Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10808
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 30 2017 12:56am

rollingfields wrote:There is clearly no need for Nuclear power which has been a disaster on many levels. Solar energy is getting better at an astounding rate and is already cheaper than fossil fuels in places with a lot of sun.
Sadly, that theoretically cheap solar power never seems to result in lower costs to the consumers.
Check out the results in those countries / states with high % of solar or wind generation (Denmark, Germany, S Australia etc)
Also consider the cost of making that solar energy available 24 hrs a day !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
liveforphysics   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 14134
Joined: Oct 29 2008 1:48am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by liveforphysics » Oct 30 2017 5:01am

In compassion for life a single closed loop system, you are incredibly confused my friend by the nature of value and cost.

Hillhater wrote: Sadly, that theoretically cheap solar power never seems to result in lower costs to the consumers.
...

It costs the consumers torturous cancer deaths by the millions yearly. It mutates their childrens DNA. It creates and inflames many respiratory related functions. The extraction processes sometimes poison ground water and marine areas.

These are real costs of real value. Think of whatever thing you could trade some money to get, and now imagine that thing but when you get it is your last breath of a gas mixture that supports life. While gasping for a few minutes that home/toy will seem like a minor 'cost' compared to the value of a functional life support system.
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.

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 672
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 30 2017 5:26am

Yesterday the share of wind generation was more than 60% of the electricity demand in Germany (over 24h). Okay, it was a Sunday.

Also October 2017 will set a clear new record on RE generation from wind+solar in Germany:

https://www.energy-charts.de/energy.htm ... y&year=all

No grid problems at all.

Do you know this worldwide map on live data on RE production? Very intersting imho:

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... e&page=map

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 30 2017 6:08am

Further technical design info on the Moltex SSR reactor as it works forward to a 300MW developement trial in Canada.
.
https://youtu.be/-IiIdG0asbM
.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5513
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Oct 30 2017 8:37am

Cephalotus wrote:
Do you know this worldwide map on live data on RE production? Very intersting imho:

https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... e&page=map
That's a very interesting site. From a quick look I'm surprised to see the %fossil fuel for most countries in Europe is below 50% (checked during the middle of the day). The lowest is France, which also has, by far, the lowest gCO2 per kWh (two-thirds less on average) due to its large share of nuclear generation.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Oct 30 2017 10:07am

Ontario, Canada is getting 54% of electricity from nuclear and 1% from fossil fuels.
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10808
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 30 2017 4:51pm

Cephalotus wrote:Yesterday the share of wind generation was more than 60% of the electricity demand in Germany (over 24h). Okay, it was a Sunday.....
Yes, certainly the best result for the year, ...but, to put it in proportion..
That represents approx 32% of the installed wind/solar capacity . (and about 15% of total available generation capacity) in Germany !....So not really such an impressive achievement .
But the real issue is that only a few days earlier (18/10) , wind and solar only produced 12% of the days energy demand .
...Huge Variations to cope with .. ! :roll:
.....No grid problems at all.....
Of course not, because Germany has 100% backup of thermal (Nuclear, gas, coal, biomass) generation capacity, .
.....and multiple interconnects to other European grid generators for supply modulation and grid stabilisation.
However, this report graph below ( touch to enlarge), shows that on that day ..Oct 18th, pm peak time, the German grid had to urgently demand several GW imported for an hour or so to cover the demand peak after wind and solar had faded and conventional sources were already peaking.
Without that external grid support , There would have been some significant supply issues or "load shedding" to prevent equipment damage.
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1993
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Oct 31 2017 1:40am

Gas generators in South Australia turned on five times in six weeks to prevent blackouts, October 23, 2017 6:57am
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/sout ... 2e7e8997b4
"Under guidelines developed in response to issues highlighted by the statewide blackout, AEMO demands at least three gas or diesel generators must be on in SA at all times.
But when the level of wind and solar power exceeds 1200MW, that requirement goes up to four to make sure if any faults in the system occur, it did not end in a blackout."

