Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2017 6:12pm

billvon wrote:
Hillhater wrote:
jonescg wrote: .....There's about a GW worth of solar projects in the pipeline already......
That will sadly only produce an average of 0.25Gwh of useable energy...
..or less than half of one small old coal fired generator.
A 1GW plant will generate 1GW of POWER. A 1GW plant will generate 1GWhr of ENERGY an hour. A 1GW solar power plant in a good location in Australia will generate, on average, 6.5GWhr a day.

This is a good thing because power usage peaks during the day in most places.
This is a bad thing because people still need some power at night.

This is a good thing because it's very, very cheap.
This is a bad thing because utilities now have to manage unreliable generation - and that takes effort.
.........
Does 6.5GWh per day sound any better than 0.25GWh average ?.....its the same output.
But they are both guesses! In reality they are a "Best Result" figure, that doesnt allow for variations due to overcast , bad weather and those short winter days....which could easily reduce that "Best" number by 50-80 % .
Even poster Jonescg, who is a very tuned in electrical type guy, seems to have subconciously been indoctrinated by the headline "Installed GW Capacity" figures that the Solar industry are keen to promote.
It generally takes some searching and /or estimation to find real planned output capacity data.
"Very, very, cheap" .?.. is it ?
Keeping it close to reality, and using a real example that we have seen before, with documented data... the Topaz Solar plant..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
550 MW "installed" capacity, 1053 GWh annual output, $2.5 bn to build.
..How can that be "very cheap" per kWh ( i figure its $0.10/kWh just to cover a 20yr write down of capital)
They are sold as "cheap energy" because the source energy is free....but ask anyone who has installed their own roof top solar system,if it "free"
...and if you have to add on the cost of storage, then the numbers get real unpleasant !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3650
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jun 26 2017 10:22pm

It is convention to refer to the nameplate capacity of a generator. A 1600 MW coal fired generator is called a 1600 MW coal fired generator - because it is capable of running at 1600 MW. No generator runs at it's nameplate output for more than a few hours, and the majority are sitting at about 60%. Still better numbers than a solar array which can only put out power for a bit less than half the year because you know, night.

So I see nothing wrong with referring to the gigawatt of projects in the pipeline as just that - even if they only put out a quarter of their nameplate capacity.

FFS why are we frocking arguing about this? Renewable energy is out of the bottle and will fast become the majority of daytime generating output. Storage will come into play as the years tick by. Welcome to the future!

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7841
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Jun 26 2017 11:28pm

jonescg wrote:
FFS why are we frocking arguing about this? !
Probably because that's what they come to ES for.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 26 2017 11:39pm

Generators dont run at max capacity simply because they are demand driven, and the demand is variable.
"why are we frocking arguing about this?"
who is arguing ?...what i am trying to do is understand what the actual cost of renewable (solar in particular) power is, since several sources have recently stated that it is the cheapest source if electricity and have thrown out figures like 3 C/kWh to support that claim. i dont see where those figures can be coming from ( see previous posts.)
I suspect some of our gullible politicians will be misled up a costly and unreliable path of solar generator installations that will only force up the cost of power.
I am happy to see solar being adopted, but i would like to know what it is going to cost and how it is going to be integrated into a reliable energy supply ( batteries are not going to fix that as a long term solution.)
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3650
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jun 27 2017 12:21am

Hillhater wrote:?...what i am trying to do is understand what the actual cost of renewable (solar in particular) power is, since several sources have recently stated that it is the cheapest source if electricity and have thrown out figures like 3 C/kWh to support that claim. i dont see where those figures can be coming from ( see previous posts.)
I think the energy markets have a lot to do with that. Despite their best intentions, the market allows all sorts of silly games to be played and it's not actually possible to compare apples.

Meanwhile, we're paying $1 a day to be connected to the SWIS in WA regardless of whether you use a single kWh or not. The state government said it's because the cost of delivering power to your home or business is far more than what is being recovered through power bills; something successive governments have been saying for decades. So they put it off and put it off... in the meantime new generating technologies have come in and taken advantage of the previous market settings - Merit order effect means the solar and wind is dispatched first, and the ageing generators aren't as profitable. It's a mess, and it's hard to make sound comparisons when there's so much other non-engineering fog obscuring the numbers.

