Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8333
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 08, 2017 6:09 pm

Denmark and Germany also have significantly higher power prices than other countries.
They also depend on their international grid links for stability and security.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8333
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 08, 2017 6:29 pm

billvon wrote:. But the bottom line is that renewables are increasing their share of generation, and this will continue because they are cheap (which utilities like) and clean (which people like.) There will be problems, of course. Since renewables are intermittent and non-dispatchable, you can't use them like you use a combined cycle gas plant; they take more work to use them effectively. But because they are so cheap, it's cost-effective to do the work to get the cheaper power. .
Bill, i assume you know how business works ?... They invest money to produce a product which they sell for a profit.
Companies/Utilities are not investing in RE because its cheaper, but because its more profitable...on a MWh basis.
That is not due to lower generating cost, (we have had that debate prior) , but because of the rebates, subsidies, and tax advantages, available in most countries.
And RE power is certainly not cheaper for consumers.
Follow the money ..!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 08, 2017 7:46 pm

Hillhater wrote:Bill, i assume you know how business works ?... They invest money to produce a product which they sell for a profit.
Correct. Which is why so many utilities are investing in renewable energy.
Companies/Utilities are not investing in RE because its cheaper, but because its more profitable...on a MWh basis.
Given that megawatts are fungible in a given grid, more profitable = cheaper. (Since you don't pay based on the power source.) And per several recent studies, solar-PV is indeed cheaper than most fossil fuel sources.
That is not due to lower generating cost, (we have had that debate prior) , but because of the rebates, subsidies, and tax advantages, available in most countries.
Then how do you explain the record-low prices for solar in areas that have no subsidies?
And RE power is certainly not cheaper for consumers.
It was for me.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 08, 2017 8:04 pm

This interesting neutral article explores plus and minuses of high percentages of intermittents in the grid and what it takes to get them adopted. The full book is available on paper.
.
http://ourrenewablefuture.org/chapter-3/
.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 08, 2017 8:18 pm

billvon wrote:Given that megawatts are fungible in a given grid, more profitable = cheaper. (Since you don't pay based on the power source.) And per several recent studies, solar-PV is indeed cheaper than most fossil fuel sources.
But the counterpoint is that the near 100% capacity dispatchable electrical production facilities that are absolutely required at this point to back up the intermittents since there is almost no storage are left idling or waiting just in case. So you have to pay for the feed in taffifs which support the build out of renewables. And pay for the inefficient existence of the thermal plants. There is an increased price to pay somewhere, by somebody, during the transition.
.
Rooftop system owners just force people without south facing roofs to pay their share.

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Nov 08, 2017 8:52 pm

https://www.abqjournal.com/1088785/mass ... staff.html
The company says the project could save customers of Xcel subsidiary Southwest Public Service Co., which serves about 385,000 people in New Mexico and West Texas, about $2.8 billion in electric costs over 30 years by offsetting higher fuel costs from natural gas and other sources.
Excellent article on wind power being cheaper than natural gas in NM. Not an expert on the maths, but it seems there are some energy cost savings involved and the claim is that wind energy is cheaper than abundant natural gas from the Permian Basin (the soon to be bigger than Saudia Arabian Ghawar oil field)

I am an economist, but this seems interesting, please chime in.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Nov 08, 2017 9:10 pm

Some interesting reads.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Gene ... Field.html

https://www.bizjournals.com/albuquerque ... rgest.html

Living the energy dream in New Mexico?
By the way Eastern NM stinks.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8333
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 08, 2017 11:33 pm

billvon wrote: Then how do you explain the record-low prices for solar in areas that have no subsidies...
Such as which "areas"?......Utility scale remember.
Name a country where Wind/solar has reduced the price to consumers
And RE power is certainly not cheaper for consumers.
It was for me.[/quote]
Really, ? being fully honest with all costs, including cost of finance, installation , 24hr supply, etc.....not a DIY set up.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8333
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 08, 2017 11:42 pm

wineboyrider wrote: Excellent article on wind power being cheaper than natural gas in NM. Not an expert on the maths, but it seems there are some energy cost savings involved and the claim is that wind energy is cheaper than abundant natural gas from the Permian Basin (the soon to be bigger than Saudia Arabian Ghawar oil field)

I am an economist, but this seems interesting, please chime in.
What do they plan for when the wind doesnt blow and no power is generated,..or maybe only 5% of demand ?
Maybe the same as Germany and install 100% thermal backup ?
...or a few 100 GWh of battery ?
But That may affect their overall costs a little. ,! :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Ianhill
100 kW
100 kW
Posts: 1117
Joined: Sep 25, 2015 5:55 pm
Location: Wales UK

