Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

liveforphysics said:
Originally PV cells were millions of lab RnD to achieve even a single Watt. Now it's <$0.50/Watt, and will continue to fall at exactly the rate people figure out how to use materials and energy at atom perfect levels to create self-scaleing nano-manucturing. Then energy storage is cake and dirt cheap with energy density exceeding gasoline, and solar is cake and dirt cheap because it only uses fractions of a gram of material per square meter and has 70-80% efficiency over a wide range of available light angles (its also going to look black to human vision, yet stays cool when sitting in the sun, because that energy went out the wires.)
Click to expand...
While I am all for research into novel manufacturing processes, I think prices for conventional c-Si will continue to fall as:

-Efficiencies improve. The theoretical maximum efficiency of single crystal solar is around 33%, and we will continue to approach that. This will not improve cost per cell, but will improve cost per watt.

-Manufacturing processes require less silicon. Silicon is fairly energy intensive to produce. Continued reduction in the amount of silicon needed per cell will reduce cost per cell.

-BOS costs (panel glass, panel framing, encapsulant) get reduced via very pedestrian means - cheaper (or no) framing materials, better/cheaper glass, improved interconnects.

These are what brought us from the $10/watt I saw when I first looked into solar to the sub $1/watt we see today. They have some runway left, and I would not be surprised to see sub 25 cent per watt solar with nothing more than the above improvements in existing manufacturing processes.
 
billvon said:
While I am all for research into novel manufacturing processes, I think prices for conventional c-Si will continue to fall as:

-Efficiencies improve. The theoretical maximum efficiency of single crystal solar is around 33%, and we will continue to approach that. This will not improve cost per cell, but will improve cost per watt.

-Manufacturing processes require less silicon. Silicon is fairly energy intensive to produce. Continued reduction in the amount of silicon needed per cell will reduce cost per cell.

-BOS costs (panel glass, panel framing, encapsulant) get reduced via very pedestrian means - cheaper (or no) framing materials, better/cheaper glass, improved interconnects.
Click to expand...

I see the most potential in improving the lifetime of solar modules. 40 years should be possible and should give twice the EROEI vs 20 years.

Power from solar power plants now costs around 0.02USct/kWh to 0.06USct/kWh, this is already cheap enough.

Silicium can be recycled and uses much less energy. Aluminum (frames) can be recycled and uses much less energy, too.

Silver can be substituted with copper. Imho copper would be the most limiting factor for a world powered by dozends of TW solar PV.

Before solar in space beamed down by microwaves I can easier imagine large solar power plants placed around the equator connected by high voltage DC transmission lines. The sun only shines half of a day, but it always shines in half of the world.
 
Solar roofs and batteries on site will make less copper and aluminum demand than any distributed grid system could offer.

Using silver would only enable a few percent thinner panels in exchange for a bunch of added cost.

Using aluminum over Silver or copper would let panels be lighter for a given amount of current collection capacity, and reduce costs rather than adding to it.

Just a few decades ago we had experts telling us how the internet is impossible because the earth wouldn't have enough copper to make the infrastructure even if we mined it all. Today's data is dominantly fiber backbone with wireless to end use connection.

Today a lot of folks love to talk about the grid and how important it is, yet each house that gets another solar roof and a battery swings the grids important toward just some industrial processes that make sense to locate near site of power harvesting (hydro, solar, wind, geothermal etc).

In another decade of solar roof and home battery installs, a central power grid will seem as silly and unimportant to talk about as having a pony-express or hard wired telephone to a modem for dial-up internet.
 
Cephalotus said:
Power from solar power plants now costs around 0.02USct/kWh to 0.06USct/kWh,
Click to expand...
In addition to your cost units being out by a factor of 100, .....you are relying too much on media reported "bid" prices, rather than actual real costs from actual operating plants that have to recover capital as well as operating costs etc.
We have been over the cost side of this many times, future guessing prices etc etc, but at no piont do you allow for any normal "market" factors...supply vs demand, etc which will enevitably come into play (already did ).
 
Hillhater- Where are you figuring cost for the millions of poisoned, cancered, mutagen afflicted, humans in energy suggestions which including burning things?

