Renewables deprogramming

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 11/3/2020 at 8:04 PM, Boat said:

Mr. Mark the only answer to pollution, climate change and resource depletion is cutting population. You seem to think you can speak for non red necks but your mistaken. And I will forever fight this disinformation campaign. 
Of course no immigration would help, drastically reduced trade and the profoundly stupid military interventions in the Middle East.

That is happening naturally in the bulk of the high GDP (high resource consumption) economies, including China as it and Europe as well as SE Asia (except Phil and Indo) Their demographic decline is assured and their consumption decline starts as they cross the age of 45-50 depending on country, earlier in China. That was Japan 30 years ago, Europe 15 years ago, China Now, SE Asia 5 years ago. It is only a handful of countries with a growing consumption age population. India, Indonesia Philippines Nigeria Angola. India is a decade past "peak babies".

Consumption of resources is being artificially inflated by the transition to renewable energy in developed countries as the new infrastructure consumes resources well ahead of it producing anything. Had there not been renewable energy investment, the world's oil consumption would have peaked 5 years ago. NG would still have expanded since it is just plain cheaper to produce and there is plenty of it.

As we are, oil consumption peaked in 2019 and it will be falling steadily because of aging demographics and displacement by NG and to a much smaller extent, EVs.

Coal is being displaced rapidly by NG and slowly by Wind and Solar. The economics of renewables no longer require subsidies. The problem is the extreme cost of storage to take out surge capacity provided by leaving in place or adding CCGT generation. In Europe, it is low quality coal that is increasingly providing the fill in. Which is why Germany is way off track from hitting Paris accord reductions that would have been hit had it not pursued new energy policies but just continued on NG and nuclear and displaced coal, letting the market figure out how to supply Germany with Wind from Denmark Norway etc. and Solar from S. Europe and the Sahara.

The UN keeps worrying about a demographic explosion that has stopped in the developed world several decades ago and ended or is ending in the emerging economies where it has slowed down and only a handful of countries still have fertility rates greater than replacement. India, like the other big ones, doesn't have birthrate growth but a decline.

The bottom line is that demographically driven consumption growth is long gone. The peak of consumer draws on resources has passed in China recently, long ago in Europe and Japan, a decade ago in industrialized SE Asia, similarly in S. and central America. N. America still has some consumption growth ahead, but it is not on the scale of the decline elsewhere.

investment demand for resources is driven by China's pointless capital accumulation and large scale renewables in Europe etc. And for EV substitution. A new surge is going on in duplicate capital installation to shorten supply chains and regionalize them. That makes this the last surge of resource consumption I expect. The possibility of growth in India Pacific Islands and Africa requires overcoming enormous hurdles to development, as ROI is generally 0 or less for that capital/infrastructure. The countries are notorious for national and local government corruption that stands in the way of addressing the capital deficit problem.  Thus there is no reasonable expectation these countries will provide a large scale demand on resources beyond what exists today, though it will grow over time for another 20 years. That will not offset the decline in developed world consumption. 

 

 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 11/4/2020 at 12:29 AM, Meredith Poor said:

1. Provide one fact that you can research on your own: what the US consumes in energy (typically in quadrillion BTUs). For extra credit, divide by the number of hours of sunlight per year, and how much PV panel area would be required to capture that much energy. This is a fact based inquiry, and gets rid of all the invective.

Lets do USA stable grid solar only and USA uses about 100Quads but NG is 50% eff and Oil is ~33% eff, but enormous numbers of by products come from these so actual use drops going to electric by say 25% of those 60Quads of energy.  So, 85 quads.  Now since this is all electric and in the winter the sun only shines on a good day for roughly 5 hours even in sunny southern USA, lets round that to 6 so we can work in fractions/percentages... we have to add inefficiencies for battery storage or pumped hydro storage(even worse).  So, 75% of all energy used everyday must go through inverters(0.9), batteries(0.98), long range cables(0.97), big transformers(0.98) and then must be put back through inverters into your car/truck(0.9) for 30% of all power consumed etc which drops efficiency to around 84% of which 1/3 of that 84% has an actual efficiency of 75%

So, 85Quads = ~25T KWh 

Assume perfect new batteries/equipment for efficiencies

Of that 25T KWh

6.25T has an efficiency of 90% = 6.6T

12.5T has eff of 84% = 14.9T

6.25T has eff of 75% = 8.33T

Total = 29.8TKWh/year ~30TKWh/year(population is increasing and trucking efficiency used above was too high)

And assumes still use hydrocarbons for plastics, paints, medicene, fertilizer as its base, if we go through conversion, then the ~25% of total power requirements easily doubles power requirements if not a whole lot more, so above is best case. 

