America Could Go Fully Electric Right Now

[Meredith Poor + 895]

On 8/28/2020 at 11:14 AM, carbonates said:

I don't think a solar installation can survive 130 mile per hour winds

As someone who has marketed solar to people in Florida, I can point out that the rooftop solar installations here are rated for Miami/Dade wind conditions, i.e. Category 5. The hurricane might blow in the house underneath, but if the roof holds, so does the solar.

I am aware of two situations where solar farms are damaged or destroyed: wildfires or tornadoes. Wildfires can be avoided by building farms in deserts. Tornadoes are localized - they might take out a farm but they aren't going to take out everything in a region.

Anyone reading the specs provided by the solar panel manufacturers can see the wind and hail impact ratings for the frames.

[NickW + 2,714]

4 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

So why would the Irish, the Scots, the Norwegians, the Danes, and the Germans plant wind turbines in the North Sea and the Baltic? Seems like those are about the worst areas in the world for storms. Or, perhaps this is exactly what wind turbines need to generate power economically.

And the English - we have planted more than that lot put together!

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

7 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Ignore mass at your peril. Perhaps if you knew the first thing about aerodynamics.

That mass has to be accounted for in the overall design. Your arm waving won't make the tower base, stanchion and the rest just go away. Here's a little hint they should have taught you in school, it's mass times velocity squared. You must account for every gram of mass in the design. 

Your mind has jumped the shark... Towers, dear friend are not moving at velocity squared unless talking vibrations and then inertia is what matters and that is a CUBED function so... not sure what the hell you are smoking... Mass on a tower adds to the buckling. Tractor Wind turbines are angled backwards at the top so any dynamic loads will increase forward bending moment, OPPOSITE drag and via right hand rule will create a z axis torque, thus COMPRESSING the towers forward tube which is under high tensile and shear load under any DYNAMIC event.  Since top blade sees higher velocity squared and higher LIFT than bottom blade, there is ALWAYS a bending moment from power generated opposite drag.  THUS, the tower is balanced as the tower force is 98% DRAG, not weight. 

Do a Very simple calc for wind swept area and it utterly dominates.  If they were so worried about tower aero drag, they would throw a sponson around it and spoilers which would lower tower drag by a factor of ~5-->10 depending on how aggressive they wished to get on the $$$/maintenance front. 

As for your coils fantasy from a VERY poor picture... sure dude. 

[Boat + 1,324]

Fully electric? The average car being 12 years old isn’t about ethics, it’s about price. Same with healthcare and housing. I don’t see changes happening to fast. The popular choice will be the cheapest price. But hey, we’re on our way to killing coal. It’s a start. 

[Boat + 1,324]

I am retired and just got rid of my car. All food and products are now delivered. Banking is online. Covid-19 taught us to survive without leaving the house. When meetings go digital we can kill the airline industry. It’s just a mindset change.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

20 hours ago, Boat said:

I am retired and just got rid of my car. All food and products are now delivered. Banking is online. Covid-19 taught us to survive without leaving the house. When meetings go digital we can kill the airline industry. It’s just a mindset change.

Is it your personal goal to "kill the airline industry"?  I hope that is not the case, because that would indicate a delusional level of ignorance about what the travel industry means to economies, and PEOPLE, around the world.  Especially me!   

U.S. Travel Answer Sheet

In the U.S. alone, personal travel occurs at, and is projected to rebound to, a far higher percentage than business.  Revenue is more evenly split due to, mainly, the last minute nature of business travel and the desire to have employees arrive at their destination in good enough shape to be productive immediately (Business and First Class seats).

Now, business travel for intra-company purposes will definitely decrease.  But intra-company travel had already been trimmed prior to "the virus".  It will be trimmed much further for the time being, but the numbers suggest that some level of this type of travel will always be necessary due to distances between company branches and divisions, which are in many cases international as well as domestic.  Also due to multi-location responsibilities of mid and senior level employees (companies had already cut out multiple people with the same functions at every location).

Business travel for customer meetings can be trimmed a tad, but not as much as you might think.  Face to face customer meetings, whether for sales or for support services purposes, can not always be done effectively virtually.  Sales drive growth.  Support keeps the follow-on revenue (service contracts, etc.) flowing.  Again, the amount of both of these functions that could be done virtually was already finding equilibrium prior to the virus.