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1895
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Jun 27 2017 5:21am

jonescg wrote:It is convention to refer to the nameplate capacity of a generator. A 1600 MW coal fired generator is called a 1600 MW coal fired generator - because it is capable of running at 1600 MW. No generator runs at it's nameplate output for more than a few hours, and the majority are sitting at about 60%.
You keep saying that, maybe its true for Western Australia, with WA being on its own grid and not connected to the eastern part of Australia so maybe they can afford to not do much work but when I randomly pick coal or nuclear power stations around the world I constantly see 85%.

I am kind of sick of typing this stuff over and over again but obviously you guys refuse to look at basic real world data on Wikipedia etc and prefer to look at Facebook or renewable-energy-baloney-websites made up no rules to truth garbage-sites.
Its only more recently I have fully begun to realize the power of Facebook or nicely presented renewable-energy baloney websites, as in there is no limit to the load of rubbish they put out manipulating people, its just destructive and evil, what's wrong with the truth! Oh I think I know whats wrong with the truth, you can't use it to rob people blind of their money for basic essentials like electricity.
If you watch interviews of the biggest pushers of renewables industry on TV or youtube you can quite literally see the sparkle of dollar signs in their eyes, they are very slick (as all shysters are), they know they are being allowed to rob people blind, and its just sad and evil to see people in Australia now turning off their refrigerators before they go to bed like shown here https://youtu.be/a-OSNLqQ0qU .

Bruce nuclear reactor.
Quote from Wikipedia "Nameplate capacity 6,384 MW
Capacity factor 85.17%
2015 net output 47,630 GWh"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Nuc ... ng_Station
47,630,000MWh / 8760_hours_in_a_year = 5,437MW average output power.
(5,437MW / 6,384MW) x 100 = 85% average operating output.
Bruce Nuclear Generating Station   Wikipedia.jpg
Bruce Nuclear Generating Station Wikipedia.jpg (10.94 KiB) Viewed 2561 times
Another one.. coal Hazelwood power-station
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station
Quote from Wikipedia "Nameplate capacity 1,600 MW (2,100,000 hp)
Annual output 12,000 GWh"

12,000,000MWh / 8760_hours_in_one_year = 1369.8MW average output power.
(1369.8MW / 1600MW) x 100 = 85% average operating output.
Hazelwood Power Station   Wikipedia.png
Hazelwood Power Station Wikipedia.png (10.38 KiB) Viewed 2561 times
And the icing on the cake is that these power stations are going to be operating at peak when its really needed which is the exact opposite of Solar when you look at the MWh pricing charts. As far as Australian usage charts show, solar only gives power when its not wanted.
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Nat ... -dashboard
Going over $140MWh during 8am one hour long and 7pm one hour long high demand times, when just a few years ago the average power was as low as $30 a MWh, and when we continue to kill coal its only going to get more expensive, its simple supply and demand.

With solar tariffs where folks put panels on their roof and force others to buy their energy even if its not wanted then its no different then for me to say "well I got a lemon tree in my back yard so I am going to force you to buy my lemons because well thats the rules now." Your naturally going to say to me I don't want your friggin lemons..
But this is the weird things we have done now.
Attachments
cac32b32b8d226bfe1d9e2a8d6f486f2.jpg
cac32b32b8d226bfe1d9e2a8d6f486f2.jpg (41.37 KiB) Viewed 2561 times
Last edited by TheBeastie on Jun 29 2017 2:39am, edited 2 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 27 2017 6:09am

jonescg wrote:
Hillhater wrote:?...what i am trying to do is understand what the actual cost of renewable (solar in particular) power is, since several sources have recently stated that it is the cheapest source if electricity and have thrown out figures like 3 C/kWh to support that claim. i dont see where those figures can be coming from ( see previous posts.)
I think the energy markets have a lot to do with that. Despite their best intentions, the market allows all sorts of silly games to be played and it's not actually possible to compare apples. .....s.
Yes, there are many factors messing with the wholesale and retail market pricing of power, but i have only been looking at basic generating costs, capital, installation, maintenance, operating, fuel, etc costs and even then in a very simplistic way, ignoring many other direct costs.
Even so, solar is still orders of magnitude more expensive than most other generating options.
This graphic indicates similar figures to my estimates..
https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publ ... technology
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3650
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jun 27 2017 7:50am

TheBeastie wrote: I am kind of sick of typing this stuff over and over again...
And we're sick of reading your copy-pastes. You are executing perfect shots over the net of a tennis court on the other side of the town where the other player is.