Power needing to be collected on average, no clouds(as if), rain(as if), dust(no dust in a desert!), aged panels(things stay perfect and do not degrade.. hahahaha)  in a 6 hour day

30TkWh/year div 365 days = 0.08T kWh daily 

Collect that power in a 1/4 of a day = 0.32T kWh 

Now add reality, clouds, rain, dust, aging panels before replacement and double that for a stable grid = 0.64T kWh   Of course it is greater than this as I am doing averages and not peak which varies by 30% over average(winter/summer verses spring/fall) so actual required for peak compared to average is roughly 0.32T kW to ~0.4T kW then add in clouds, dust, aging panels for stable grid during winter when solar is at a minimum and 0.8~1T kW of panels spread out over the USA and reality that giant storms cover most of the USA and last for days.... 

1T kW of panels requires area???   1 kW of panels = 5 m^2 at 20% and 3m^2 at 33%.

1T kW panels = 5T m^2 -->3T m^2

Now you need solar tracking in winter to get that 6 hours of sun/day in winter so panel to area required ratio is roughly 2:1

Total area = 10T m^2 --> 6T m^2 for a solar only, no population growth, still use petroleum/nat gas for industrial products

1 km^2 = 1 Million m^2

10T/1M = 10,000,000 square kilometers. 

USA total land area including water is ~9,800,000 km^2....

Hrmm...10,000,000/9,800,000 It would appear we have a problem, and your "square portion of NM" is hopelessly wildly an absurd joke if one actually has a stable grid.

Now Hydropower is 10%.  Biomass is another couple percent.  Nuclear is another 8% and going nowhere.  Wind power is far superior to Solar, but situational and will eat upwards of 30% or more of solar, so great, that solar panel area required drops by 50% and yippee, only 1/3 of the ENTIRE USA needs to be covered in solar panels....   Hrmm, roughly 1/3 of the USA is desert so...

 

 

Edited November 6, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Boat + 1,315]

9 hours ago, 0R0 said:

That is happening naturally in the bulk of the high GDP (high resource consumption) economies, including China as it and Europe as well as SE Asia (except Phil and Indo) Their demographic decline is assured and their consumption decline starts as they cross the age of 45-50 depending on country, earlier in China. That was Japan 30 years ago, Europe 15 years ago, China Now, SE Asia 5 years ago. It is only a handful of countries with a growing consumption age population. India, Indonesia Philippines Nigeria Angola. India is a decade past "peak babies".

Consumption of resources is being artificially inflated by the transition to renewable energy in developed countries as the new infrastructure consumes resources well ahead of it producing anything. Had there not been renewable energy investment, the world's oil consumption would have peaked 5 years ago. NG would still have expanded since it is just plain cheaper to produce and there is plenty of it.

As we are, oil consumption peaked in 2019 and it will be falling steadily because of aging demographics and displacement by NG and to a much smaller extent, EVs.

Coal is being displaced rapidly by NG and slowly by Wind and Solar. The economics of renewables no longer require subsidies. The problem is the extreme cost of storage to take out surge capacity provided by leaving in place or adding CCGT generation. In Europe, it is low quality coal that is increasingly providing the fill in. Which is why Germany is way off track from hitting Paris accord reductions that would have been hit had it not pursued new energy policies but just continued on NG and nuclear and displaced coal, letting the market figure out how to supply Germany with Wind from Denmark Norway etc. and Solar from S. Europe and the Sahara.

The UN keeps worrying about a demographic explosion that has stopped in the developed world several decades ago and ended or is ending in the emerging economies where it has slowed down and only a handful of countries still have fertility rates greater than replacement. India, like the other big ones, doesn't have birthrate growth but a decline.