Business travel for events and conferences will also take a hit for the short term and virtual conferences will rule the day, for now.  However, many of the types of trips present opportunities to network that are irreplaceable in doing business on both national and international scales.  Many customers use these events to drive competition between suppliers, to put pressure on each other to lower bids and offer more services.

Business class seats used to take up nearly half the airplane on international flights, when I started travelling for aviation business 35 years ago.  Now they make up about 20% of available seats, with many personal travellers paying for these seats themselves for such long haul travel.

Industry forecasters point to a full recovery of the numbers for both business and personal travel within just a few years.  My rose-tinted glasses don't make me believe such a rosy recovery as that will happen, but I do see the numbers going back up to 75-80% of previous levels.  IMHO.

Edited August 30, 2020 by Dan Warnick

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 hour ago, Dan Warnick said:

Industry forecasters point to a full recovery of the numbers for both business and personal travel within just a few years.  My rose-tinted glasses don't make me believe such a rosy recovery as that will happen, but I do see the numbers going back up to 75-80% of previous levels.  IMHO.

People miss travelling.  There will be a massive travel rebound once the covid dies down.

I know I will want to travel someplace warm in Jan or Feb as usual.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,190]

2 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Is it your personal goal to "kill the airline industry"?

Now, business travel for intra-company purposes will definitely decrease.  But intra-company travel had already been trimmed prior to "the virus".  It will be trimmed much further for the time being, b

I was part of 4 different companies and with the advent of teleconferences in the late 80's, no one EVER traveled other than when specific technical assistance was required or the federal government or local government was involved.  No one else, not even our clients could afford to travel.  I would state that the vast majority of "business" class travel is mostly GOVERNMENT "business" travel.  So, from my perspective, will the ego driven power hungry government bureaucrats with bottomless tax $$$ theft, stop demanding face to face meetings???

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

1 minute ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

I would state that the vast majority of "business" class travel is mostly GOVERNMENT "business" travel.  So, from my perspective, will the ego driven power hungry government bureaucrats with bottomless tax $$$ theft, stop demanding face to face meetings???

That kind of government travel was heavily cracked down on in Canada many years ago, I imagine the same happened in the states.

Cisco WebEx won big then, Zoom did very well with covid.

[Meredith Poor + 895]

Based on the news (confirmed from various RE websites) that Portugal is installing new solar at 1.3 cents per Kwh....

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 5 hours per day * 365.25 days per year * 25 years = $0.60083625 per watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 60 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A 'standard' barrel of oil represents 5,800,000 BTUs of energy

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so a barrel of oil is equivalent to 1699811.8 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 5 * 365.25 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 45656.25 watt-hours.

1699811.8 / 45656.25 = 37.2306486 watts, so in theory 37.25 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates the BTU equivalent of a barrel of oil.

37.25 * .60 = $22.34. If one could convert the thermal potential of oil to electrical potential of solar, the barrel would be worth $22.34.

However, if burning oil to generate electricity is only 35% efficient, the barrel is only worth $7.82.

This is what oil is competing with today. Anyone want to guess what this will look like in 2030?

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

1 hour ago, Meredith Poor said:

Based on the news (confirmed from various RE websites) that Portugal is installing new solar at 1.3 cents per Kwh....

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 5 hours per day * 365.25 days per year * 25 years = $0.60083625 per watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 60 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A 'standard' barrel of oil represents 5,800,000 BTUs of energy

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so a barrel of oil is equivalent to 1699811.8 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 5 * 365.25 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 45656.25 watt-hours.

1699811.8 / 45656.25 = 37.2306486 watts, so in theory 37.25 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates the BTU equivalent of a barrel of oil.

37.25 * .60 = $22.34. If one could convert the thermal potential of oil to electrical potential of solar, the barrel would be worth $22.34.

However, if burning oil to generate electricity is only 35% efficient, the barrel is only worth $7.82.

This is what oil is competing with today. Anyone want to guess what this will look like in 2030?

First, virtually no one anywhere burns oil at utility scale to make electricity. They do burn natural gas in combined cycle plants so the efficiency is closer to 50% than 35%.