So a 25 MW solar or wind farm has a nameplate capacity of 25 MW, and yet we know it will typically produce about 25% of that nameplate capacity throughout it's life. It may peak at 25 MW sometimes, but nobody is banking on that being average. I'm certainly not going to argue that with you. I still cannot see what your issue is with this :?
TheBeastie wrote: Its only more recently I have fully begun to realize the power of Facebook or nicely presented renewable-energy baloney websites, as in there is no limit to the load of rubbish they put out manipulating people, its just destructive and evil, what's wrong with the truth! Oh I think I know whats wrong with the truth, you can't use it to rob people blind of their money for basic essentials like electricity.
Are you saying that one in four Australian households, including those of ultra-conservative greeny-haters like Cory Bernardi and Greg Sheridan who installed 5 kW solar systems on their houses have been drinking the PV Kool-Aid? Dude - it's an option. An energy option, and people are exercising their freedom to harness that option. The market has allowed them to become an option and people are loving it. Just because you haven't exercised that option doesn't make you the enlightened one.
TheBeastie wrote: If you watch interviews of the biggest pushers of renewables industry on TV or youtube you can quite literally see the sparkle of dollar signs in their eyes, they are very slick (as all shysters are), they know they are being allowed to rob people blind, and its just sad and evil to see people in Australia now turning off their refrigerators before they go to bed like shown here https://youtu.be/a-OSNLqQ0qU .
SA is at the fringe of the NEM and it relies heavily on gas since the Leigh Creek coal mine (SA's only coal source for the only coal generator) ran out of coal. Should we start bringing Victorian coal into SA by rail? Bet that won't be cheap.
TheBeastie wrote: ...Beasties usual copy-paste...
And the icing on the cake is that these power stations are going to be operating at peak when its really needed which is the exact opposite of Solar when you look at the MWh pricing charts. As far as Australian usage charts show, solar only gives power when its not wanted.
https://www.aemo.com.au/Electricity/Nat ... -dashboard
Going over $140MWh during 8am one hour long and 7pm one hour long high demand times, when just a few years ago the average power was as low as $30 a MWh, and when we continue to kill coal its only going to get more expensive, its simple supply and demand.
None of this is controversial or up for debate - the 'duck curve' is real and distribution networks have to manage it. It's the reason we've not needed to build another coal fired generator in the last decade. Again, I cannot see why you keep repeating this stuff because it's not news.
TheBeastie wrote: With solar tariffs where folks put panels on their roof and force others to buy their energy even if its not wanted then its no different then for me to say "well I got a lemon tree in my back yard so I am going to force you to buy my lemons because well thats the rules now." Your naturally going to say to me I don't want your friggin lemons..
But this is the weird things we have done now.
Which is why I believe the energy market is easily the most skewed, contorted, rigged and backwards-thinking system we've ever created despite nobody asking for it. The highly lucrative feed-in tariffs were being paid for by those of us who couldn't afford panels, but without that initiative, we would be as far behind the 8-ball as we are with electric cars and fiber optic internet. We had state-run generators and state-run networks with state-run retail portals that managed quite well, but privatisation has lead to a lack of investment in the infrastructure needed to run a modern grid. Don't blame renewable energy for this mess - blame greedy state governments who sold their golden geese!

Add to this the (painfully slow) realisation that burning coal releases copious amounts of CO2 and we know this is resulting in a warming of the planet's atmosphere and oceans, and we have to ask, what do we replace our generators with? Right now, the best option is renewables - and that's not a greeny-hippie thing to say, that's what the Australian Energy Council, the International Energy Association and many other fiscally-savvy groups are saying. It is the fastest, lowest-cost way of adding generating capacity to the network. How that generating potential is managed, especially outside of peak load times is a technical matter which is being worked out by the networks as we speak, but on a dollars per MW installed measure, wind and PV are smashing it.

And for the record, I have no ideological opposition to nuclear either, so don't try that one. I can't see any government of any colour showing the skillful competence to articulate to the nation that it's worth the cost. Hell we can't even get the government to commit to a no-brainer like pumped hydro in the Snowy!

