Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

TheBeastie · Mar 21, 2018

Cephalotus said:
sendler2112 said:

Thankfully we have objective data from electricity map .org. Germany has been over 400gm/kWh carbon all winter. Often times over 500. It still gets the vast majority of electricity from brown coal during the winter when the sun and wind are consistently bad.

Click to expand...

This does not contradict what I wrote.

400-500g CO2/kWh is not super bad and an improvement compared to 15 years ago.

I don't understand why you show Germany as a negative example for wind and solar. We are coming from a very high percentage of burning lignite and for that our actual emission including significant amounts of wind and solar 8and less nukes) is not so bad comapred to other nations.

http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/electricitynationality.gif
Its a decent chart that one because it shows France at 0.10 and Germany 0.52!
Thats over 500% higher amount of co2 than what France does. As I said in my earlier post, if you had two cars on the road and one emitted 500% (5 x times) the amount of co2 than the other car, then you instantly dismiss that other car as a total joke and not really lowing emissions at all.
And thats where we are with wind and solar vs nuclear.

These are 10 times co2 emissions than France, thats 1000%, if you look at them at any of your most preferred times its usually 500% or 5 times as much as France. Again if we were comparing "green cars" the wind/solar performance would be considered a complete joke and utter failure.

Now Germany is dotted with all these solar farms where trees once sat, so now the photosynthesis process of sucking co2 out of the air is gone, instead replaced with an incredibly bad performing 10% solar capacity factor.
https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04?t=1m
Germany Solar capacity: 40.7GW (40,700MW)
Generated 2017: 38.39TWh
(38,390,000MWh / 8765.5hours_in_a_year_average) = 4,379MW average power generation (4.37GW)
So ( 4,379MW / 40,700MW ) x 100 = 10.7% capacity factor for solar.
If you went into a restaurant and asked for a steak dinner that was 10% of its advertised size, you wouldn't buy it.

Its so easy just to look at Germany in satellite view, look at were established trees are/were and see them being cut down for solar farms that generate 10% of their claimed capacity. When it could of been soaking up co2 like the NASA co2 map videos show.
https://goo.gl/maps/WFdC3pmvGjt
https://goo.gl/maps/qXsTPqK6hrp
https://goo.gl/maps/ghWzKkMSAuL2
https://goo.gl/maps/29Bnn6tNGEy
https://goo.gl/maps/nTPUZEqLd9r
https://goo.gl/maps/HUTmgZutZV92
https://goo.gl/maps/C4erWmdZWby
https://goo.gl/maps/f8j7176ei2m
https://goo.gl/maps/ZE2EYB4oYGo
https://goo.gl/maps/okMZYP4UnUA2
https://goo.gl/maps/HrSg7ZizTNR2
https://goo.gl/maps/ghWzKkMSAuL2
https://goo.gl/maps/TBCDSq5TDEo
https://goo.gl/maps/h5nu6t3HJq32
https://goo.gl/maps/DrKbXtzuRGU2
https://goo.gl/maps/AdfRYSh759p
https://goo.gl/maps/ucmLyiMFfdL2
https://goo.gl/maps/tWS3PTpDppt
None of this is helping the environment, you don't help the environment by cutting down trees to generate tiny amounts of power. I have no doubt everyone will see it that way in time, it just might be a very very long time.
Trees are just so important, more important than solar panels.
https://youtu.be/KZN6QuAdxLI
[youtube]KZN6QuAdxLI[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVUAgcSCP_U
[youtube]XVUAgcSCP_U[/youtube]

The sun is a nuclear reactor it just doesn't use uranium as its fuel, the specifics of the nuclear reaction process simply do not matter if your being subjected to the radiation, the radiation from the sun covers the whole spectrum but only certain spectrums make it through the atmosphere to the surface of the earth. The invisible nonthermal radiation is Ultraviolet radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation#Ultraviolet_radiation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQjL4ZDuq2o
https://youtu.be/nNzDXXUiqRs
https://youtu.be/nNzDXXUiqRs?t=1m13s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#Composition_and_power
The Sun emits EM radiation across most of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The Sun also emits X-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and even radio waves;[13] the only direct signature of the nuclear process is the emission of neutrinos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion#Nuclear_fusion_in_stars
An important fusion process is the stellar nucleosynthesis that powers stars and the Sun. In the 20th century, it was recognized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of stellar heat and light.