Now do your math for natural gas and see what happens. And remember, natural gas works all night, every night. And if you want to talk efficiency, keep things fair with solar and acknowledge that efficiency at high noon is nothing like efficiency at dusk or dawn. Then there's the well documented efficiency losses as the PV cells degrade and the glass crazes. But wait, there's more. Let's say you "store" the power in batteries. What is the efficiency loss there? Round trip mind you, not just the conversion losses from AC to DC and back, but the battery losses and their degradation? I see more maths in your future…

[NickW + 2,714]

24 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

First, virtually no one anywhere burns oil at utility scale to make electricity. They do burn natural gas in combined cycle plants so the efficiency is closer to 50% than 35%.

Now do your math for natural gas and see what happens. And remember, natural gas works all night, every night. And if you want to talk efficiency, keep things fair with solar and acknowledge that efficiency at high noon is nothing like efficiency at dusk or dawn. Then there's the well documented efficiency losses as the PV cells degrade and the glass crazes. But wait, there's more. Let's say you "store" the power in batteries. What is the efficiency loss there? Round trip mind you, not just the conversion losses from AC to DC and back, but the battery losses and their degradation? I see more maths in your future…

bear in mind in the Med many Islands still rely on diesel generators although they are rapidly installing wind and solar. Similar story across Africa and parts of Asia. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

1 hour ago, Ward Smith said:

First, virtually no one anywhere burns oil at utility scale to make electricity. They do burn natural gas in combined cycle plants so the efficiency is closer to 50% than 35%.

Now do your math for natural gas and see what happens. And remember, natural gas works all night, every night. And if you want to talk efficiency, keep things fair with solar and acknowledge that efficiency at high noon is nothing like efficiency at dusk or dawn. Then there's the well documented efficiency losses as the PV cells degrade and the glass crazes. But wait, there's more. Let's say you "store" the power in batteries. What is the efficiency loss there? Round trip mind you, not just the conversion losses from AC to DC and back, but the battery losses and their degradation? I see more maths in your future…

The new solar all comes with storage so your concerns are now moot. i'm sure it won't be easy for you guys but you will need to wrap your head around the concept that battery storage is now standard and it makes solar and wind reliable dispatchable generation. Your old arguments about intermittency are now incorrect and irrelevant.

The round trip efficiency is about 90% for a battery onsite behind the inverter. DC to DC

Edited September 2, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

9 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The new solar all comes with storage so your concerns are now moot. i'm sure it won't be easy for you guys but you will need to wrap your head around the concept that battery storage is now standard and it makes solar and wind reliable dispatchable generation. Your old arguments about intermittency are now incorrect and irrelevant.

I'm sure you'll address the efficiency issues any day now…

 

Waiting…

 

 

Still waiting…

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Just now, Ward Smith said:

I'm sure you'll address the efficiency issues any day now…

 

Waiting…

 

 

Still waiting…

well you haven't been waiting long because I already did, re read my previous post

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

Lithium-ion batteries have a 95% round trip direct current efficiency, falling to 85% when the current is converted to alternating current for the grid. They have a 10-20 year lifespan, depending on use.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/electricity-and-energy-storage.aspx

The AC conversion loss of 10% is the same as solar has when it is put directly to the grid.

Solar to Grid =  10% loss

Solar to Battery to Grid = 15% loss

Edited September 2, 2020 by Jay McKinsey

[Meredith Poor + 895]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Now do your math for natural gas

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 5 hours per day * 365.25 days per year * 25 years = $0.60083625 per watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 60 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so 1,000,000 BTUs is equivalent to 293071 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 5 * 365.25 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 45656.25 watt-hours.

293071 / 45656.25 = 6.419077344 watts, so in theory 6.4 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates 1,000,000 BTU equivalent of natural gas.

6.4 * .60 = $3.84. If one could convert the thermal potential of oil to electrical potential of solar, the 1,000,000 BTUs would be worth $3.84.

However, if burning gas to generate electricity is only 60% efficient, the 1,000,000 BTUs is only worth $2.30. When I check the current NG price, it's $2.50 per MMBTU. This is in the United States. Consumers in Asia aren't getting anything like $2.50 per MMBTU.

Happy?

[Meredith Poor + 895]

3 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

First, virtually no one anywhere burns oil at utility scale to make electricity.

Read up on the thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines. Since electric cars are common, it is possible to do a BTU or Watt-Hour comparison of gas-powered miles compared to electric-powered miles.

