of winter 

[nsdp + 449]

On 5/22/2020 at 5:01 AM, Mark Potochnik said:

Solar is one part of the equation. Falling price of batteries is just as big. 2040's are WAY too long. The duck curve will be smoothed out by batteries. We have big batteries coming. Next also is V2G. Vehicle 2 grid. The new "million mile batteries" will allow using EVs as backup without degrading the batteries. That is hundreds of GWH available. This is an old chart showing how accurate the RIGHT predictions are.

batteries

One cost those estimates do not reflect are safety costs of Lithium ion-cobalt.  Cobalt Li-ion does not work very well in summer since solar radiation adds to the  thermal load that has to be cooled to keep the batteries from going boom the way APS's battery or the incidents in S Korea have. Name a new CO2 capture plant in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemper_Project should be a good example for you.

Fusion has a much bigger problem than controlling the SUSTAINED reaction.  It is how do you find anything you can build with in 30 million miles to convert the radiation to electricity without it melting.

Soft costs are a small part of the nuclearproject cost.  The biggest  expense is metallurgy that would withstand proton and neutron bombardment  for extended periods.   Look at the reactors shut down in the wake of the post Fukushima inspections due to internal corrosion.  Second biggest expense is the concrete used and its spec so it does not degrade  and crumble the way San Onofree and Turkey Point did. I spent a year and a half before I decided South Texas Nuclear project was a lost cause and left.  We know from failure what doesn't work; Hinkley Point merely shows you what the fixes cost. One reactor on the Gerald Ford carriers cost $3.5 billion going up every day.   It doesn't have concrete either.

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

While we are waiting for the storage solution to mature, there is a very good intermediate solution for these problems: Carbon Capture and Sequestration. That allows us to run the backup on fossil fuels and dispose of the harmful gasses (CO2, NOx, SOx). At the moment, in some parts of Europe, the cost of CCS is in the order of the emission rights. It is more than likely we see the costs of sequestration comes down and the costs of emissions go up. This will give the earth several decades to solve the energy security problem without increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Note that storage is only one option to provide energy security. Long distance HVDC cables can carry staggering amounts of power over distances in the order of thousands of km with little losses (3%/1000km). If we believe the mantra: "it is sunny or windy somewhere" (on the scale of a continent) we can provide full renewable energy. Battery and synthetic fuel storage will still have its place, but more than likely much smaller than Musk wants us to believe.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 5/15/2020 at 12:56 AM, 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. 

Wow Oro, you finally put it all together for me. I might be dead by that time, but I hope it works well. Just use natural gas if it has the best cost/benefit ratio. Don't screw the customers so the cronies can get subsidies and make millions of extra while customers pay higher bills. 

I can't see solar competing for heating without massive expenditures in architectural changes and power lines though. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

13 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

While we are waiting for the storage solution to mature, there is a very good intermediate solution for these problems: Carbon Capture and Sequestration. That allows us to run the backup on fossil fuels and dispose of the harmful gasses (CO2, NOx, SOx). At the moment, in some parts of Europe, the cost of CCS is in the order of the emission rights. It is more than likely we see the costs of sequestration comes down and the costs of emissions go up. This will give the earth several decades to solve the energy security problem without increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Note that storage is only one option to provide energy security. Long distance HVDC cables can carry staggering amounts of power over distances in the order of thousands of km with little losses (3%/1000km). If we believe the mantra: "it is sunny or windy somewhere" (on the scale of a continent) we can provide full renewable energy. Battery and synthetic fuel storage will still have its place, but more than likely much smaller than Musk wants us to believe.

I hope you are right but would say don't bother with carbon sequestration unless you can use the CO2. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, ronwagn said:

I hope you are right but would say don't bother with carbon sequestration unless you can use the CO2. 

Use the CO2 for making CH4 out of green H2.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 6/3/2020 at 7:30 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Use the CO2 for making CH4 out of green H2.

Even better, use the CO2 to produce bio-diesel with algae.

[BradleyPNW + 282]

On 5/23/2020 at 10:46 AM, Dan Clemmensen said:

Hey, I moved to the Bay area and bought an EV on the first day I was here, in 2014. I seem to recall the concept of "car heating" from my past life. I guess it still happens? 😉

If you are fortunate enough to have home charging, you can set up to pre-heat or pre-cool without reducing battery charge. This helps a lot for the morning commute, but not the evening commute.