The easiest way to look at it is you don't get sunburns from sitting in front of an electrical heater all day. Because its not emitting high amounts of UV radiation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_tanning
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunburn

I said on my last post its a spectrum from the nuclear reactor of the sun, the fact the specific spectrum has folks running around in circles shows the incredible cluelessness on what is a pretty simple topic.
Radiation is very simple, I am disappointed/surprised I have to post this stuff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
But of course it has come clear this whole thread is about drilling through the brain of clueless people who aren't interested in the truth or the science on anything. Everytime I post youtube links to bits of science documentries people get upset https://youtu.be/3ItOIz5gJiQ

Do you get this sitting in front of a heater inside your home? No, because the sun is emitting its nasty DNA damaging radiation.

You can just google "sunburn" in image search and get an endless stream of burns from radiation that you don't get from sitting in front of a heater.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=sunburn&safe=off&rlz=1C1CHFX_enAU777AU777&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3rZvj8vzZAhUK2LwKHaN3C3sQ_AUICigB&biw=1857&bih=1014#imgrc=hLvC9SFUhiPgOM:

As for the new policy of South Australia government policy of a Tesla power-wall+solar roof systems, with a $2,500 rebate, as this article says its going to cost around $24,000 in Australia, and arguing if its a good or bad policy doesn't really matter because compared to getting it for free, almost no one's going to pay $22,000 for it. I think for the most part the new SA government are perfectly happy with that. Its a policy based around the idea that they didn't technically completely kill it
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2018/03/19/david-bidstrup-is-it-a-new-start-in-sa-or-just-more-of-the-same-bullshit/

Punx0r · Mar 21, 2018

You're now (for some reason) posting photos of ginger people with sunburn (shocker!) to prove nuclear (fission) power stations are harmless?

Your arguments aren't even internally consistent.

GO AND READ A BOOK

To try and put it in your lingo: Stop suckling at the teet of the MSM influenced by a deliberate campaign by powerful fossil fuel business interests to spread FUD over the role of CO2 in climate change. The parallels with Big Tobacco and lung cancer are painfully obvious.

sendler2112 · Mar 21, 2018

Cephalotus said:
I don't understand why you show Germany as a negative example for wind and solar. We are coming from a very high percentage of burning lignite and for that our actual emission including significant amounts of wind and solar 8and less nukes) is not so bad comapred to other nations.

Actually i'm not down on Germany's vast effort they have spent to build out solar and wind. This is a step in the right direction. It is just a handy example of massive renewable (rebuildable) electricity installation. And the reality of a required near 100% thermal electric back up. But even as it is a crown jewel in high percentage of renewable electrical capacity, it is also important to realize that no matter what percentage of renewable overcapacity you build out, there will be long blackouts for snowy, Northern countries in winter when carbon fuel eventually leaves us. There is no scale of possible storage that can ever replace the carbon on demand generation that we have now. There is no scale of mobil storage for our big machines to convert to electric to dig up resources or grow food once liquid fuel leaves us. There are reports that estimate total resources for all available battery production to be exhausted at 1.6 Billion electric cars. We have already used 1 Billion carbon fueled cars. All of this electrification and storage will help. And be much better than nothing. But available energy, and all mineral resources/ food surplus, ect. in general, will eventually start a steady decline. There is a limit to growth.

billvon · Mar 21, 2018

TheBeastie said:
If you went into a restaurant and asked for a steak dinner that was 10% of its advertised size, you wouldn't buy it.

If you went into a restaurant and got a great steak dinner that had 10% of the calories of a regular steak dinner, the owner would be a billionaire in a year.

The sun is a nuclear reactor it just doesn't use uranium as its fuel, the specifics of the nuclear reaction process simply do not matter if your being subjected to the radiation . . . the sun is emitting its nasty DNA damaging radiation.