The bottom line is that demographically driven consumption growth is long gone. The peak of consumer draws on resources has passed in China recently, long ago in Europe and Japan, a decade ago in industrialized SE Asia, similarly in S. and central America. N. America still has some consumption growth ahead, but it is not on the scale of the decline elsewhere.

investment demand for resources is driven by China's pointless capital accumulation and large scale renewables in Europe etc. And for EV substitution. A new surge is going on in duplicate capital installation to shorten supply chains and regionalize them. That makes this the last surge of resource consumption I expect. The possibility of growth in India Pacific Islands and Africa requires overcoming enormous hurdles to development, as ROI is generally 0 or less for that capital/infrastructure. The countries are notorious for national and local government corruption that stands in the way of addressing the capital deficit problem.  Thus there is no reasonable expectation these countries will provide a large scale demand on resources beyond what exists today, though it will grow over time for another 20 years. That will not offset the decline in developed world consumption. 

............The world accumulation of pollution is already passed sustainability in my opinion. The idea of less population might put a cap on the damages of resource consumption for the cheapest cost. The rest of the underveloped world will strive to consume the bells and whistles the developed world enjoys. In 30 years energy demand is expected to double. You can’t turbine, nuke or nat gas out of this demand without unsustainable pollution and resource depletion. 

 

[0R0 + 6,251]

2 hours ago, Boat said:

............The world accumulation of pollution is already passed sustainability in my opinion. The idea of less population might put a cap on the damages of resource consumption for the cheapest cost. The rest of the underveloped world will strive to consume the bells and whistles the developed world enjoys. In 30 years energy demand is expected to double. You can’t turbine, nuke or nat gas out of this demand without unsustainable pollution and resource depletion. 

You are missing the point - they have not developed past where they are because of the low or negative return on investment embedded into their geographical difficulties. Countries with a century's work needed to create  roads and rail to traverse an upward sloping trend up to the coast, or having mountains block river transport and make road transport expensive. What you are expecting requires a tremendous amount of expenditure that nobody can afford to apply, particularly with commercial need to produce a return on investment. China can attempt it as they don't measure returns on investment.

What you fear can't happen. With all the efforts put into lifting so many of these populous countries out of poverty, the problems have become clear and recognized as too expensive if not just impossible to do

[Rob Plant + 2,609]

10 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Hrmm...10,000,000/9,800,000 It would appear we have a problem, and your "square portion of NM" is hopelessly wildly an absurd joke if one actually has a stable grid.

@Meredith Poor + @footeab@yahoo.com

This doesnt take up any land mass at all

 

https://www.siemens-energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2020/seafloat-floating-power-plant.html

[Meredith Poor + 883]

11 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

10T/1M = 10,000,000 square kilometers

10,000,000 square kilometers x 1,000,000 square meters per square KM = 10,000,000,000,000 square meters. This divided by 130 million homes in the US = 76,923 square meters per home. Since most solar panels these days cover about 2 square meters, this is 38,462 panels per house. 38,462 panels x 400 watts x 5 hours per day of average production =  76,923,077 watt-hours per day, or roughly 77 megawatt-hours.

Most solar panel installations in houses cover about 60 square meters or 660 square feet, to produce 12Kw or 60Kwh per day. At 250 watt-hours per mile, an electric car would need another 10Kwh to make the average day's 40 mile drive. The math on making hydrocarbon fuel from CO2 and air is a bit more involved. Assuming 32 Kwh per gallon of gas and a car getting 30 miles per gallon, 40 miles needs 1.3 gallons of gas. Carbon capture and conversion to methane would require 3x the 32Kwh, so this would be roughly 100Kwh per day to produce 1.3 gallons of fuel. 20Kw of panels x 5 hours per day = 100Kwh. 20,000 / 200 watts per square meter is 100 square meters or 1100 square feet.

This is a 'reasonableness' test - it may not capture everything, but it suggests that your calculations go astray somewhere.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

4 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

10,000,000 square kilometers x 1,000,000 square meters per square KM = 10,000,000,000,000 square meters. This divided by 130 million homes in the US = 76,923 square meters per home. Since most solar panels these days cover about 2 square meters, this is 38,462 panels per house. 38,462 panels x 400 watts x 5 hours per day of average production =  76,923,077 watt-hours per day, or roughly 77 megawatt-hours.