My biggest objection to PHEV is that the ICE system still requires periodic oil maintenance and gasoline and the car and garage stinks. You don't notice this until you no longer need to deal with it.

My intuition is that the Bay Area should close all roads to private car traffic with the exception of a limited number of lanes for freight. Everyone else can commute in golf carts and on bikes. 

[Dan Clemmensen + 1,011]

20 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

My intuition is that the Bay Area should close all roads to private car traffic with the exception of a limited number of lanes for freight. Everyone else can commute in golf carts and on bikes. 

The Bay area is home to the Tesla factory, the largest producer of US-made cars. (Detroit assembles foreign components and pretends the result is an "american car").  More Model 3's are sold than any other car in California now. I think it'll be awhile before we give them up. Of course, we need to do something. I would mandate that all newly-registered vehicles in CA after 2022 support automated central control and after (say) 2027 cars without such control must stay off the roads during rush hour. That would allow the streets and highways to be efficient enough to support the traffic.

[ricjaer + 2]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2020 at 4:27 PM, NickW said:

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%

 

The reason the domestic electricity price in the UK is stagnant is because UK industry is paying for the green revolution.

Over the same period 2015 to 2020, the average electricity price per MWhr for industry per annum has doubled from <£58 to £115, while the gas price has cratered over the same period (gas turbines still produce vasrt majority of UK elec).

So yes, renewables are subsidised significantly. Note 2020 price is very low at the moment for obvious reasons, but long term we expect the price to increase at an even higher rate due to UK being broke.

Thank you UK government for giving more reason for continued movement of industry out East while bullshiting the populace on realities  of economics and science. And the bullshit is only going to deepen, UK Government agencies are being overfilled with environmentalist types with no basic grounding in science - and I mean none and these idiots have legislative power.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, ricjaer said:

The reason the domestic electricity price in the UK is stagnant is because UK industry is paying for the green revolution.

Over the same period 2015 to 2020, the average electricity price per MWhr for industry per annum has doubled from <£58 to £115, while the gas price has cratered over the same period (gas turbines still produce vasrt majority of UK elec).

So yes, renewables are subsidised significantly. Note 2020 price is very low at the moment for obvious reasons, but long term we expect the price to increase at an even higher rate due to UK being broke.

Thank you UK government for giving more reason for continued movement of industry out East while bullshiting the populace on realities  of economics and science. And the bullshit is only going to deepen, UK Government agencies are being overfilled with environmentalist types with no basic grounding in science - and I mean none and these idiots have legislative power.

 

 

According to this they have fallen between 2015 and 2020

https://www.statista.com/statistics/595864/electricity-industry-price-uk/

priced in Euros so some allowance needs to be made to take account of the £ fall against the Euro. 

From 2008 to 2020 prices have risen by 40% which is comparable to RPI over the same period. 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, ricjaer said:

The reason the domestic electricity price in the UK is stagnant is because UK industry is paying for the green revolution.

Over the same period 2015 to 2020, the average electricity price per MWhr for industry per annum has doubled from <£58 to £115, while the gas price has cratered over the same period (gas turbines still produce vasrt majority of UK elec).

So yes, renewables are subsidised significantly. Note 2020 price is very low at the moment for obvious reasons, but long term we expect the price to increase at an even higher rate due to UK being broke.

Thank you UK government for giving more reason for continued movement of industry out East while bullshiting the populace on realities  of economics and science. And the bullshit is only going to deepen, UK Government agencies are being overfilled with environmentalist types with no basic grounding in science - and I mean none and these idiots have legislative power.

 

 

Its now less than 50%

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

 

[ricjaer + 2]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 9:57 PM, NickW said:

Its now less than 50%

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

 

Nick W, can’t argue with the principle but they are painting this in a specific way.

Electricity generation has reduced in actual cost to produce as gas is very cheap. But that’s not the price you pay. The figures I quoted are real, this is what our team have been paying in the South of the UK. What most people don’t realise are the dozen “tax” tariffs added to the generation price, plus you have a C02 penalty to pay on top of your own activities. This can be significant if trying alleviate the power cost burden and produce your own power,  even with allowances the cost could be murderous. Here is the EU allowances, not sure what UK will do after Brexit, I imagine it won’t be good;

 

https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/co2-european-emission-allowances

 

We could build our own power plant and be self-sufficient but cannot because of the CO2 penalties associated with burning gas. So industry is being penalised a little unfairly I feel.