An excellent example! There's only one solution - put up bifacial solar panels everywhere to block the sun and save people from skin cancer. Think of the children whose lives we would save.

And since the sun is just a nuclear reactor, and the details don't matter, that would mean we were building out nuclear power instead of solar, which would make all the anti-greens and the big-energy folks happy. Win-win.

TheBeastie · Mar 27, 2018

Good article here, detailing on the whole, "Victorian coal Loy Yang power-station unit 3 560 MW tripped, South Australia's Tesla battery to the rescue", which was just baloney.
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2018/03/fcas-in-action-what-happens-when-a-generator-trips/
For me this whole thing was a testament to how dumb people are, because its a pure admission that South Australia are hopelessly addicted to Victorian coal via the interstate grid. South Australia should be relying on its own power rather than a coal-power station that couldn't be further away in distance from South Australia in Victoria.

I understand why it made news because anything to do with Tesla is news, even if its largely made up.
Anyway, this is it if you can't be bothered reading the article.

sendler2112 · Mar 27, 2018

TheBeastie said:
Good article here, detailing on the whole, "Victorian coal Loy Yang power-station unit 3 560 MW tripped, South Australia's Tesla battery to the rescue", which was just baloney.
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2018/03/fcas-in-action-what-happens-when-a-generator-trips/
For me this whole thing was a testament to how dumb people are,

.
http://www.wattclarity.com.au/2018/03/fcas-in-action-what-happens-when-a-generator-trips/
.

Wow! The original article completely tried to bamboozle everybody by using two different scales on the same graph. Here is what was original published.
.
.

.
.
Notice the "100MW" BigF'nBattery in South Australia barely threw out 8 MW for only 3 minutes! Here it is on an equivilent scale.
.
.

.
.
The rest of the thermal backup capacity responded to fill the loss of a tripped 560 MW coal plant within 15 seconds. The batteries are barely visible on this scale, second from the top under the hydro.
.
.

.
.
The scale of our dilemma in replacing fossil fuels with wind, solar, and batteries, is not at all yet comprehended.

sendler2112 · Mar 27, 2018

So I am still surprised to see only 8MW reported in a real emergency drop out of 560MW. And the other thing to remember is the scale of what we are trying to replace. Even if the BFB could maintain 30 MW for 4 hours and make it's rating, which it has yet to do for more than a few minutes, this is still only 5% of a small coal plant that we are trying to replace and only for 4 hours. We would need 120 BFBs just to make up for the output of that 1 plant for 1 day of poor sun and wind.

Hillhater · Mar 27, 2018

Guys, its obvious that batteries are never going to be able to replace even short term base load generator outages, or even the frequent dips in the wind farm output that it was originally spruked to do.
But dont forget the other "claimed" role for these batteries,..that of "FCAS".
The Battery believers claim that when that generator went down, if the battery had not immediately injected its support for the grid frequency, it could have instantly dropped below a critical point (49.8 Hz ?) where other fault detection interviens and cuts offlarge supply sections and even other generators to prevent damage.
Now, i dont know how much real truth there is in that, and how much is BS.... (the battery is 1000km distant to the generator that went down, and as can be seen only supplied a minimal amount of energy)..and i know that similar outages have been survived without drama before the battery was installed,.... BUT, i do know that being able to inject power that quickly in a outage situation is very Lucrative for the battery owner ! There are huge premium payments for the fast response Ancilliary Services.
You may also note that the batteries multiple daily charge discharge cycles continue to be closely related to the changes in wholesale power prices..frequently benefiting from a $100+MWh price differential. :wink:

wineboyrider · Mar 28, 2018

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

sendler2112 · Mar 28, 2018

Compressed gas energy storage is fairly inefficient. But can use less resources if you have an appropriate salt cavern for the container. 70% round trip with advanced thermal capture.
.
"1991 – A 110 megawatt plant with a capacity of 26 hours was built in McIntosh, Alabama (1991). The Alabama facility's $65 million cost works out to $590 per kW of generation capacity and about $23 per kW-hr of storage capacity, using a 19 million cubic foot solution mined salt cavern to store air at up to 1100 psi. Although the compression phase is approximately 82% efficient, the expansion phase requires combustion of natural gas at one third the rate of a gas turbine producing the same amount of electricity"

jimw1960 · Mar 29, 2018

I found this analysis relevant to the discussion:

The authors analyzed 36 years of hourly weather data (1980–2015) in the US. They calculated the available wind and solar power over this time period and also included the electrical demand in the US and its variation throughout the year.