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 27 2017 9:02am

jonescg wrote: .......but on a dollars per MW installed measure, wind and PV are smashing it.
!
Unless you can produce some onvincing figures, i will call BS on that statement !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2667
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Jun 27 2017 9:33am

billvon wrote:
wineboyrider wrote:Although, there is not a lot of water in sunny and dry NM the ability to tap into a micro hydro power plant is huge. The Tularosa River starts at 10,000 feet in elevation and ends at the end of the Tularosa Basin into the White Sands. The water is used to irrigate the small village of Tularosa and provide drinking water. The potential to tap this energy is enormous and could easily supply the small county of Otero County population of 60,000. If someone wants to do the math for this potential energy source I would appreciate it.
Couldn't find any stats on the Tularosa river flows at any given altitudes. Do you have any such info?

The whole Tularosa basin story is a sad one. When settlers first discovered it it was a huge grassland full of streams and small forests. Then they started using it as grazing land. It was overgrazed for about 70 years, after which all the grasses died, the topsoil dried up and blew away, the streams disappeared and the whole area turned into a desert.
Partially true Billvon, the Lincoln County cattle wars were fought around here (Otero County was part of Lincoln county) But, I assure you the Tularosa river and other streams still flow regularly from the majestic Sierra Blanca (snow capped mountain) flows a beautiful life giving source of water. The soils around Tularosa are extremely fertile for vineyards and nut farms. The two main electric companies are an electric cooperative and PNM. But the biggest advantage of a hydro system would be that the water is already diverted for irrigation anyways for agriculture. So there might be some legal issues to deal with, but could be another source of revenue for water users.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 27 2017 10:49am

wineboyrider wrote:Partially true Billvon, the Lincoln County cattle wars were fought around here (Otero County was part of Lincoln county) But, I assure you the Tularosa river and other streams still flow regularly from the majestic Sierra Blanca (snow capped mountain) flows a beautiful life giving source of water. The soils around Tularosa are extremely fertile for vineyards and nut farms. The two main electric companies are an electric cooperative and PNM. But the biggest advantage of a hydro system would be that the water is already diverted for irrigation anyways for agriculture. So there might be some legal issues to deal with, but could be another source of revenue for water users.
Good to hear it's recovering. Do you have any numbers for minimum seasonal flow of those streams/rivers? That would let us work out how much power is available.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 27 2017 11:01am

Hillhater wrote:
jonescg wrote: .......but on a dollars per MW installed measure, wind and PV are smashing it.
!
Unless you can produce some onvincing figures, i will call BS on that statement !
2.42 cents per kwhr - from JinkoSolar Holding Company and Marubeni Corporation, for a project for Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Authority.
2.9 cents per kwhr - from Solarpack Corp. Tecnologica for a project for the Chilean government.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -abu-dhabi
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ce-of-coal
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 27 2017 3:19pm

Hillhater wrote:But they are both guesses! In reality they are a "Best Result" figure, that doesnt allow for variations due to overcast , bad weather and those short winter days....which could easily reduce that "Best" number by 50-80 % .
True. Of course, just up the beach from me is a 2GW nuclear reactor whose output is now 0% of estimates. No source of power is perfect.
"Very, very, cheap" .?.. is it ?
Yes. Even here in the US, where labor costs are among the highest in the world, Tucson Electric Power just purchased 20 years of power from a 100 megawatt solar plant built by NextEra - for less than 3 cents a kwhr.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 27 2017 6:39pm

Yes billvon, i am aware of those figures (i quoted similar earlier) , but we all know that " contract" prices and "cost" are two very different things.
Some people do actually sell their children just to stay alive , so it doesnt surprise me that companies supported by their Governments, or other sources, are prepared to bid cheap to "get in the door".
Again, ..my question is not how much are they selling power for, but what are the basic cost/ economics ?
We know that 350MW is only going to output approx O.95 GWh PA
So the total Income from that at $0.024 kWh will be approx $24m pa...?
...? Not a viable business case for something needing best part of $1bn to get it operational !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3650
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jun 27 2017 8:52pm

Hillhater wrote:
jonescg wrote: .......but on a dollars per MW installed measure, wind and PV are smashing it.
!
Unless you can produce some convincing figures, i will call BS on that statement !
We can expect the latest numbers to come out late this year - PV has seen a huge price drop in the last 2 years (wind a bit less so) and these new figures have not yet made it into any official summaries. However the fact that solar and wind represent the single biggest source of new installed capacity suggests it stacks up favourably.