[ricjaer + 2]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2020 at 9:57 PM, NickW said:

Its now less than 50%

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/data-portal/electricity-generation-mix-quarter-and-fuel-source-gb

 

Nick, these numbers appear fudged, here is grid from yesterday at 2pm, note its 27C in UK, hot sunny with little wind;

GasTurbine 16.4 GW

Solar 8.5 GW (its unusually hot this is as high as it will ever get, but this only lasted 5 hrs)

Wind 2.47 GW (lower than usual, as its not that windy and most turbines are onshore, got up to 5GW for short period in evening when solar vansihed)

Hydo 0.25 GW

Nuclear 4.46 GW

Biomass (burning household rubbish is what it really is) 2 GW

Still over 50% gas turbine.

[NickW + 2,714]

31 minutes ago, ricjaer said:

Nick, these numbers appear fudged, here is grid from yesterday at 2pm, note its 27C in UK, hot sunny with little wind;

GasTurbine 16.4 GW

Solar 8.5 GW (its unusually hot this is as high as it will ever get, but this only lasted 5 hrs)

Wind 2.47 GW (lower than usual, as its not that windy and most turbines are onshore, got up to 5GW for short period in evening when solar vansihed)

Hydo 0.25 GW

Nuclear 4.46 GW

Biomass (burning household rubbish is what it really is) 2 GW

Still over 50% gas turbine.

I would expect gas to be high in low wind conditions.

Nuclear is lower than normal as a couple of reactors have been taken off line for maintenance & refueling during the pandemic. 

Also with a very dry spring Hydro is lower than normal

Most Biomass is burning of wood pellets (not that I agree with importing wood pellets) 

You haven't accounted for net imports. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

On 5/14/2020 at 10:42 PM, 0R0 said:

 

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. 

According to Tesla all they need to extract the Lithium is water and sodium chloride. So much for your iridium constraint.

 

 

 

 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

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. 

 

On 5/15/2020 at 12:56 AM, 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. 

 

On 5/15/2020 at 2:48 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

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.

 

 

On 5/15/2020 at 12:03 PM, Dan Clemmensen said:

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.

 

Learning curves are a red herring. The critical question is, "Does there exist a price of wind or solar energy at which the delivered cost of electricity is cheaper than the delivered cost of coal, nuclear, or natural gas?" The answer is "No."  The cost of transmission and storage alone would exceed the cost of the conventional system, which means wind and solar could cost nothing and still be uneconomical.

Renewables advocates claim savings; what they mean is that when renewables spin up, money is taken from conventional generators. Nothing is actually saved. There are limited exceptions where renewables mostly coincide with demand, such as running air conditioners on solar in S. California, but these are a small fraction of total demand. There are also edge cases where renewables are economical, such as replacing remote diesel generators with renewables. Again, these are the exception and not the rule. You cannot run a large, industrial economy on renewables.

Renewables advocates claim the grid will innovate around cheap renewables, but they offer no path to success.  It's not that their idea is unproven, which is the case with nuclear fusion.  No, renewables don't even have an idea to pursue.  Their entire argument rests on the hope that someone else will have an idea, do the work, and succeed. This childish laziness is the fairy tale @markslawson refers to.

We've all had this argument ad nauseum without progress; it's become a waste of time. I propose we place conditions on anyone wishing to advocate renewables:
1) They must quote the delivered cost of electricity for a specific use case.
2) They must show exactly what technology will make those delivered costs possible and who is developing that technology.

In other words, quit whining and show me.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

3 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

 

 

 

Learning curves are a red herring. The critical question is, "Does there exist a price of wind or solar energy at which the delivered cost of electricity is cheaper than the delivered cost of coal, nuclear, or natural gas?" The answer is "No."  The cost of transmission and storage alone would exceed the cost of the conventional system, which means wind and solar could cost nothing and still be uneconomical.

Renewables advocates claim savings; what they mean is that when renewables spin up, money is taken from conventional generators. Nothing is actually saved. There are limited exceptions where renewables mostly coincide with demand, such as running air conditioners on solar in S. California, but these are a small fraction of total demand. There are also edge cases where renewables are economical, such as replacing remote diesel generators with renewables. Again, these are the exception and not the rule. You cannot run a large, industrial economy on renewables.