With this information, the researchers considered two scenarios. In scenario 1, they imagined wind and solar installations that would be sufficient to supply 100% of the US electrical needs. In the second scenario, the installations would be over-designed; capable of providing 150% of the total U.S. electrical need. But the authors recognize that just because a solar panel or a wind turbine can provide all our energy, it doesn’t mean that will happen in reality.

The authors found that with 100% power capacity and no mechanism to store energy, a wind-heavy portfolio is best (about 75% wind, 25% solar) and using large aggregate regions is optimal. It is possible to supply about 75-80% of US electrical needs. If the system were designed with excess capacity (the 150% case), the US could meet about 90% of its needs with wind and solar power

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/mar/26/study-wind-and-solar-can-power-most-of-the-united-states

sendler2112 · Mar 29, 2018

jimw1960 said:
I found this analysis relevant to the discussion:

It’s no longer viable to say “we can’t.”
.
Of course there is no mention of the scale of cost or land use or raw materials involved. The USA consumes .46 TW continous average.
.
SolarStar is one of the highest performing and largest PV farms on the planet at 31% of its nameplate ac capacity of 600MW. Or 25% of 750MW PV capacity. Take your pick. Germany's solar does 10%. It uses 13 sqkm and at $2/ W would cost $1.2 Billion. It averages 190MW. We need 2,160 more SolarStars to make it to 100% of current electrical consumption. $2 Trillion USD. Every 20 years. And only if installed in the best desert locations That make 31%. Then we need some long wires to get from wherever to the NE USA which would only average 13% and have many days of zero if the panels were there.
.
Then we need 6TWh storage to store just 12 hours. This is 170 times the annual production of the GigaFactory. And would still fall short many days. Another $2 Trillion. Every 10 years.
.
Wind is slightly cheaper in the best locations but requires 10X the land area.
.
And electricity is only 1/3 to 1/5 of the total embodied energy that we use.

Hanssing · Apr 4, 2018

Germany’s energy consumption in 2017
by Craig Morris
11 Jan 2018

Based on preliminary figures for 2017, electricity from renewables grew by a record amount. Coal power production also fell noticeably even as nuclear power fell – despite record exports. But one big news item may have been overlooked amidst all the new records. Craig Morris takes a look.

https://energytransition.org/2018/01/german-energy-consumption-2017/

Hillhater · Apr 5, 2018

Interesting !...
So RE increased by a record amount ..(29TWh , or 5% ) ....but at the same time net exports reached 57 TWh !
Remember that much of the export is a "Load sheding" necessity (to keep the thermal plants running) and is at negative pricing !
I notice that there is no mention of the investment $$$s associated with that new RE capacity , and also no mention of the effects on retail power costs.

Cephalotus · Apr 5, 2018

sendler2112 said:
.., it is also important to realize that no matter what percentage of renewable overcapacity you build out, there will be long blackouts for snowy, Northern countries in winter when carbon fuel eventually leaves us. There is no scale of possible storage that can ever replace the carbon on demand generation that we have now...

Today Germany has more than 200TWh of storage capacity for methane and we build more. Main usage is to reduce pipline transport capacity for winter peak demands of our natural gas imports.

There is no reason why we could not use that stoareg capacity for methane powered electricity Generation.

In a world with a European wide grid (already existing), lots of wind and solar capacity and a small percetage of hydro or battery storage capacity only 5-10% of the annaul electricity generation Needs to be from gas powered plants.

Today Germany produces around 600TWh electricity per year and consumes around 550TWh per year.