This is a 'reasonableness' test - it may not capture everything, but it suggests that your calculations go astray somewhere.

Maybe this time you will actually, read and contemplate... I bolded the important parts, maybe you can read just the bolded statements if a simple paragraph is too long.

Actually, USA by electrical usage uses ~4T kWh per year, but by total energy USED, electrical production is only a tithe of the energy.  In fact, electrical production is only ~20% or so. 

Majority of natural gas used in the USA has nothing to do with electrical generation for instance.  In 2019 only 36% of NG was used in electrical production and in many instances NOT using NG requires many MULTIPLES of electrical use.  https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/use-of-natural-gas.php

This "extra" use of NG is an entire 2X multiple all by itself if not 4X or 8X depending on industrial process used to total Electrical usage in the USA.

Why your simplistic calc is off by many multiples. 

Steel, Aluminum, Cement, tar(asphalt etc), paints plastics, Diesel which is NOT going anywhere for heavy equipment, Kerosene for aviation, ships, trains, Natural gas which is used mostly for heating which is BIGGEST consumer of energy in the home which is NOT in your calculation. 

Transportation... The idiotic 250Wh/mile driven for cars... Majority of oil etc does not move tiny cars and you blatantly ignored inverter, battery, transportation of said energy inefficiences across country as those 6 hours of sun in winter are ONLY available down south and no one up north will get them(Majority of population lives there and majority of industry).  Here is another 2X-->4X or greater multiplier you are NOT taking into account.

You also ignored I multiplied by 2X for area for solar tracking panels to get my 6 hours in winter.... For tracking must be spaced apart... Multiplied by another 2X for clouds/dirt accumulation/panel degradation especially in winter.  Another reason your simplistic approach was off.  So, there is another 4x MULTIPLE.

I also added the SIMPLE fact, you must address PEAKS(winter/summer)  which is 30% higher in Winter/Summer than fall/spring, therefore averages DO NOT WORK.  You design to MAXIMUMS, not averages. 

But do remember I stated I wanted an actual grid that was stable and my calculation shows this.  Which you blatantly ignored. 

Likewise I added in all the inefficiencies of transporting that solar power which you also ignored.  1kW of solar collected does not equal 1kW used.  Generation /=/ Use

Edited November 6, 2020 by footeab@yahoo.com

[Meredith Poor + 883]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Maybe this time you will actually, read and contemplate... I bolded the important parts, maybe you can read just the bolded statements if a simple paragraph is too long.

You're using '4x' multipliers in situations where the actual coefficient might be more like 1.25. I've attached an ERCOT 'wind integration report' that shows that typical power consumption at peak in Texas is around 70Gw. This includes industrial, commercial, public sector, and residential. Wind power on some days can reach 50% of demand, although a long term average right now is closer to 20%. This isn't my guess as to what a homeowner does, it's what ERCOT says is being produced and consumed for a major part of the state. This market represents about 25 million people, or 1/13th of the entire US.

There is no way that the average household in the US is using 77Mwh per day, taking into account all the material usage, power line losses, fuel equivalents, and so forth. I'm not going to try to precisely address each concern, I'm simply interested in scale at this point. Try applying various reasonableness tests to see if you can figure out where your math is drifting off course.

rpt.00013105.0000000000000000.20201105.080521515.Wind Integration Report 11-04-20.pdf

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

1 minute ago, Meredith Poor said:

 I'm simply interested in scale at this point. Try applying various reasonableness tests to see if you can figure out where your math is drifting off course.

rpt.00013105.0000000000000000.20201105.080521515.Wind Integration Report 11-04-20.pdf 152.83 kB · 1 download

So, no, you cannot do simple basic math and REFUSE to do so to get the SCALE of the problem as you claim. 

Good to know

PS: If you HAD read what I initially wrote, you did not, I put wind power at least at 30% of total and said it was MUCH superior to solar. 

One day, I will see you do some basic math and account for a simple thing called clouds... or how energy is ACTUALLY used in the world instead of fantasy land. 

As mark says... "I'll leave it with you"

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

2 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

You're using '4x' multipliers in situations where the actual coefficient might be more like 1.25.

What part of "vast majority of power used" in the WORLD, is not current electrical usage do you NOT understand?  All of which you blatantly ignored. 