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Nov 09, 2017 1:22 am

https://amp.theguardian.com/news/2017/n ... -taxpayers

Let's be honest were being screwed from the top down that's why we see such a mess around us corruption all over.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14455
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by liveforphysics » Nov 09, 2017 1:28 am

Hillhater wrote:
billvon wrote: Then how do you explain the record-low prices for solar in areas that have no subsidies...
Such as which "areas"?......Utility scale remember.
Name a country where Wind/solar has reduced the price to consumers
"Costs of Cancer

Newly approved cancer drugs cost an average of $10,000 per month, with some therapies topping $30,000 per month, according to ASCO, which discussed the costs of cancer care at a recent meeting. Just a decade ago, the average cost per month of new drugs was about $4,500. Patients typically pay 20 to 30 percent out of pocket for drugs, so an average year's worth of new drugs would cost $24,000 to $36,000 in addition to health insurance premiums."
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

Hanssing
10 mW
10 mW
Posts: 29
Joined: Aug 06, 2016 6:57 am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hanssing » Nov 09, 2017 2:04 am

Hillhater wrote:Denmark and Germany also have significantly higher power prices than other countries.
They also depend on their international grid links for stability and security.
For DK: No!
Grid-prices are low!
Look at the graph on page 3, you fact resistant old man :roll:

We have highest home-prices, low buissness end-prices (as the dont pay the electric taxes, and only pay PSO), and very low and stable distribution-cost (In DK). FTFA:
The transmission and distribution of
electricity in Denmark costs only approx. 30
øre per kWh, thus offering households and
businesses some of the cheapest tariffs in
Europe. This is evident from the tariff level
comparisons which Eurostat publishes each
year in “Energy Price Statistics”. These cal-
culations show that the Danish grid is well
managed and efficient, which is beneficial
for families and the competitiveness of
Danish companies
You saying otherwise does not make it true - and thank god you dont make policy or we would live in the stone-age.
I get that you are worried about SA cost and grid - but the grid here is not a problem, with 56% RE energy average DK, and often way above 100%

User avatar
wineboyrider
100 MW
100 MW
Posts: 2924
Joined: Sep 30, 2009 9:08 am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Nov 09, 2017 8:40 am

Hillhater wrote:
wineboyrider wrote: Excellent article on wind power being cheaper than natural gas in NM. Not an expert on the maths, but it seems there are some energy cost savings involved and the claim is that wind energy is cheaper than abundant natural gas from the Permian Basin (the soon to be bigger than Saudia Arabian Ghawar oil field)

I am an economist, but this seems interesting, please chime in.
What do they plan for when the wind doesnt blow and no power is generated,..or maybe only 5% of demand ?
Maybe the same as Germany and install 100% thermal backup ?
...or a few 100 GWh of battery ?
But That may affect their overall costs a little. ,! :roll:
Great question Hillhater. Excel energy actually specializes in natural gas power plants and natural gas peaker plants. The company claims that wind is cheaper to produce electricity than abundant natural gas from the massive Permian Basin.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 9:55 am

wineboyrider wrote: The company claims that wind is cheaper to produce electricity than abundant natural gas from the massive Permian Basin.
I did find out yesterday though that there is still a 30% federal rebate right off the front of new solar and wind installations in the USA AND an additional $0.023/ kWh feed in credit rebate for production.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 09, 2017 9:59 am

sendler2112 wrote:But the counterpoint is that the near 100% capacity dispatchable electrical production facilities that are absolutely required at this point to back up the intermittents since there is almost no storage are left idling or waiting just in case.
Important part bolded. That is not 100% true now, although it is 90% true. Over time that number will decrease. Both dispatchable load and storage will increase; both reduce the need for dispatchable generation.
And pay for the inefficient existence of the thermal plants.
Why? Why wouldn't you simply keep the generation you have now, and retire them only as more storage/dispatchable load comes on line?
There is an increased price to pay somewhere, by somebody, during the transition.
And increased savings. As in every transition, there will be 'winners' and 'losers.'