Add 200TWh per year for electric transport and another 250TWh / year for domestic and industrial heating that is done by natural gas now and you end with a electricity demand of 1000TWh/ year. You will need to generate 50-100TWh / year with gas powered plants, at 40-60% efficiency (depending on Technology) this is around 100-200TWh of methane or hydrogen.

You do not Need storage capacity for all of that. There is a European wide Simulation of the last 50 years weather and the highest demand for power storage in a European grid with solar+wind for Germany in those 50 years has been the demand of 3 days, that's around 10TWh. (assuming a consumption of 1000TWh for electricity, domestic and industrial heating and mobility)

In the final stage this gas can be made from renewable electricity or if you prefer in nukes, the gas can be made in Germany or imported, in the intermediate scenario those 100-200 TWh can just be natural gas. (while saving 1000TWh+ of gas and oil for heatig and transport)

There is no scale of mobil storage for our big machines to convert to electric to dig up resources or grow food once liquid fuel leaves us.

I don't get that peak oil doomsday pornography.

You can make liquid fuels from biomass, you can make them from coal which will last hundreds of years, you can make them from wood and you can run the largest mobile machines in the world (the German Schaufelradbagger digging for lignite) on electricity.

We have done all of it before. It is not done today (in large scale), because fossil oil and gas is still cheap as dirt.

There are reports that estimate total resources for all available battery production to be exhausted at 1.6 Billion electric cars. We have already used 1 Billion carbon fueled cars.

An electric cars needs less Lithium for ist main battery than a conventional car needs lead for its battery.
There is a lot more Lithium available on our planet than lead.

Btw, I belive that 1,6 Billion cars are enough. I don't own one, not because I can't afford one, but I do not need to own one. I own 6 electric bikes though, the oldest of them based on a 25 year old bicycle I bought as a youth. 6 electric bikes weigh less than 1/10th of one electric car, they consume no storage space outside my "house" and the combined battery capacity at 2-3kWh is 1/20th of that of a useable electric car. Power consumption is 2-15Wh/km (15Wh/km is for my 45km/h speed pedelec at full power, 2Wh/km for touring) compared to power consumption of 120-250Wh/km of those ca. 10 types of modern electric cars that I have driven so far.

A car can Transport more People and more luggage of course. I'm not anti car, I just don't need to _own_ one, when you can have easy and cheal Access to public transport, electric bikes, taxis and car sharing systems

If you look at some megacities in developing/emerging countries average speed of cars is already slower than walking. I don't see why someone should think that it is a a good idea to double car ownership in such cities.

All of this electrification and storage will help. And be much better than nothing. But available energy, and all mineral resources/ food surplus, ect. in general, will eventually start a steady decline. There is a limit to growth.

I belive in the posibility of overshot and I also beleive in the possibility in the destruction of ecosystems beyond repair. I also belive that both happens today and will continue to happen.

It is sad that humand only look for better Options if it hurts badly. So far neither destruction of ecosystems nor climate Change does hurt enough so for the real change we have to wait until the dustruction is already done. This is sad for us and future Generations and it is stupid.

But even here you can read the advocates of burning fossil fuels "until nothing is left" and the advocates of producing radioactive waste just to save a few pennies on electricity costs.

This is how the brain of Homo "sapiens" thinks.

I do NOT believe in peak oil doomsday fantasies, where humanity is forced back to medival Age technology after "the collapse" This is nonsense., the world will not collapse because of a lack of somethig to burn
Society _could_ collapse someday because of other events, but this is far beyond this discussion about electricity generation.

Cephalotus · Apr 5, 2018

sendler2112 said:
and at $2/ W

A large scale photovoltaik power plant costs less than 0.8 USD/Wp in Germany and most of the rest of the world.

sendler2112 · Apr 5, 2018

Cephalotus said:
sendler2112 said:

and at $2/ W

Click to expand...

A large scale photovoltaik power plant costs less than 0.8 USD/Wp in Germany and most of the rest of the world.

Can you show us documented grid scale facilities somewhere and their cost with a years worth of AC production data? Renovus community solar just quoted me $2.17/W in NY, USA and the capacity factor here will be similar to Germany at sub 15% AC.