I stated specifically the efficiencies gained/lost for the electrical ONLY side of things of things of which the 1.25 factor is about right as I even wrote, and which you now agree to.  Bravo!  We agree, now finish the basic power equation... But, that is the easy side of things, the rest requires reality and you to actually do a calculation and put something on paper for an actual argument instead of pretending it does not exist.  Like the simple fact that for solar tracking requires 1.5X-->2X land area compared to solar area.

The MULTIPLES which apparently cause your eyes to glaze over had everything to do with heating, clouds/multiday storms, industrial processes, and grid stability which... you ignored.  All of which consume far more base power than the current electrical demand.  For instance heating of the home/water requires more power than everything else in the home and yet this is currently done primarily from NG... which you 100% ignore.  Bravo. 

And I even let you use Batteries for everything instead of pumped hydro storage of industrial processes for Hydrogen or Methane production which has far lower efficiencies for storing power, but which MUST be present if you have an electric only power generation future.  These processes also currently require MORE power than ALL of the electrical usage and yet you pretend they do not exist... Ok... right.  Sure dude.   

[Meredith Poor + 883]

32 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

For instance heating of the home/water requires more power than everything else in the home and yet this is currently done primarily from NG... which you 100% ignore.

Just out of curiosity, do you know how a Joule or Watt-Second is defined? If you were going to explain one of these units of measure to someone, what would you say?

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/2/2020 at 5:37 PM, markslawson said:

In an earlier thread on ridiculous green proposals I was shocked by people who insisted on defending those bizarre proposals, and who refused to be argued out of them. The supposition, by some individuals, seems to be that if its to do green energy it must be right. Here is a talk by a guy those people might listen to .. He is Michael Shellenberger, a Time Magazine 'Hero of the Environment' described as an eco-modernist and eco-pragmatist. He points to the huge and growing problems of using renewables, the immense damage they do to the environment and how they have  caused higher prices where ever they have been used. His solution that nuclear is the only way to go will, obviously, be deeply unpopular but that cannot be helped. If emissions are a concern nuclear is the only possible answer. 

If the link doesn't work cut and paste this into your browser.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&list=PLMlWXPe-tv3QNI0SJgDnxBlNS4C63dl9p&index=16&t=532s

 

I am against nuclear because of the waste and contamination caused in the entire process from building the plant to tearing it down and getting rid of all the nuclear waste. There is apparently no good answer acceptable to the public. They don't even want it in the Nevada desert. Nuclear is just not competitive with natural gas in the long run from the big picture. Old plants are now subsidized by rate payers. It also takes a decade to build one. There is a new move by Gates and Buffet etc. to build micro reactors. Another bad idea IMO. They have a lot of power though. Biden would probably bite if the deal smelled rich. 

Dangers of Nuclear Plants and Radioactive Waste

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Jp7yumkT6T1tEAdC4jb1K6LvO45rtoHwFbRcl08rrS4/edit

[ronwagn + 6,290]

I would like to see most of the wind turbines off coasts of the oceans and Great Lakes beyond the horizon. It is IMHO , a bad idea, to allow them in any scenic area. Solar should be used for flat roofs or in architectural shingles that are walkable and very long lasting. Preferably not blue for the shingles. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/3/2020 at 7:05 AM, Jan van Eck said:

Not necessarily.  As was pointed out, France is heavily invested in nuclear.  Nonetheless, they came up with this interesting solution to office-hours loads, in an office building in the south of France which houses offices for the national electricity utility:

These heliostats, facing southward, shield the offices from direct sun and thus reduce the air condition load on the building. It is small-scale reflecting solar, so you don't get the problems found at the Ivanpah collector in California.  The panels are stacked vertical, so not as if they take land away from the tortoises. And not shining up in the air, you are not blinding out the pilots either.  Seems like a rather elegant solution to me. 

Too ugly IMHO and probably way too expensive to actually save money. I would prefer solar windows that also shade the windows. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 11/3/2020 at 9:06 AM, Meredith Poor said:

I can't think of any good reason to pave over one square with solar panels 100 miles on a side, this would be widely distributed across the country. One of the fundamental values of solar is that it is infinitely scalable and both convenient and cost efficient at every scale.