So the electricity generation system they have in SA to make their 50% wind and solar renewables stable is like Germany's where they actually step up fossil fuel generation when the wind and solar are the most alive to actually make it stable and useful.
Even though SA had a "statewide blackout" as a one-off they actually constantly have mini-blackouts in selected areas of the state as standard practise http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-09/s ... ey/8255086
And now since the state-wide blackout the regulators have stepped in to force them to provide stable-non-blackout causing electricity so the renewable energy essentially goes unused but still counted as electricity generation, just like Germany.
I now understand why Elons big battery is just going to "filter" wind generation and make a small amount of it actually useful, too bad that once you start using electricity buses etc all that power becomes completely insignificant.

Seems to me that a lot of missing gas that the rest of Australia is complaining about is really just going to South Australia to generate electricity because the regulators have stepped in to force them to provide useful reliable electricity but so much for co2 reductions and cheap power.
Hillhater wrote: Sadly, that theoretically cheap solar power never seems to result in lower costs to the consumers.
...
liveforphysics wrote:In compassion for life a single closed loop system, you are incredibly confused my friend by the nature of value and cost.
Sure but if carbon is so evil and toxic why is the 4th most abundant element in the universe after Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance ... s#Universe
With the 3rd most abundant element in the universe Oxygen sticking to either sides of the carbon atom to create the core source of plant food CO2 which is equally important for plants as food next to h2o.

If people are serious about lowering co2 creation sources then why not look at the elephant in the room and thats direct human emissions of co2 by breathing? Surely getting rid of humans must be part of the plan by these folks, so why doesn't it ever get brought up?
Considering that people breathing in the world creates at least 18times more co2 in emissions per year than all of Australias coal-power stations per year why isn't this being examined? It doesn't matter where the carbon comes from if its in the ground or out of peoples mouths when they breath when carbon is the 4th most abundant element in the universe, all that really matters is the conversion of that carbon into co2 and thats from people breathing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_di ... physiology
co2_1kg_human2a.jpg
When someone exhales air out of their lungs the CO2 level is at 40,000ppm which is 100times higher than standard 400 ppm atmospheric levels. In a car its as high as 4,000ppm when they windows are closed and in a standard room its 1000ppm.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/200 ... 7CbPQg.png

When the catalytic converter was created by scientists it must of been a moment just like a NASA space launch where everyone high-fives each other as they essentially created a system that takes vehicle exhausts and turns it into almost pure water vapor (h2o) and co2 which is the exact same thing that comes out of peoples mouths everytime they breath.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter
I can only imagine the surprise to learn all these years later that what comes out of peoples mouths in car exhaust form is now the mother of all evil and must be taxed etc.

All the super toxic radioactive sludge 10km2 tailings lakes that can be seen from space to create the rare the elements like neodymium magnets for windturbines solar panels etc is far more healthy.
https://youtu.be/S_9Q_6fuGNI?t=1m29s http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive ... scale.html http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/01/ ... 34x388.jpg
And if thats not enough all the land solar panels take is quite literally killing wildlife just for tiny amounts of electricity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJ8L9EAWF3E not to mention that the most respected recent scientific studies say the absolute best way to manage co2 is to simply plant trees, not much money or political power to be gained in that though.
Compared to windturbine and solar panel sources co2 with forestation is about as renewable and clean as you can get and thats the hardest and most unprofitable pill folks need to swallow and think about.
If only main-stream media didn't have financial investment monetary gains in supposably low co2 retail electricity generators, I can't believe they haven't combined it with a deal to include it with aged garlic supplements https://www.facebook.com/ABCMediaWatch/ ... 063389631/ https://www.facebook.com/onebigswitch/v ... 656488000/

Complete with the fact a lot of the wind and solar doesn't go to actual use and is expensive, all these countries are big wind and solar users and look at the net pricing costs, Italy does have a lot of wind farms but I believe they are quite literally forced to do it as they have no coal/gas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Italy
1501829123113a.png
electricity costs around the world
Last edited by TheBeastie on Oct 31 2017 7:38am, edited 6 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

User avatar
gtadmin   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 744
Joined: Aug 07 2009 7:46am
Location: Whyalla South Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by gtadmin » Oct 31 2017 3:29am


Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10808
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 31 2017 6:18am

I really hope someone involved in that plan knows more about power generation than the report suggested ! :shock:
Gupta is a smart business man, so he should know that a 200MW solar farm, with a 100MW battery, 120MW pumped storage, and even adding 100MW of " demand management" ,...wont give hom 1GW of new capacity !
It wont give them the 520MW suggested in the more elaborate article here, either .
http://reneweconomy.com.au/whyalla-stee ... age-92904/
Their $700m will get them about 40MW average,"......... providing the sun shines each day .
Another Ross Garnaud master plan ! :lol:
But it wont worry them, as they are just in it to "harvest" the RE certificates !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Cephalotus   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 672
Joined: Jun 18 2012 12:27pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Oct 31 2017 9:17am

Hillhater wrote:...
Of course not, because Germany has 100% backup of thermal (Nuclear, gas, coal, biomass) generation capacity, ....However, this report graph below ( touch to enlarge), shows that on that day ..Oct 18th, pm peak time, the German grid had to urgently demand several GW imported for an hour or so to cover the demand peak after wind and solar had faded and conventional sources were already peaking..
This is not true. There is _no_ "urgent need" to import electricty because as you already had written here there is more than enough backup capacity available. import and export do happen because it is cheaper than in-country production or shutdown. A large grid is always a benefit and if you use it, you see an electricity flow alongside that grid. ThaTs# the point of it.

An European country that in reality urgently(!) needs to import because own production capacity can not supply demand is France sometimes during peak hours in strong and cold winters.

up until 80-90% share of renewable energies Germany will keep most of its fossil backup power,because it is needed during some hours a year. Those powerplants do exist, it's "just" a matter of the cosst to keep them available. Yes, the transition of the systsem is not for free.

Comparing electricity prices for consumers has not much to do with production cost of electricity.

This is why consumers pay a lot for electricity in Germany:

Image

Beginning clockwise on top right:

6,88ct EEG Umlage /this is waht is payed for biomass, wind, solar, water & others. It's quite high but around 2-2.5ct of that are older solar plants when solar power was between 30ct to 50ct/kWh, Around 1ct/kWh is old expensive biomass power plants (most of that is hidden subsidizing of farmers) and around 1ct/kWh is old and expensive offshore wind. After around 10 years most of those old power plants will get to the end of their very expensive feed in tarif period and will produce much cheaper or shut down. So what Germanies consumers pay is the very steep learning curve for photovoltaic. Without that 35GW of old solar power plants in Gerany (and parly some other countries) during that tim solar PV would still cost 30ct/kWh and not around 3-10ct/kWh of todays cost. This has little to do with technology improvemnet, but mostly jst econoomies of scale. Someone needed to built that gigafactories and those needed someone to buy thair panels no matter the cost. This is what happend 10 years ago.
Was it worth the cost? I would say yes. Without Germanies consumers payng some billion for old solar power plants China, India & Co today would build coal instead of solar power plants.
0.8ct/kWh Sonstige Umlagen (this is related to RE grind integration and fossil Co generation)
1.66ct/kWh Konzessionsabgabe (this is a "tax" for communities, not realted to RE)
7.48ct/kWh Netzentgelte, Abrechnung (includes mainly the price for our good and well working electricity grid)
5.63ct/kWh Stromerzeugung, Vetrieb (priduction cost + distribution)
2.05ct/kWh Stromsteuer = tax on energy consumption (has nothing to do with RE)
4.66ct/kWh Umsatzsteuer = VAT (has nothing to do with renewable energies)

So electricity has always been expensive for German households. RE is more expensive than it would be for other countries, because we paid much much more for the early GW of solar, offshore wind etc than those cost now. Up to 10 times more in case of solar. This additional cost will start to go away after around 10 years.

What you do NOT see in your tarif is the cost for nuclear power waste management. This is payed from tax money.

What you also do not see is the subsidizing of hard coal during some decades which we stopped doing some years ago (we now just import the hard coal, this is much, much cheaper)

So while transition to RE has some upfront costs, just comparing electricity prices says more or less nothing.