Furthermore, 'a barrel of oil' is not refined products. There is further energy loss in refining.

[NickW + 2,714]

13 minutes ago, Meredith Poor said:

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 5 hours per day * 365.25 days per year * 25 years = $0.60083625 per watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 60 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so 1,000,000 BTUs is equivalent to 293071 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 5 * 365.25 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 45656.25 watt-hours.

293071 / 45656.25 = 6.419077344 watts, so in theory 6.4 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates 1,000,000 BTU equivalent of natural gas.

6.4 * .60 = $3.84. If one could convert the thermal potential of oil to electrical potential of solar, the 1,000,000 BTUs would be worth $3.84.

However, if burning gas to generate electricity is only 60% efficient, the 1,000,000 BTUs is only worth $2.30. When I check the current NG price, it's $2.50 per MMBTU. This is in the United States. Consumers in Asia aren't getting anything like $2.50 per MMBTU.

Happy?

1 KW of solar - south facing in Southern Portugal will generate about 1600 kwh of electricity a year. East and West facing about 1300kwh a year

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

[Meredith Poor + 895]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

1 KW of solar - south facing in Southern Portugal will generate about 1600 kwh of electricity a year.

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 1600 watt-hours per year * 25 years = $0.5264 per watt. Note this formula (or assumption) lowers the installed cost per-watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 53 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so 1,000,000 BTUs is equivalent to 293071 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 1600 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 40,000 watt-hours.

293071 / 40000 = 7.3 watts, so in theory 7.3 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates 1,000,000 BTU equivalent of natural gas.

Note that the lowered output also lowers the estimated installed cost. The estimated cost-per-watt declines while the number of watts needed to generate 1,000,000 BTU increases.

7.3 * .53 = $3.869. If one could convert the thermal potential of natural gas to electrical potential of solar, the 1,000,000 BTUs would be worth $3.70.

However, if burning gas to generate electricity is only 60% efficient, the 1,000,000 BTUs is only worth $2.32. When I check the current NG price, it's $2.50 per MMBTU. This is in the United States. Consumers in Asia aren't getting anything like $2.50 per MMBTU.

Since no one has quoted the 'installed price' of the solar, I can only work from the assumption that hours of production x years of production * 1.3 cents yields an installed cost. Therefore, reductions in working hours reduces the cost per watt.

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

4 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 1600 watt-hours per year * 25 years = $0.5264 per watt. Note this formula (or assumption) lowers the installed cost per-watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 53 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so 1,000,000 BTUs is equivalent to 293071 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 1600 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 40,000 watt-hours.

293071 / 40000 = 7.3 watts, so in theory 7.3 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates 1,000,000 BTU equivalent of natural gas.

Note that the lowered output also lowers the estimated installed cost. The estimated cost-per-watt declines while the number of watts needed to generate 1,000,000 BTU increases.

7.3 * .53 = $3.869. If one could convert the thermal potential of natural gas to electrical potential of solar, the 1,000,000 BTUs would be worth $3.70.

However, if burning gas to generate electricity is only 60% efficient, the 1,000,000 BTUs is only worth $2.32. When I check the current NG price, it's $2.50 per MMBTU. This is in the United States. Consumers in Asia aren't getting anything like $2.50 per MMBTU.

Since no one has quoted the 'installed price' of the solar, I can only work from the assumption that hours of production x years of production * 1.3 cents yields an installed cost. Therefore, reductions in working hours reduces the cost per watt.

Your wall of text is largely misleading. Let's just skip all your parts and compare watts to watts. Not exactly sure what your text bolded above means but if by one watt of photovoltaic power you mean unit size let's just see what 365*5 equals. 182.5 watts I assume. 25 years is 4562.5 watts. Doesn't quite line up with Nick's numbers and we're all not lucky enough to live in southern Portugal. 

Not sure what Nick means by 1 kilowatt of solar. I'm guessing that's nameplate capacity?

I'm hoping he isn't saying 1kw of nameplate produces 1.6kw of power. 

If you're wondering why I didn't respond before, been a busy day. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Ward Smith said:

Your wall of text is largely misleading. Let's just skip all your parts and compare watts to watts. Not exactly sure what your text bolded above means but if by one watt of photovoltaic power you mean unit size let's just see what 365*5 equals. 182.5 watts I assume. 25 years is 4562.5 watts. Doesn't quite line up with Nick's numbers and we're all not lucky enough to live in southern Portugal. 