Cephalotus · Apr 5, 2018

sendler2112 said:
Can you show us documented grid scale facilities somewhere and their cost with a years worth of AC production data? Renovus community solar just quoted me $2.17/W in NY, USA and the capacity factor here will be similar to Germany at sub 15% AC.

Yes, I have financial data of some solar PV plants, but they are not public.

This is last PV tender in Germany. Feed in Tarif is 4.33ct/kWh for solar

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Ausschreibungen/Ausschreibungen_node.html

If you calculate at 1kWh/Wp per year (a bit more than your 10% capacity factor) you get 20kWh/Wp in 20 years. (the feed in tarif period. 100% of electricity needs to be fed to the grid)

That's a cummulated feed in tarif of 0.87€/Wp over 20 years.

Obviously this includes costs for 20 years interest and margin on the capital invested and also includes cost for insurance and maintaining the PV power plant for 20 years, so pure installation cost per Wp MUST be significantly(!) lower than that. Average cost (all incl) is around 0,50€/Wp.

At 0.80USD/Wp I gave a rather pessimistic number.

Installation cost of PV in the US has always been much higher than in Germany. There is no Need for PV beeing so expensive, because modules and Inverters cost the same in US compared to Germany and the land to mount them should be cheaper in the US compared to densily populated Germany.

I don't know the reason for that but asume there must be huge differences in installation and overhead costs. Could only find articles about rooftop solar from some years ago:

https://energytransition.org/2015/05/solar-twice-as-expensive-in-us-as-in-germany/

sendler2112 · Apr 5, 2018

Cephalotus said:
This is last PV tender in Germany. Feed in Tarif is 4.33ct/kWh for solar

https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/DE/Sachgebiete/ElektrizitaetundGas/Unternehmen_Institutionen/Ausschreibungen/Ausschreibungen_node.html

If you calculate at 1kWh/Wp per year (a bit more than your 10% capacity factor) you get 20kWh/Wp in 20 years. (the feed in tarif period. 100% of electricity needs to be fed to the grid)

That's a cummulated feed in tarif of 0.87€/Wp over 20 years.

I guess I don't understand how you can use the rate of feed in tariff to tell us how much was spent to build any given solar farm. Pick one farm. Tell us how much was spent to build it and what the nameplate is and what the documented capacity turned out to be.
.
The local farm that I visited was completed in 2015 for $5 Million USD and is rated at 2MW and has been performing at 15.7% annually.
.
The latest quote I got to invest in a community solar farm project was $2.17 USD/ W and I expect 15% capacity factor would be actually optimistic based on other rooftop installs I have studied in NY. A 55% total rebate and participation by the utility to allow my meter to "run backwards" still make it a viable green investment.

Cephalotus · Apr 5, 2018

My calculation gives you average data on ALL new large utility PV plants in Germany and not just some samples and it gives you proof on the maximum possible installation cost if you asume that the operaters are planing to earn money with them.

As I already wrote average cost is around 0,50€/Wp for utility scale PV in Germany and anual electricity production is around 1000Wh/Wp and year. Devide that with 8760h/year and you get your capacity factor. Sorry, I asumed you could do the math for yourself.

(1000Wh/W)/8760h = 11.4%

sendler2112 · Apr 5, 2018

You don't have to get grumpy. I see nothing in how you can extrapolate the value of a feed in tariffs over time for solar farms to tell us how much was spent to build them.

Cephalotus · Apr 5, 2018

sendler2112 said:
You don't have to get grumpy. I see nothing in how you can extrapolate the value of a feed in tariffs over time for solar farms to tell us how much was spent to build them.

To me it is quite obvious that there must be a maximum price point. There are no tax credits or subventions, so the cumulated FIT over 20 years has to cover all costs and the expected profit.

Hillhater · Apr 5, 2018

Cephalotus said:
To me it is quite obvious that there must be a maximum price point. There are no tax credits or subventions, so the cumulated FIT over 20 years has to cover all costs and the expected profit.