This is a comparison on electricity prices for households vs houshold net income in Europe:

Does it really matter if this is 1.5% or 2%? For saving just 0.5% you want to live in a country destroying the environment and killing several thousand people because of pollution plus making the world a really hot place in the future with maybe billions of refugees? Really? Do you think people in Prybjat or Fukushima would mind to pay 1% more instead of leaving their homeland forever? I clearly know hat I would prefer.

And as I have explanied above the cost for RE is only a part of that extra costs, so in reality it is much less than 0,5% (and it will be even lower with more persons per household)

And btw. the money for those old solar power operators usually does not go to some ultra rich oil and gas people in Russia or Saudi Arabia, but stays within investors in our own country, which I also clearly prefer.

Image

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Oct 31 2017 10:45am

TheBeastie wrote:If people are serious about lowering co2 creation sources then why not look at the elephant in the room and thats direct human emissions of co2 by breathing? Surely getting rid of humans must be part of the plan by these folks, so why doesn't it ever get brought up?
I really hope that's a joke. I would hope that ignorance has not taken such a strong foothold in our society that people believe that.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10808
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Oct 31 2017 8:06pm

Cephalotus wrote:
Hillhater wrote:...
Of course not, because Germany has 100% backup of thermal (Nuclear, gas, coal, biomass) generation capacity, ....However, this report graph below ( touch to enlarge), shows that on that day ..Oct 18th, pm peak time, the German grid had to urgently demand several GW imported for an hour or so to cover the demand peak after wind and solar had faded and conventional sources were already peaking..
This is not true. There is _no_ "urgent need" to import electricty because as you already had written here there is more than enough backup capacity available...
Having enough backup capacity "available" (installed),.... and having it "ready" to supply,..are very different things.
Do you not find it significant that GD had been consistently exporting 5-10 GW for weeks up to that one peak hour, then it suddenly decided it was a good time to save a few euro and import 0.35GW ...then resume exporting again. ??
If you do not understand the reason that happened, you need to think some more, and study how multi source generation systems operate.
You cannot just start up another coal or Gas generator instantly, it takes time, and planning.
Its obvious the controllers were not expecting the Wind supply to die completely just at the time of the peak evening demand. They already had all available online sources, ...Coal, gas, hydro, Nuclear, Biomass, and even all pumped storage, ..feeding the domestic demand, but urgently needed more...hence the short import demand..at peak prices .! ( note..the price goes off the chart at that peak !)
Cephalotus wrote:....up until 80-90% share of renewable energies Germany will keep most of its fossil backup power,because it is needed during some hours a year. Those powerplants do exist, it's "just" a matter of the cosst to keep them available. Yes, the transition of the systsem is not for free....
Germany already has 120% renewable capacity ( 50GW wind, 44GW Solar , + bio, +Hydro etc.. fo a 75GW demand.) ...but od course that is not enough as they are not consistent or reliable .!
How much more will be required ??
When will the thermal plants be shut down ?
How much more will that increase power prices ?
Cephalotus wrote:....What you do NOT see in your tarif is the cost for nuclear power waste management. This is payed from tax money.
...What you also do not see is the subsidizing of hard coal during some decades which we stopped doing some years ago (we now just import the hard coal, this is much, much cheaper)
So while transition to RE has some upfront costs, just comparing electricity prices says more or less nothing.
Agreed.... there are many costs hidden in the retail price and taxes, so please do not deceive yourself that only 0.8c is the additional costs of RE. ..Its just the part that is openly declared. Governments use tax income in many ways to suit their own agendas.
Cephalotus wrote:....Does it really matter if this is 1.5% or 2%? For saving just 0.5% you want to live in a country destroying the environment and killing several thousand people because of pollution plus making the world a really hot place in the future with maybe billions of refugees? Really? Do you think people in Prybjat or Fukushima would mind to pay 1% more instead of leaving their homeland forever? I clearly know hat I would prefer.
Go study economics, ..then we can discuss the relevance of energy costs to countries and individuals.
and remember how much your 100GW of RE has reduced the CO2 emissions since 2000 !