Why not focus on all the flat roofs that are abundant around the world? That avoids a lot of waste building electrical lines and towers. Houses and subdivisions could also be built with flat roofs, especially in the Southwest. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

41 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

I am against nuclear because of the waste and contamination caused in the entire process from building the plant to tearing it down and getting rid of all the nuclear waste. There is apparently no good answer acceptable to the public. They don't even want it in the Nevada desert. Nuclear is just not competitive with natural gas in the long run from the big picture. Old plants are now subsidized by rate payers. It also takes a decade to build one. There is a new move by Gates and Buffet etc. to build micro reactors. Another bad idea IMO. They have a lot of power though. Biden would probably bite if the deal smelled rich. 

I won't disagree with what you say here. Certainly gas would be cheaper and more flexible. The point about nuclear is that there are no carbon emissions and complaints about the waste are overstated. Existing waste could be housed inside the equivalent of a football stadium. The real problem is, as you note, that the public are scare to death of anything nuclear and won't accept any assurance on it.. or allow any waste repository, even in a desert.    

[ronwagn + 6,290]

3 hours ago, markslawson said:

I won't disagree with what you say here. Certainly gas would be cheaper and more flexible. The point about nuclear is that there are no carbon emissions and complaints about the waste are overstated. Existing waste could be housed inside the equivalent of a football stadium. The real problem is, as you note, that the public are scare to death of anything nuclear and won't accept any assurance on it.. or allow any waste repository, even in a desert.    

Yes, thank you, but it is clear that the cost is prohibitive as has been proven by recent failed projects that took way to long to complete and went way over budget. I know this is mainly in America, Europe and Japan, but that is because of solid opposition and bureaucracy. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,131]

On 11/6/2020 at 5:53 PM, Meredith Poor said:

Just out of curiosity, do you know how a Joule or Watt-Second is defined? If you were going to explain one of these units of measure to someone, what would you say?

Just out of curiosity, can you do high school math?  Appears not.  Certainly have never demonstrated the ability. 

So, I understand you have confusion over the definition of power as you actually typed... Watt-second... instead of Watt Hour

[BradleyPNW + 282]

Shellenberger is going to have to put in some overtime because solar and wind prices are declining faster than nuclear. Natural gas is sufficient to firm renewables. No one is going to buy a reactor when they could buy a turbine for a lot less. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

38 minutes ago, BradleyPNW said:

Shellenberger is going to have to put in some overtime because solar and wind prices are declining faster than nuclear. Natural gas is sufficient to firm renewables. No one is going to buy a reactor when they could buy a turbine for a lot less. 

I fully agree that gas would be cheaper than nuclear and a whole let less trouble to get approved but let's  be clear - renewables will always be an expensive proposition, and that's irrespective of the cost of the equipment. This is the point being made by the environmentalist linked in the original post. A few posters have been caught up in arguments over nuclear energy, although there is no real question that if you want to ELIMINATE EMISSIONS than nuclear is basically the only way to go. Nuclear is more expensive however. The main point he was making is that despite declines in equipment prices renewables are causing power prices to go up not down. The problem is that they are, by and large, an addition to the main grid which has to be designed to cope when renewables aren't producing, and then cope when they are. Supposed solutions such as spreading out renewable generators and diversification have never been made to work in practice. If you know of any grid that has been able to make geographic spread and diversification work I'd be quite interested to know details.. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

On 11/8/2020 at 5:27 PM, ronwagn said:

Too ugly IMHO and probably way too expensive to actually save money. I would prefer solar windows that also shade the windows. 

That building is way cooler looking than a brick cube. I agree it is more a demonstration piece than a reasonable option.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Enthalpic

[Meredith Poor + 883]

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

I fully agree that gas would be cheaper than nuclear and a whole let less trouble to get approved but let's  be clear - renewables will always be an expensive proposition, and that's irrespective of the cost of the equipment. This is the point being made by the environmentalist linked in the original post. A few posters have been caught up in arguments over nuclear energy, although there is no real question that if you want to ELIMINATE EMISSIONS than nuclear is basically the only way to go. Nuclear is more expensive however. The main point he was making is that despite declines in equipment prices renewables are causing power prices to go up not down. The problem is that they are, by and large, an addition to the main grid which has to be designed to cope when renewables aren't producing, and then cope when they are. Supposed solutions such as spreading out renewable generators and diversification have never been made to work in practice. If you know of any grid that has been able to make geographic spread and diversification work I'd be quite interested to know details.. 