The Levelised Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) of renewable energy is still higher than that of coal and gas (see earlier thread volumes on capacity factor) but this will drop further as it gets cheaper.

It is really difficult to get unsubsidised costs for an energy source, even fossil fuels, because the systems in place to approve and construct new generating capacity are complex. I would think with the winding down of many solar rebates and incentives we'll start to see more reliable figures.

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7841
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Jun 28 2017 1:48am

Hillhater wrote:Some people do actually sell their children just to stay alive , so it doesnt surprise me that companies supported by their Governments, or other sources, are prepared to bid cheap to "get in the door".
I don't know if this is still going on, but a few years ago the Texas wind power overnight so greatly exceeded need that they started giving it away overnight. Now there is an interesting dynamic.

http://fortune.com/2015/11/09/texas-free-electricity/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/20/busi ... nvironment
Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 28 2017 2:28am

One of the original justifications for street lighting and lighting in public places generally, was to give the power companies ( mostly public utilities then) , somewhere to "dump" surplus power at night time after everyone had gone to bed and switched off their lights etc .
It solved the problem of ramping down the power from the big thermal (Nuke and coal etc), to match the reduced overnight demand.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3650
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Jun 28 2017 2:59am

Hillhater wrote:One of the original justifications for street lighting and lighting in public places generally, was to give the power companies ( mostly public utilities then) , somewhere to "dump" surplus power at night time after everyone had gone to bed and switched off their lights etc .
It solved the problem of ramping down the power from the big thermal (Nuke and coal etc), to match the reduced overnight demand.
And I recall they were using it to pump water in the Snowy too. Although Tumut 3 is the only one used for this I think...

Ianhill   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1763
Joined: Sep 25 2015 5:55pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ianhill » Jun 28 2017 11:12am

Hillhater wrote:One of the original justifications for street lighting and lighting in public places generally, was to give the power companies ( mostly public utilities then) , somewhere to "dump" surplus power at night time after everyone had gone to bed and switched off their lights etc .
It solved the problem of ramping down the power from the big thermal (Nuke and coal etc), to match the reduced overnight demand.
In London all the street lights where gas they used coal in a sealed chamber heated it to release flammable gases this was then fed through a system of pipes to all the lanterns, first of all there was a town lamp man that would spark all the lanterns into action at dusk then in the 1830s they became automated self lighting, but the big break through came in 1870 with Micheal fareday he placed carbon arc lamps in the lanterns and the gas was swapped to electric birthing the need for an electrical grid.
The only problem was the arc light was to intense for house use we still needed the incandescent lamps for household use and it took another 30 years for the grid to really get pace and massive power generation start to occur but ever since humans life's have changed faster than ever before.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin ... y_industry

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 28 2017 11:27am

Hillhater wrote:Yes billvon, i am aware of those figures (i quoted similar earlier) , but we all know that " contract" prices and "cost" are two very different things.
Very true. Cost to the supplier must be less than he charges in his contract.
Some people do actually sell their children just to stay alive , so it doesnt surprise me that companies supported by their Governments, or other sources, are prepared to bid cheap to "get in the door".
Definitely. But while a company might lowball a number (and take a loss) to get in the door, they're not going to sign 20 year contracts if they think they are going to lose money. Their investors won't stand for it.
Again, ..my question is not how much are they selling power for, but what are the basic cost/ economics ?
At a very basic level -

In Q1 2016 NREL published a study showing costs per watt of utility scale power in the US was $1.42 a watt. In a good solar location (Phoenix) if you charge 2 cents per kwhr that's 4.7 cents per watt per day, which means a payback in 30 years, not accounting for loan service.

GTM research estimates the cost of a plant built today (2Q 2017) at $1.08 per watt. That means a 23 year payoff.