In the 1900's in New York City, taking care of horses (stables/feed/veterinarians/blacksmiths/cart repair/dead horse disposal/manure management) was the #3 industry in the city. That industry effectively does not exist any more. We survived.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 10:19 am

billvon wrote:In the 1900's in New York City, taking care of horses (stables/feed/veterinarians/blacksmiths/cart repair/dead horse disposal/manure management) was the #3 industry in the city. That industry effectively does not exist any more. We survived.
Replaced by incredibly dense, portable, and versatile fossil fuels that were initially harvested at ER/EI of 100:1. Renewables will not have such an easy time replacing our fossil fuel dependence. But at least they can eventually help stretch it a bit until we can make some equally drastic socio-economic changes.
.
one barrel of oil has an energy content equivalent to 10 years of human hard labor or 1 horse year.
.
It currently takes trans-oceanic transport back and forth to 4 different countries to end up at home with a pair of Levis jeans which by that point have a CO2 footprint of 6 tons.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 09, 2017 10:20 am

Hillhater wrote: Such as which "areas"?......Utility scale remember.
India - 5.4 cents/kwhr (2016)
Mexico - 3.6 cents/kwhr (2016)
Dubai - 2.99 cents/kwhr
Chile - 2.91 cents/kwhr
Saudi Arabia - 1.79 cents/kwhr
Name a country where Wind/solar has reduced the price to consumers
It will likely never reduce costs in dollars, since inflation will keep pushing prices higher. But it will slow the increase in cost.

Here in the US, power prices are going up everywhere, primarily due to inflation. However, in the 20 states with the most investment in renewable energy, power prices went up 4.3 percent since 2012. In the 20 states with the least investment in renewable energy, it went up 4.6 percent.

In Texas, there was a massive buildout of infrastructure to support wind (and Texas is now the #1 wind generator in the US.) And prices went down.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/art ... rices.html
Really, ? being fully honest with all costs, including cost of finance, installation , 24hr supply, etc.....not a DIY set up.
Really. My second system was contractor built but I supplied most of the labor, and it paid itself back in 6 years. The next system I bought as part of a new house (zero cost up front) and only added the storage system for about $6K. The system as a whole is saving us at least $2K a year. To install it new, today, would cost about $27K, for a ~15 year payback.
--bill von

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 09, 2017 10:23 am

sendler2112 wrote:Replaced by incredibly dense, portable, and versatile fossil fuels that were initially harvested at ER/EI of 100:1. Renewables will not have such an easy time replacing our fossil fuel dependence.
Yep. And fossil fuels are now being replaced by an incredibly abundant and free energy resource.

It took decades for cars to replace horses, and it will take at least that long to replace even a majority of our fossil fuel electrical generation.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 10:39 am

I could waste time to dig into it more but it is interesting to note that California has by far the most solar electricity capacity in the USA but also is one of the most expensive rates at homes.
.
California led the way with developing renewable energy in the 1980’s, with the deregulation of the power sector in the 1990’s and 2000’s, and now with high-volume renewable mandates since 2010. We are learning a lot about how to physically manage and finance a cleaner energy system. We also need be realistic about the costs of such policies. When you combine the cost of policies of the past with the aggressive goals for the future, you get retail electricity prices that, yes, continue to be pretty darn high.
.
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2017 ... -are-high/
.
and
.
You keep quoting numbers but never supply any links to your references.
[quote="billvon"]
India - 5.4 cents/kwhr (2016)
Mexico - 3.6 cents/kwhr (2016)
Dubai - 2.99 cents/kwhr
Chile - 2.91 cents/kwhr
Saudi Arabia - 1.79 cents/kwhr
[quote]

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 09, 2017 11:15 am

sendler2112 wrote:I could waste time to dig into it more but it is interesting to note that California has by far the most solar electricity capacity in the USA but also is one of the most expensive rates at homes.
Yep. Some reasons for that -

CA has somewhat unrealistic renewable-energy goals. To meet them they _have_ to generate solar power. So during the day when solar being generated exceeds the state's needs, rather than throttling back solar production (which would make sense) they pay Arizona to take the power. That way they can claim a few more percentage points of solar generation - but at a cost. Needless to say, a more realistic set of goals would reduce costs there. (Of course, Arizona loves it; they are the winner to California's loser.)

For some reason CA is building out far more natural gas plants than they need. They are on track to have 20% more capacity than they need by 2020 - and only now are regulators starting to put the brakes on the buildout. The very low prices for natural gas have created an "irrational exuberance" for natural gas plants, and they are building (and paying for) a lot of unneeded capacity as a result.
We are learning a lot about how to physically manage and finance a cleaner energy system.
Very true. We are learning rapidly how to deal with cheap but unreliable solar power.
You keep quoting numbers but never supply any links to your references.
Why not use Google to do your own research, as I did? That will also give you a more balanced view of what's out there.