How about the collapse of the life support system. Auto-extinction doesn't have a $/Wh cost directly linked to it, but it's importance makes all combined human efforts and resources seem pretty insignificant to even mention.


Hillhater said:
Cephalotus said:
Power from solar power plants now costs around 0.02USct/kWh to 0.06USct/kWh,
Click to expand...
In addition to your cost units being out by a factor of 100, .....you are relying too much on media reported "bid" prices, rather than actual real costs from actual operating plants that have to recover capital as well as operating costs etc.
We have been over the cost side of this many times, future guessing prices etc etc, but at no piont do you allow for any normal "market" factors...supply vs demand, etc which will enevitably come into play (already did ).
Click to expand...
 
I did not mention burning anything .?
I am comfortable with solar power, but i just urge you all to be realistic with its true cost, and the additional costs needed to make it available 24/7 as a practical replacement for current generation systems.
Large amounts of storage, grid stabilisation, and lomg range HVDC interconnects do not come cheap and all impact on the final retail power costs.
Believe it or not, high energy cost and consequent lack of affordable power , also is a cause of many deaths.
 
More GWh "battery" plans for Australia..
....
Energy storage company 1414 Degrees has opened a new factory and will begin building its first commercial system next month before listing on the Australian Stock Exchange in early 2018.

The South Australian company has spent almost a decade developing its Thermal Energy Storage System (TESS) technology to store electricity as thermal energy by heating and melting containers full of silicon at a cost estimated to be up to 10 times cheaper than lithium batteries.

1414 Degrees has moved into a 3000sq m factory on the site of the former Mitsubishi engine plant in the southern Adelaide suburb of Lonsdale where it will build its first 10MWh TESS-IND system and the first 13.3MWh test cell for a 200MWh TESS-GRID system.
.....The company is also planning to initially build two grid scale 1GWh systems in South Australia, which would be comprised of five 200MWh units and potentially play a significant role in stabilising the state’s renewable energy-dependent electricity network.
.
Click to expand...
https://reneweconomy.com.au/1414-plans-two-gigawatt-hour-silicon-storage-plants-s-75504/
http://1414degrees.com.au/#What
But of course, it will depend on recieving Govmt grant funding in order to be built ! :roll:
 
Hillhater said:
More GWh "battery" plans for Australia..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/1414-plans-two-gigawatt-hour-silicon-storage-plants-s-75504/
http://1414degrees.com.au/#What
But of course, it will depend on recieving Govmt grant funding in order to be built ! :roll:
Click to expand...

Very highly flawed system for electrical storage for which it will be 40% efficient at best if the local site has no use for the other 60% as heat.
 
Yes, its another "data lite" proposal, with several claims but little hard data.
10% of the cost of Lithium batteries, but no actual cost estimates ?
Very little detail as to how the storage/recovery works other than vague hints of Stirling Engines etc, with suggestions that the "Grid" system was different to the "commercial" systems which need a use for the surplus heat to be efficient.
So, not holding my breath, these guys have been kicking around for a few years trying to raise funding, with no hardware to show so far !
 
Why do you bother with the tree huggers. Wind and solar are a joke in the scheme of things. All you huggers won't listen to reason anyway. So, keep charging your battery with fossil fuels. Oh yeah, Trump is going to drill, drill, drill. You haven't seen anything yet!

We have more nat gas then ever before, so, if you think we are not going to use it, you should stop drinking the tree hugger flavored kool-aide.

Drill, baby, drill!
 
sendler2112 said:
Hillhater said:
More GWh "battery" plans for Australia..
https://reneweconomy.com.au/1414-plans-two-gigawatt-hour-silicon-storage-plants-s-75504/
http://1414degrees.com.au/#What
But of course, it will depend on recieving Govmt grant funding in order to be built ! :roll:
Click to expand...

Very highly flawed system for electrical storage for which it will be 40% efficient at best if the local site has no use for the other 60% as heat.
Click to expand...