Not sure what Nick means by 1 kilowatt of solar. I'm guessing that's nameplate capacity?

I'm hoping he isn't saying 1kw of nameplate produces 1.6kw of power. 

If you're wondering why I didn't respond before, been a busy day. 

 

As previous stated:

1 KW of solar (nameplate capacity)- south facing in Southern Portugal will generate about 1600 kwh of electricity a year.

 

Calculation from the website which gives estimated month by month performance. The location I chose was near Beja. 

PVGIS-5_GridConnectedPV_38.006_-7.976_SA_crystSi_1kWp_14_35deg_0deg.pdf

Edited September 3, 2020 by NickW

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

7 hours ago, NickW said:

As previous stated:

1 KW of solar (nameplate capacity)- south facing in Southern Portugal will generate about 1600 kwh of electricity a year.

 

Calculation from the website which gives estimated month by month performance. The location I chose was near Beja. 

PVGIS-5_GridConnectedPV_38.006_-7.976_SA_crystSi_1kWp_14_35deg_0deg.pdf 353.77 kB · 2 downloads

Too tired by then, didn't see the k. 

I chose a site in Germany where there's incredible amounts of solar deployed thanks to generous subsidies. Didn't come out so good. 

[NickW + 2,714]

43 minutes ago, Ward Smith said:

Too tired by then, didn't see the k. 

I chose a site in Germany where there's incredible amounts of solar deployed thanks to generous subsidies. Didn't come out so good. 

For the same set up I where I live in the UK the Figure is 1030 Kwh. I don't know what the standard deviation for those figures are. That website gives calculations based on previous years as well. 

My panels on the east and west roof are outperforming that estimator by a considerable margin. Could be down to summer weather conditions which were good this year. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by NickW

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 9/2/2020 at 10:48 AM, Meredith Poor said:

Based on the news (confirmed from various RE websites) that Portugal is installing new solar at 1.3 cents per Kwh....

0.01316 per Kwh / 1000 watts = 0.00001316 per watt-hour.

0.00001316 * 5 hours per day * 365.25 days per year * 25 years = $0.60083625 per watt.

Essentially, the 1.3 cents per Kwh equals an installed cost of 60 cents per watt, assuming a 25 year lifespan.

A 'standard' barrel of oil represents 5,800,000 BTUs of energy

A BTU is equivalent to 0.293071 watt-hours, so a barrel of oil is equivalent to 1699811.8 watt-hours.

A watt of photovoltaic power would produce, at least in theory, 5 * 365.25 * 25 watts of output over 25 years, or 45656.25 watt-hours.

1699811.8 / 45656.25 = 37.2306486 watts, so in theory 37.25 watts of solar power operating 25 years generates the BTU equivalent of a barrel of oil.

37.25 * .60 = $22.34. If one could convert the thermal potential of oil to electrical potential of solar, the barrel would be worth $22.34.

However, if burning oil to generate electricity is only 35% efficient, the barrel is only worth $7.82.

This is what oil is competing with today. Anyone want to guess what this will look like in 2030?

Finally some math! Thank you!  Assuming its correct since were going to pluck numbers from any country ... Saudi Arabia gets its oil at 2$ a barrel so your sill 400% behind. Let's use nat gas TOU Canadas largest gas producer close to CNQ ... can produce at 2.50$/ mbtu of gas and smaller POU at 2.38$/ mbtu . Let's keep in mind the gas plant being installed in Canada is OVER 60% efficient.  Also doesnt need 5× coverage to produce a full day or 10 year life batteries at 30% of the cost of the solar. Plus these companies pay TAX AND ROYALTIES... yah the things needed to keep health care and all the socialism stuff in Canada.  So if your quoting the panels alone please post installed taxed costs with financing and royalties ect . Love the truth in numbers. ... did you apply the heat loss of transmission from panel to transformer to battery and out of battery? So if you can post a local article showing renewables at 400% cheaper I'm game. I dont really care that Chinese soup and noodles are 10c in China the local Chinese soup store is 10$ a bowl plus tip and tax. 

Edited September 3, 2020 by Rob Kramer