For your convenience here are some links:

Saudi Arabia / Chile: https://electrek.co/2017/11/08/chilean- ... C2%A2-kwh/
Dubai: http://fortune.com/2016/09/19/world-rec ... abu-dhabi/
India: https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ssil-fuels
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 11:24 am

Sorry none of those links has anything concrete about actually existing facilities. Bid prices mean nothing as has been beat to death here ad nauseum.
.
Something else to consider, if the price of crude would triple back up to $150, how much would the cost of a new solar farm install go up. Nearly triple? Mining raw materials, manufacture, transport and installation is heavily dependent on liquid fuel and is a major part of a new solar farm.
.
The 2MW installation I visited was quoted as costing $5 million in 2012 and is producing at 15.7%. Which I think is a bit high but that is that he told me so I will have to accept it. So the 30 year pay off on just the install, not including any ongoing land use, taxes, or operating and management costs, requires $0,16/ kWh over 30 years just to pay back the install.
.
.
Before anyone argues that that was an "old install", panels are cheaper now but the total price of installations has been essentially flat for years.
.

We are not against renewable energy installs. We just want accurate real world data and costs of actually built and documented farms so that we can discuss it intelligently.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 624
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 09, 2017 11:40 am

sendler2112 wrote:Sorry none of those links has anything concrete about actually existing facilities. Bid prices mean nothing as has been beat to death here ad nauseum.
Hmm. You think that the cost utilities pay for power has nothing to do with the cost of power? Interesting claim.
Something else to consider, if the price of crude would triple back up to $150, how much would the cost of a new solar farm install go up. Nearly triple?
Probably go up ~50%. Much of the energy cost in panels is embodied in their aluminum frame - and aluminum is created primarily with electricity, which crude oil does not contribute significantly to.
Before anyone argues that that was an "old install", panels are cheaper now but the total price of installations has been essentially flat for years.
Not from the data I've seen. Across markets (residential, commercial, utility fixed, utility tracking) costs have been going down per watt. In only 12 months, for example, utility fixed has dropped from $1.60/watt to $1.30/watt. (2015-2016)

https://cleantechnica.com/2014/09/04/so ... 10-charts/
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 12:21 pm

billvon wrote:
sendler2112 wrote:Sorry none of those links has anything concrete about actually existing facilities. Bid prices mean nothing as has been beat to death here ad nauseum.
Hmm. You think that the cost utilities pay for power has nothing to do with the cost of power? Interesting claim.
Bid prices do not tell the whole story of included rebates and subsidies. And do not mean that the construction of the facility will not go ever budget leaving investors or governments holding the bag for the loss. I would like to see some reported data on specific farms as to the total install price and and annual production. Which still doesn't cover ongoing costs.
.
But none are ever forthcoming here.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 542
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09, 2017 2:02 pm

EIA.gov has USA utility scale solar pricing for November 2016 as $2.67/ watt. It lists battery storage installations at $2.81/ Watt but they never post $/ Wh
.
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/po ... mption.pdf
.
.
Image
.
.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4249
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 09, 2017 3:48 pm

sendler2112 wrote:Bid prices do not tell the whole story of included rebates and subsidies. And do not mean that the construction of the facility will not go ever budget leaving investors or governments holding the bag for the loss.
Fossil (coal, oil gas) fuels and nuclear have all been heavily subsidised for decades and continue to be.

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/F ... _subsidies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... ax-breaks/

What about decommissioning of nuclear plants? Who pays for that when the process can take decades? Power companies come and go.
sendler2112 wrote:It currently takes trans-oceanic transport back and forth to 4 different countries to end up at home with a pair of Levis jeans which by that point have a CO2 footprint of 6 tons.
Such a high figure set off my BS detector straight away. A quick Google search reveals a range of figures, but nothing like what you claim:
According to Levi Strauss & Co. the average impact of a pair of their brand's jeans is 33.4 kgCO2e for its complete life cycle. This assessment includes every step from cotton and fabric production, manufacturing, transportation and distribution, consumer care and recycling or disposal.
https://prezi.com/3djo2xfdoj-r/pair-of- ... footprint/
http://www.levistrauss.com/sustainability/planet/

915lb of CO2 if you included a lifetime of washing them: http://www.go-green.ae/greenstory_view.php?storyid=299

It's good to be able to think critically when given facts and figures. 6T CO2 for a basic manufactured item that weighs ~0.5kg just isn't right. On the one hand, a 6T is about what is emitted to manufacture a small and basic new car. Also, a quick google suggests an average CO2 emission of about 0.7kg per kWh of electricity. 6000kg/0.7 = 8571 kWh. I know from this thread that wholesale electricity is upwards of 4c/kWh, so a total of $343, best case. I also know 501's cost less than $100 and a cheapo unbranded pair around $5. Any of these figures could be off by an order of magnitude and not affect the conclusion: a pair of jeans is very unlikely to have a 6T carbon footprint.

Post Reply