Incorrect.
You do realise that the "FIT" is an incentive payment (subsidy) paid in addition to the income recieved from sales of power at market rates ?...( currently approx Eu 50 MWh )
By any other name the FIT is a subsidy paid to the operators of the solar facilities by all electricity consumers.
I do not believe there is any direct correlation between the FIT and the capital or operating costs of any solar system.
It is an incentive payment designed to encourage investment in particular technologies, and has been/is adjusted to suit government forward energy planning .

.....Feed-in tariffs are a policy mechanism designed to accelerate investment in renewable energy technologies by providing them remuneration (a "tariff") above the retail or wholesale rates of electricity. The mechanism provides long-term security to renewable energy producers,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariffs_in_Germany

Hillhater · Apr 5, 2018

Cephalotus said:
A large scale photovoltaik power plant costs less than 0.8 USD/Wp in Germany and most of the rest of the world.

FYI....
Check a few typical recent PV builds around the world.
Australias largest ..220MW, usd$240m = $1.1 /W
Indias largest......1000 MW usd $1100m = $1.1/W
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurnool_Ultra_Mega_Solar_Park
Proposed Saudi/china....7200MW. , usd$5000m. = $0.70/W
BUT... Those are all "Nameplate". capacities, before CFs are applied.
So the real cost per kW is 5-8 times that amount !......$4.0 - $8.0+ Usd$/W.

And ...you still have the issue of intermittent supply and the added cost of storage or back up generation (eg, Germany and Australia)

As a comparison, there is currently much public /commercial discussion over future power generation in Australia.
One detail from that is a quote for a new build HELE , coal fired, 2400MW generator at Au$2000m (usd$1500m). Which means usd$ 0.63 /W. With a CF of 90%+
Put another way,
The 2400MW hele plant could supply 19,000,000 MWh per year , on demand ,continuous 24/7.
The 220MW solar plant would, at best, supply 385,000 MWh per year ...of intermittent power , with possibly none on some days !
So You would have to build 50 (FIFTY ). of those 220MW solar farms, just to get the same amount of power as one hele coal plant ..at a cost of usd$12.0 bn , or six times the cost of one hele plant.
....AND.. Then there is the other issue of working life expectancy !!!! At least double for the hele plant !!
Why do people not see the huge twisted logic applied to Solar (and wind) ?

Punx0r · Apr 6, 2018

Hmm, what a suspiciously cheap price for a new coal plant! Why not apply the same scepticism as is repeatedly done for PV plants? Please include financing, insurance, maintenance, fuel and provide historic data of actual construction costs and output over a year for an existing, similar plant!

Haha, in fact, I just banged "cost of building new coal plant" in google and top result is an article about a controversial proposal by the Aus government to build new coal plants: http://theconversation.com/new-coal-plants-wouldnt-be-clean-and-would-cost-billions-in-taxpayer-subsidies-72362

Look at the cost per MWh, note the word "uninvestable" concerning financing and note it would have to be paid for by taxpayer subsidies.

Pot, kettle?

Hillhater said:
Proposed Saudi/china....7200MW. , usd$5000m. = $0.70/kW
BUT... Those are all "Nameplate". capacities, before CFs are applied.
So the real cost per kW is 5-8 times that amount !......$4.0 - $8.0+ Usd$/kw..

What is this crazy maths? Watts is POWER not ENERGY.

If you have a 200HP "nameplate" car and drive it for an hour a day does it really only make 200/24 = 8.3HP? If it cost you $50,000 to buy did it "really" cost you $50,000 x 24 = $1.2m?

Hillhater said:
The 220MW solar plant would, at best, supply 385,000 MWh per year ...of intermittent power , with possibly none on some days !

Please quote the last day in recorded history where Australia received zero solar illumination. Or anywhere in the World for that matter excluding the Poles during the winter.

This may seem like a minor point, but it's indicative of some of the nonsense stated in this thread by people with a blatant political agenda.

Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

1 MW

1 GW

100 kW

1 MW

1 MW

100 kW

100 kW

100 TW

1 MW

100 kW

10 kW

100 kW

100 mW

100 TW

10 kW

10 kW

100 kW

10 kW

100 kW

10 kW

100 kW

10 kW

100 TW

100 TW

1 GW

Similar threads