I have little interest in Germany's power costs , other than observing it, along with other similar examples, as a model of the effects of the introduction of significant % of RE generation .
And the reason for that is because Australia has plans to follow a parallel path an i wish to understand what the future may hold.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5513
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 01 2017 9:01am

With a little practice and some past data, it is not beyond the wit of man to reliably predict the sunshine/wind/waves a few hours in advance. Bringing gas peaker plants online occasionally might be inefficient utilisation of them, but it's practical and achievable.

Your position seems to be "if 100% RE can't be implemented immediately, with complete reliability, no change in required usage patterns and no increase in cost then why bother with RE at all?" Only burning coal occasionally is a lot better than burning it all the time. Why be defeatist?

As any technology matures it becomes more effective, more efficient, cheaper and more reliable. It's continuous refinement and improvement.

Going forward a decade or three, stationary storage for $10 or maybe even $1 kWh is likely.
TheBeastie wrote:If people are serious about lowering co2 creation sources then why not look at the elephant in the room and thats direct human emissions of co2 by breathing? Surely getting rid of humans must be part of the plan by these folks, so why doesn't it ever get brought up?
Aside from being a flippant remark, the large human population has decreased the prevalence of other species. You may well find the total respiring biomass of the earth hasn't changed that much - humans have simply replaced other animals.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 9:08am

Punx0r wrote:Going forward a decade or three, stationary storage for $10 or maybe even $1 kWh is likely.
Based on what?

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 01 2017 10:22am

sendler2112 wrote:
Punx0r wrote:Going forward a decade or three, stationary storage for $10 or maybe even $1 kWh is likely.
Based on what?
Current cost reductions. Battery storage is dropping in price per kwhr (unadjusted) between 12 and 20% a year. It's about $420/kwhr now. So in 17-29 years it's $10 a kWh.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 11:00am

Have to move and refine huge amounts of earth and process it to make compounds for batteries using vast fossil fuel inputs. There will be a flattening of the price/ kWh curve. And there is no production capacity to turn out 100 TWh of batteries. It would take 1,000,s of GigaFactories working for 75 years to make that many batteries. Raw materials and fossil energy for mining will be depleted long before then and the price will go back up higher than it is now.
.
.
Image
.
.
It takes tons of stuff to make a battery
.
.

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 01 2017 11:34am

sendler2112 wrote:Have to move and refine huge amounts of earth and process it to make compounds for batteries
Yep.
using vast fossil fuel inputs.
Nope.
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-do ... e-records/
There will be a flattening of the price/ kWh curve.
Or a steepening of it. New processes that allow batteries to be made faster and with less material will speed the price drop. New batteries that will replace lithium ion for stationary storage will do even more to speed it.
And there is no production capacity to turn out 100 TWh of batteries.
And in 1910 there was no production capacity to turn out tens of millions of cars.
It would take 1,000,s of GigaFactories working for 75 years to make that many batteries.
Or 10's of Terafactories working for 7.5 years. The world makes 100 million cars a year; a car is a lot bigger, more complex and expensive to make than a 60kwhr battery pack.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 11:43am

billvon wrote: The world makes 100 million cars a year; a car is a lot bigger, more complex and expensive to make than a 60kwhr battery pack.
Cars sell for $20,000. Wishfully stating eventual prices of batteries at $10/kWh is totally counterproductive to any wise decision making going forward.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 11:54am

billvon wrote:And in 1910 there was no production capacity to turn out tens of millions of cars.
But you bring up a good point. Everything we have accomplished as exponential growth of industry and infrastructure in the last 100 years is due to the unleashing of a vast hoard of fossil slaves. But they are starting to get worn out and there are few more to summon up from the ground. And any further fossil zombies we do resurrect will be demanding a pay raise. So whatever we do, we better focus and hurry up.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5513
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 01 2017 3:17pm

sendler2112 wrote:Have to move and refine huge amounts of earth and process it to make compounds for batteries using vast fossil fuel inputs. There will be a flattening of the price/ kWh curve. And there is no production capacity to turn out 100 TWh of batteries. It would take 1,000,s of GigaFactories working for 75 years to make that many batteries. Raw materials and fossil energy for mining will be depleted long before then and the price will go back up higher than it is now.
Sure, if you assume battery tech will never progress beyond the current design of LiCO 18650 or 21700 can cells. Even then, EV grade cells have dropped from ~$1000/kWh to >$300 in around 5 years.