While the lowest prices in the world are at that 2 cent number, solar power bulk prices here in the US are hovering around 5 cents a kwhr. So for a plant built today in the US, selling power for what the US market will provably support, that's a 9.2 year payoff.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 28 2017 11:28am

Dauntless wrote:I don't know if this is still going on, but a few years ago the Texas wind power overnight so greatly exceeded need that they started giving it away overnight. Now there is an interesting dynamic.
An excellent problem to have - so much free power that you have to give it away to other states.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 28 2017 7:01pm

billvon wrote:[

In Q1 2016 NREL published a study showing costs per watt of utility scale power in the US was $1.42 a watt. In a good solar location (Phoenix) if you charge 2 cents per kwhr that's 4.7 cents per watt per day, which means a payback in 30 years, not accounting for loan service.

GTM research estimates the cost of a plant built today (2Q 2017) at $1.08 per watt. That means a 23 year payoff.
.
?????
..At $1.08 /W that 350MW plant would cost $385m to build....... ( but i wonder why the AD gov are budgeting $900+ m ?)
Anyway, at 2 C per kWh the total annual income from that plant would be ...
350Mw x 365 days x 24 hrs x 0.25% eff = 766.5 MWh per year x $0.02 = $15.3m pa
..That is less than a 4% return ! Or a 25 year capital payback without considering finance costs or any margin !
But if anyone thinks that a plant like that has no operating and maintenance costs, they are mistaken..
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/po ... table1.xls
That shows a PV plant O&M costs are $ 23.0 /kW per year,..or $8+m pa for a 350MW plant...!..or 1C /kWh produced !
No Solar project i have seen is expected to still be viable for more than 20 yrs, and some in the know (industry insiders) have publicly said 15 years is a realistic life for a new Solar plant.
So, i still say these are not realistic projects or energy costs.
Topaz, a 550MW (installed cap) plant is known to have cost $2.5bn, and the 350MW plant proposed for Au is budgeted at $680m, so somthing is not correct ?
As you point out , those build costs of $1.08 W are for overseas projects, usually using overseas contractors, which some might think would imply very low labor costs !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 29 2017 1:20pm

Hillhater wrote: But if anyone thinks that a plant like that has no operating and maintenance costs, they are mistaken..
Link broken. Of course they have maintenance costs; everything breaks. But since solar PV plants don't require fuel, or filter replacement, or boiler inspections, or scrubbers, or any of the million things a fossil fuel plant requires, they are tiny compared to fossil fuel generators.
No Solar project i have seen is expected to still be viable for more than 20 yrs
Why do you think that? What do you think will "wear out?" I have a solar power system on my first house that is now 22 years old. No problems yet.
and some in the know (industry insiders) have publicly said 15 years is a realistic life for a new Solar plant.
And yet panel manufacturers offer 25 year warranties on their panels. I'd guess the panel manufacturers are more credible than your unnamed industry insiders.

Martin Holladay, a writer for Green Building magazine, installed a solar power system in 1980 on his roof. He took down one of his panels in 2010 to test it - and it was still generating 90% of its original power. He returned the panel to his roof where it is still working today, 37 years after he installed it.
Topaz, a 550MW (installed cap) plant is known to have cost $2.5bn, and the 350MW plant proposed for Au is budgeted at $680m, so somthing is not correct ?
Topaz construction was started in 2011 when prices per watt were considerably higher.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10289
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Jun 29 2017 4:29pm

The operation and maintenance costs are figures from a .gov paper compiled from real data fo PV plants.
Commercial Life expectancy has little to do with physical reliability, but financial returns.
Institutional/corporate investors do not expect to have a 30 year return on their capital.
But do you really think a investment of $385m , resulting in a total turnover before costs of <$15m pa , is a viable situation ?
Last edited by Hillhater on Jun 29 2017 5:17pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2925
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Jun 29 2017 5:16pm

Hillhater wrote:The operation and maintenance costs are figures from a .gov paper compiled from real data fo PV plants.
Life expectance has little to do with physical reliability, but financial returns.
?? Life expectancy is how long something lasts. That's pretty much the definition.

The life expectancy of my solar power systems are not determined by how much money it makes or saves me, but how long they deliver power. And so far they are at 22 and 12 years old respectively.
Institurional /corporate investors do not expect to have a 30 year return on their capital.
Correct. Fortunately, payback times for solar are now below that, as I demonstrated above.
--bill von

Post Reply