Solar panels at 15 cents per watt - FOB China. Not too useful in the US with tariffs, but viable perhaps in the Philippines, Cambodia, or Myanmar. If a household in the US has 2 people and each uses 1Mwh hour per month, then one person uses 33Kwh per day. 33Kwh / 5 hours per day = 6.6 Kw. At 15 cents per watt, this is $990 in panels. An average household of 2.5 persons needs $2500 in panels, 'plus all the other stuff'. Each time the price per watt shrinks one penny (from, say, 16 cents per watt to 15 cents per watt), RE power comes 'within reach' of a much bigger market.

[markslawson + 1,042]

21 hours ago, Meredith Poor said:

Solar panels at 15 cents per watt - FOB China. Not too useful in the US with tariffs, but viable perhaps in the Philippines, Cambodia, or Myanmar. If a household in the US has 2 people and each uses 1Mwh hour per month, then one person uses 33Kwh per day. 33Kwh / 5 hours per day = 6.6 Kw. At 15 cents per watt, this is $990 in panels. An average household of 2.5 persons needs $2500 in panels, 'plus all the other stuff'. Each time the price per watt shrinks one penny (from, say, 16 cents per watt to 15 cents per watt), RE power comes 'within reach' of a much bigger market.

Meredith - last time we exchanged posts you were verging on hysteria. At least now you've calmed down to the extent that you are prepared to argue the point, so I will note the various problems. First off your allowance for the battery and inverter seems small but in any case all such spending would mean little during a north American winter. Home electricity generation is not like gathering nuts for winter. You can't lay aside a store of watts for bad times. Your battery supply would have at the most, what, a few hours of storage, particularly during times of strong heat or cold. After that period this ideal household would need its own diesel generator or access to the main grid, and that grid would have to be set up to supply all the households at the same time using firm generation - in other words the grid has to be set up to operate as if all those cheap panels are not there and be able to power up in time to cover the shortfall. The PVs are cost add ons, as I said. If an individual household wants to do this and is prepared to pay for the connection to the grid, and pay a fair price, then fine. There's a lot more I could say about idiocy of buying surplus power from households - fortunately now being phased out - but you should get the idea. Leave it with you. 

[Meredith Poor + 883]

27 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Meredith - last time we exchanged posts you were verging on hysteria. At least now you've calmed down to the extent that you are prepared to argue the point, so I will note the various problems. First off your allowance for the battery and inverter seems small but in any case all such spending would mean little during a north American winter. Home electricity generation is not like gathering nuts for winter. You can't lay aside a store of watts for bad times. Your battery supply would have at the most, what, a few hours of storage, particularly during times of strong heat or cold. After that period this ideal household would need its own diesel generator or access to the main grid, and that grid would have to be set up to supply all the households at the same time using firm generation - in other words the grid has to be set up to operate as if all those cheap panels are not there and be able to power up in time to cover the shortfall. The PVs are cost add ons, as I said. If an individual household wants to do this and is prepared to pay for the connection to the grid, and pay a fair price, then fine. There's a lot more I could say about idiocy of buying surplus power from households - fortunately now being phased out - but you should get the idea. Leave it with you. 

I'm sure that Cambodians and Pinoys are freezing in the dark. The winter scenario is only meaningful at higher latitudes. The Afghans pumping water for their opium crops may not be too worried about winter. The point is that each time solar notches down a penny, it puts power 'within reach' of more users, without much regard to whether they are living a North American lifestyle. In some cases they need batteries, but not always. In situations where they do need batteries, sometimes 'overnight' is sufficient, sometimes they need more.

I don't see solar on 'every rooftop' as a good idea in the US. Most homeowners like trees. Most homeowners aren't electricians or electrical engineers. Solar can charge batteries, it can pump water, it can drive electro-chemistry (electrolysis), or run home appliances directly. Some of those applications can run intermittently.

[Meredith Poor + 883]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

Meredith - last time we exchanged posts you were verging on hysteria.

I would be interested in having you quote the passages that you describe as 'hysteria'.