It's not "flawed". If no other easy option (hydro-power displacement etc) is available then thermal storage of electricity which would be curtailed is a good candidate. Yes better if the reject heat can be reused, but its all about the cost. If supplied electricity has marginal value of zero, then effeciency does not matter. Only capital investment and lifetime cost per kWh.

Henrik Stiesdal (Former pioneer in Denmark, then CTO of Siemens Windpower, now retired) and other university is suggesting storing in inexpensive materials such at rocks at 800C (ie. not using phase-shift, https://ing.dk/blog/energilagring-det-er-bare-varm-luft-181063)
Google's energy-storage research uses similar approach (http://www.w2agz.com/Library/Storage/rbl-storage-05feb16 (2).pdf)

1414 main advantage is high energy density, and good carnot effeciency due to temperatures. However Silicium is a bitch (I know, I worked 6 years with Silicium floating Zone melting for highpower electrinics rawmaterials). It acts as water and expands when solidifying (one of the few materials) - in molten state contact with inox creates eutectic material with lowered meltingpoint so it just eats through everyting if it spills. So I remain sceptical but invite their solution if its viable.

Hanssing
 
Personally , i cannot envisage any generated electricity as having a marginal value of zero....especially in the quantity required to support a storage facility of the scale suggested (GWh +).
I expect any major storage facility ( 1414, Lithium, hot rocks, flow cell, pumped hydro, etc) , will be designed to operate in conjunction with RE installations (most likely solar) in order to provide supply continuity.
So, with that in mind, system efficiency will be important in order to minimise power costs.
 
Hillhater said:
So, with that in mind, system efficiency will be important in order to minimise power costs.
Click to expand...
The oportunities for $0 cost will be far fewer than demands. 70% efficiency of pumped salt water hydro has already proven to be too low in a free market. 33% from intermittent electric over supply conversion to heat, and back to electric, is way too low to be cost effective. Even with a mandated support from the intermittent farm. But it may end up being better than nothing. It does work really well with 600C nuclear though since heat, molten salt, and steam are already part of the system.
 
sendler2112 said:
Hillhater said:
So, with that in mind, system efficiency will be important in order to minimise power costs.
Click to expand...
The oportunities for $0 cost will be far fewer than demand states. 70% efficiency of pumped salt water hydro has already proven to be too low in a free market. 33% from intermittent electric over supply conversion to heat, and back to electric, is way too low to be cost effective. Even with a mandated support from the intermittent farm. But it may end up being better than nothing. It does work really well with 600C nuclear though since heat, molten salt, and steam are already part of the system.
Click to expand...
 
sendler2112 said:
The oportunities for $0 cost will be far fewer than demands. 70% efficiency of pumped salt water hydro has already proven to be too low in a free market. 33% from intermittent electric over supply conversion to heat, and back to electric, is way too low to be cost effective.
Click to expand...
Everything is too low in a "free" market :shock:
Teh reason is that hte true value and cost of burning fossil fuel is never imposed.
Which value to put on a barrel of oil, when we potientially could "run out" of the stuff? in 50 in 500years - its still a problem!
Which value to put on the toxic exhaust, and non Toxic GHG incl. CO2 being discharged in the atmosphere.
Aaaand then we're back at the beginng again :oops:

When there is surplus of RE the prices becomes low, in DK and GER they actually become negative. So a storage system could plausibly be based upon very low incomming energy-cost, and ancillary services to grid. But competing head-to-head with fossils - thats not going to happen when fossils are in some regards indirectly subsidized because their true cost is not imposed where its digged up...
 
Hillhater said:
Personally , i cannot envisage any generated electricity as having a marginal value of zero....especially in the quantity required to support a storage facility of the scale suggested (GWh +).
Click to expand...
Economic theory and such would indicate that storage cost is viability is a function of price *variation*.
The lower cost, the less variation is needed to make the solutions economically viable.

So, with that in mind, system efficiency will be important in order to minimise power costs.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, its important. But its not that important. If you had exceptionally cheap storage, you could in theory make pure arbitrage buisness in DK, with 1% effeciency, given negative spot prices, incl. grid-cost thats still not viable.
 
Hanssing said:
The reason is that the true value and cost of burning fossil fuel is never imposed.
Click to expand...