However, large stationery storage won't be anything like current EV batteries - it has no requirement to be. Cells don't have to be made from exotic materials. Have you seen flow batteries?
A couple of big tanks of liquid and a reaction chamber is hardly difficult or energy intensive to make.

I just took a very quick look at a few stories in the "Breakthrough" sticky in the Battery section of this forum. There are plenty of promising research projects in there, any number of which could become commercial products in 5-10 years. Just a couple:

sodium-ion battery, 80% cheaper than li-ion:

https://newatlas.com/sodium-ion-battery ... ium/51682/

Sulfur flow battery, $20-$30 per kWh:

https://newatlas.com/air-breathing-battery/51720/

Sulphur, water and salt are hardly exotic materials and as this link explains, the chemical cost (i.e. the minimum possible cost) of a sulphur battery is around $1/kWh

http://www.cell.com/joule/abstract/S254 ... 17)30032-6

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 3:43pm

That's awesome! The Chevy bolt is half the price of a model S. So in 10 years a new electric drive car will $500.
.
Seriously though. Wholesale Solar is still recommending lead batteries because they are well known and are the cheapest up front for a small system.
.
Which are $150/ kWh.
.
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/9901382/ ... ed-battery
.
GM states $145/kWh for raw cells in the Bolt. No way to verify this. I first heard it was $220. Whatever it really is they have leveraged the supplier to sell to them at a loss.
.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5513
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 01 2017 4:17pm

Maybe, but Tesla is targeting ~$200/kWh for the Gigafactory, so it's not too far off. Many businesses are prepared to operate initially at a loss in order to establish market share.

So what if deep-cycle lead-acid is currently cheaper than li-ion for domestic PV installations? You were trying to assert battery storage was impractical or too expensive, so what's the relative cost of different batteries got to do with anything?
sendler2112 wrote:That's awesome! The Chevy bolt is half the price of a model S. So in 10 years a new electric drive car will $500
If you can justify the assumptions you made in that extrapolation, I will accept it. Go on, I challenge you to try...

On a serious note, an EV does have the potential to be cheaper and more reliable than an ICE vehicle. The latter is a very complex piece of engineering and that comes at an inherent financial and reliability cost. By comparison, a motor & battery is about as simple as it gets for mechanical propulsion.

billvon   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3051
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 01 2017 4:57pm

sendler2112 wrote:That's awesome! The Chevy bolt is half the price of a model S.
And has half the battery and half the acceleration. (100 vs 60kwhr, 3.1 vs 6.3 seconds to 60mph) Makes sense.
Seriously though. Wholesale Solar is still recommending lead batteries because they are well known and are the cheapest up front for a small system.
Definitely. And they are easier to use. And when you destroy them (as most people do when they first start out with cheap systems) it's cheaper to replace them.
GM states $145/kWh for raw cells in the Bolt. No way to verify this. I first heard it was $220. Whatever it really is they have leveraged the supplier to sell to them at a loss.
Pretty common with new tech. Manufacturer initially sells at a loss to capture the market, then efficiencies of scale kick in and they make millions.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1342
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 01 2017 5:00pm

Punx0r wrote:
sendler2112 wrote:That's awesome! The Chevy bolt is half the price of a model S. So in 10 years a new electric drive car will be $500
If you can justify the assumptions you made in that extrapolation, I will accept it. Go on, I challenge you to try...
Makes perfect sense to some people here.

billvon wrote:
sendler2112 wrote:
Punx0r wrote:Going forward a decade or three, stationary storage for $10 or maybe even $1 kWh is likely.
Based on what?
Current cost reductions. Battery storage is dropping in price per kwhr (unadjusted) between 12 and 20% a year. It's about $420/kwhr now. So in 17-29 years it's $10 a kWh.

Post Reply