Renewables advocates claim the grid will innovate around cheap renewables, but they offer no path to success.  It's not that their idea is unproven, which is the case with nuclear fusion.  No, renewables don't even have an idea to pursue.  Their entire argument rests on the hope that someone else will have an idea, do the work, and succeed. This childish laziness is the fairy tale @markslawson refers to.

We've all had this argument ad nauseum without progress; it's become a waste of time. I propose we place conditions on anyone wishing to advocate renewables:
1) They must quote the delivered cost of electricity for a specific use case.
2) They must show exactly what technology will make those delivered costs possible and who is developing that technology.

In other words, quit whining and show me.

Tesla big battery in South Australia delivers stunning windfall profits

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-in-south-australia-delivers-stunning-windfall-profits-77644/

[markslawson + 1,057]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Tesla big battery in South Australia delivers stunning windfall profits

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-in-south-australia-delivers-stunning-windfall-profits-77644/

Jay - again, sorry, I must take away your pixie dust. As the article notes a lot of that profit was one off which occurred when the interconnector with other states got blown down in a gale. South Australia mainly has wind generators and when the connector went down the battery was one of the few installations in the state capable of providing frequency management services.  In the 17 days referred to in the article, and as I've written for an Australian magazine, the cost of those and other stabilisation services was more than the cost of providing power to the state. No wonder they had a windfall.

As for the profit figures, for those sort of projects investors would probably look for an internal rate of return at 20 per cent (five year pay back) at a minimum. On the figures given and ignoring the windfall you might get to 30 per cent before interest and tax. Maybe, but there are no independent figures for this project, or at least I couldn't find any. It is my understanding that what figures do exist are for both the  battery and the adjacent wind farm. I might point out that the government kicked in money for the original battery investment and about one third of the cost of a proposed expansion will come from the taxpayer. This hardly sounds like private enterprise charging in to reap windfall profits.     

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 9/25/2020 at 12:30 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

Tesla big battery in South Australia delivers stunning windfall profits

https://reneweconomy.com.au/tesla-big-battery-in-south-australia-delivers-stunning-windfall-profits-77644/

Storage and renewable production are not the same thing.

The business case for grid storage is strong; I would expect to see it grow rapidly.  The business case for renewables is dubious at best. I would expect them to grow until the general public realizes how ludicrously expensive they are. 

[Jeroen Goudswaard + 61]

On 9/25/2020 at 3:31 PM, BenFranklin&#x27;sSpectacles said:

 

 

 

Learning curves are a red herring. The critical question is, "Does there exist a price of wind or solar energy at which the delivered cost of electricity is cheaper than the delivered cost of coal, nuclear, or natural gas?" The answer is "No."  The cost of transmission and storage alone would exceed the cost of the conventional system, which means wind and solar could cost nothing and still be uneconomical.

Renewables advocates claim savings; what they mean is that when renewables spin up, money is taken from conventional generators. Nothing is actually saved. There are limited exceptions where renewables mostly coincide with demand, such as running air conditioners on solar in S. California, but these are a small fraction of total demand. There are also edge cases where renewables are economical, such as replacing remote diesel generators with renewables. Again, these are the exception and not the rule. You cannot run a large, industrial economy on renewables.

Renewables advocates claim the grid will innovate around cheap renewables, but they offer no path to success.  It's not that their idea is unproven, which is the case with nuclear fusion.  No, renewables don't even have an idea to pursue.  Their entire argument rests on the hope that someone else will have an idea, do the work, and succeed. This childish laziness is the fairy tale @markslawson refers to.

We've all had this argument ad nauseum without progress; it's become a waste of time. I propose we place conditions on anyone wishing to advocate renewables:
1) They must quote the delivered cost of electricity for a specific use case.
2) They must show exactly what technology will make those delivered costs possible and who is developing that technology.

In other words, quit whining and show me.

With CO2 emission rights skyrocketing, running a conventional generator at lower output could be beneficial. That's why in Europe, most large power companies own both renewable as well as conventional power generation. During poor weather (no wind, overcast), spot prices for electricity are high and more than cover the CO2 emission rights and with good weather, they can sell power at no fuel cost. It's a win-win, not a lose-lose situation.