I am in favor of phasing in a world wide carbon tax, right when it leaves the ground. Which could put a true value on it. But how can we do it?
 
sendler2112 said:
Very highly flawed system for electrical storage for which it will be 40% efficient at best if the local site has no use for the other 60% as heat.
Click to expand...
We seem to do OK with gasoline powered cars, which have a 38% at best efficiency. They might be "very highly flawed" (and for sure EV's fix that flaw) but they have seemed to perform adequately for most of the populace.
 
billvon said:
sendler2112 said:
Very highly flawed system for electrical storage for which it will be 40% efficient at best if the local site has no use for the other 60% as heat.
Click to expand...
We seem to do OK with gasoline powered cars, which have a 38% at best efficiency. They might be "very highly flawed" (and for sure EV's fix that flaw) but they have seemed to perform adequately for most of the populace.
Click to expand...

Owing to the immense energy density of fossil fuel which is currently being sold at little more than the cost of extraction since it was "stored" for free over the span of 300 Million years. Perfectly good pumped hydro plants are being dismantled since they couldn't make money at 70%. A big mistake in the light of the transition to intermittents which desperately need storage.

A 33% efficient heat storage project with no way to make heat other than buying electricity is a bad investment. We don't have a lot of time and resources left for do-overs of obviously ineffective solutions. I am also questioning the choice of a 1414C operating temp. 600C is more practical.
 
sendler2112 said:
I am in favor of phasing in a world wide carbon tax, right when it leaves the ground. Which could put a true value on it. But how can we do it?
Click to expand...

Global carbon pricing is coming. Dunno when, or it what form, maybe through the Paris climate accord and it'll be small to start with.

The EU started something in 2005 with quotas for CO2 emissions that can be traded. It hasn't been a huge success, but it sets a precedent for carbon pricing.
 
sendler2112 said:
Hydropower rocks. They get 78%. We need to develop all possible hydropower assets worldwide regardless of any other eco concerns.
Click to expand...
agreed ! but as previously mentioned , i fear it wont get too much further in developed countries.
All the "easy" sites have been developed, and there are large Eco/political groups who actively resist dam construction on the most trivial of reasons.
Australia's third largest political party, ( and consequently often the deciding vote in a marginal parliament system ) ....is the "Green" party which was formed 40 years ago from an Eco resistance group set up to resist the construction of a hydro dam in Tasmania . They lobby hard against any infrastructure projects that have even small environmental impacts, and Dams are top of their list.
Hydro can and should be considered in undeveloped countries with suitable resources, but in the western world, it seems to be on par with Open Cut coal mining , Gas Fracking, Deforestation , etc on the watch list of Eco action groups.
 
Hillhater said:
They lobby hard against any infrastructure projects that have even small environmental impacts, and Dams are top of their list.
Hydro can and should be considered in undeveloped countries with suitable resources, but in the western world, it seems to be on par with Open Cut coal mining , Gas Fracking, Deforestation , etc on the watch list of Eco action groups.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, educated and pragmatic decision making must become the norm. The explosive free ride of fossil energy ascention is nearly over. And it takes decades and liquid fuel to build big things like dams. Which are obviously the most effective choice for carbon free, instant demand, electricity to fill in for the intermittents.
.
Those protesters need to unplug their house, farm and weave their own clothing and food with no machines, or else they are hipocrites.
 
As with some of the "issues" we are concerned about over the reckless switch to RE sources, ..its going to take a "Reality check" for these people to understand it is not an ideal world. !
Even then, there will still be those who regard it as a religion, and refuse to accept any compromise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
HYGROpower ?
Replies
1
Views
368
Chalo
Chalo
H
Full cost comparason between Wind , solar, coal, gas, Nuclear
Replies
0
Views
323
Hillhater
H
J
Some thoughts on the future of automotive EVs
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
156
Views
7,263
jonescg
jonescg
RustyKipper
    • Like
Ammo box battery with solar charging
Replies
4
Views
719
99t4
9
E
GMAC vs Grin All Axle vs Dual Drive Catrike
2
Replies
28
Views
1,199
edben05
E
Back
Top