Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Punx0r said:

Denmark has done well growing a domestic industry producing wind turbines that employs many thousands. I'm sure ex-coal industry people could be redeployed (probably into cleaner jobs).

Click to expand...

Politians fear the voters in those regions in 2019.

There is always more opposition when things chnage than there are people that see the chances. Especially in Germany. Especially in Eastern Germany.

But the "coal comission" did actually found a compromise and everyone in that comitte but one person voted for it. Imho this is a good thing and shows that politican actually stil is able to find compromises. At least over here.

Cephalotus said:

As you will not "believe" the answer anyway and will doubt anything and as you know everything better than the experts over here I suggest you just wait a few years until it actually did happen....

Click to expand...

Yep. The people who claim it cannot be done should get out of the way of the people doing it. I am reminded of all the people who claimed that solar would never work, we would never have EV's, wireless data is a useless fad, there's no way to fix the ozone layer etc etc.

Hillhater said:

jimw1960 said:

He's one of the holdout deniers who gets his science information for right-wing political sites and conspiracy theory propagandists. I don't think he'll ever admit the truth because his political mindset and world view blocks any contradictory new information.

Click to expand...

Hey jimw...
Only a few word changes needed ..
Look how well it reflects the situation !....

...Jimw1960 is one of the holdout ALARMISTS who gets his science information for LEFT-wing political sites and CAGW theory propagandists. I don't think he'll ever admit the truth because his political mindset and world view blocks any contradictory new information...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ha! Good one. In fact, however, I get my science first hand from data and peer-reviewed scientific literature, because I am a scientist and am directly involved in planning to meet our future water resource challenges in the face of a warming climate and rising sea levels.

Germany is getting 54% of it's electricity from coal and nuclear tonight. And it is windy at 24% capacity factor so that gas is only running 27% of capacity.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE
.

jimw1960 said:

Ha! Good one. In fact, however, I get my science first hand from data and peer-reviewed scientific literature, because I am a scientist and am directly involved in planning to meet our future water resource challenges in the face of a warming climate and rising sea levels.

Click to expand...

But he saw some guy on Youtube say that this other guy knows that there's no warming and it's all a Chinese hoax. And that anyone who believes in the science is a sheep.

But back to the topic, good article on price of renewables vs coal from Forbes:

==========================
Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

Megan Mahajan
Dec 3 2018

The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired power plants
customers save money when utilities replace existing coal with wind or solar.

A new report reveals 42% of global coal capacity is currently unprofitable, and the United States could save $78 billion by closing coal-fired power plants in line with the Paris Climate Accord’s climate goals. This industry-disrupting trend comes down to dollars and cents, as the cost of renewable energy dips below fossil fuel generation.

Across the U.S., renewable energy is beating coal on cost: The price to build new wind and solar has fallen below the cost of running existing coal-fired power plants in Red and Blue states. For example, Colorado’s Xcel will retire 660 megawatts (MW) of coal capacity ahead of schedule in favor of renewable sources and battery storage, and reduce costs in the process. Midwestern utility MidAmerican will be the first utility to reach 100% renewable energy by 2020 without increasing customer rates, and Indiana’s NIPSCO will replace 1.8 gigawatts (GW) of coal with wind and solar.

Lazard’s annual Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis reports solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind costs have dropped an extraordinary 88% and 69% since 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, coal and nuclear costs have increased by 9% and 23%, respectively. Even without accounting for current subsidies, renewable energy costs can be considerably lower than the marginal cost of conventional energy technologies.
========================

sendler2112 said:

Germany is getting 54% of it's electricity from coal and nuclear tonight. And it is windy at 24% capacity factor so that gas is only running 27% of capacity.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=country&solar=false&remote=true&wind=false&countryCode=DE
.

Click to expand...

And a few days ago ( 24/1/19. Evening peak )...
... Wind was providing 2.0 % of demand.
...Solar. 0.0 %
Whilst Fossils + Nuclear were providing 80+%. !!

billvon said:

But back to the topic, good article on price of renewables vs coal from Forbes:

==========================
Plunging Prices Mean Building New Renewable Energy Is Cheaper Than Running Existing Coal

Megan Mahajan
Dec 3 2018

========================

Click to expand...

Yet again, they are comparing costs for intermittent, unreliable, generation , to proven 24/7 generation.
If she had attempted to include the costs for storage and back up, to provide an equivalent, reliable, 24/7 supply, they might get a (very) different result..
But that would not suit her agenda !

Cephalotus said:

Hillhater said:

So, what is the plan to keep the lights on when the wind stops blowing. ( as it will do !) ?
...another 40-50 GW of gas generation ? ?
...fueled from where ?

Click to expand...

As you will not "believe" the answer anyway and will doubt anything and as you know everything better than the experts over here I suggest you just wait a few years until it actually did happen....

Click to expand...

OR..the answer is so impractical that you dare not post it ?
OR.. You dont know either. ?

Hillhater said:

Yet again, they are comparing costs for intermittent, unreliable, generation , to proven 24/7 generation.

Click to expand...

Yep. And comparing costs between deadly, polluting power that kills thousands every year, and clean power that does not. And comparing costs between power that does not require rail lines and cooling water to power that does.

Lots of ways to compare them. Per the reaction of utilities, they like the cheap, clean, less deadly power.

Hillhater said:

And a few days ago ( 24/1/19. Evening peak )...
... Wind was providing 2.0 % of demand.
...Solar. 0.0 %
Whilst Fossils + Nuclear were providing 80+%. !!

Click to expand...

Some stats around here:
Percentage of my power provided by solar - 80%
Percentage of my power provided by the San Onofre nuclear power plant - 0%

Ahhhhh, peace at last.

I'm all for healthy debate and varied opinions, but as Chris said earlier - I think we're done here.

On topic - the real driver for change (as in, the majority of capacity) is always going to be economic. It's incredible what passionate people in small but vocal numbers can do to kick start a movement, but economics is going to be what shifts the needle in the real world. Thanks to the snowballing effect of scale dropping price further growing scale and the rising public understanding of the true cost of 'externalities' associated with fossil sources, we're just seeing the beginning of another exponential growth curve. Regardless of your philosophical or political views, big business will invariably go with what makes the most sense to the bottom line. Anyone who doesn't will be fired or their business will become noncompetitive.

The opinions of the big orange man on the cleanliness of coal won't save coal mining, Hillhaters fervent belief won't stop the world getting hotter or countries and companies continuing to embrace intermittent, unreliable generation. It is the most rational choice, because it is cheaper - truly cheaper, in the sense that it doesn't kill people, taint our shared breathing bubble, drown islands and poison our drinking supply. But also now cheaper in the simplistic dollars and cents. Carbon intensive energy sources will only grow more expensive as more costs are factored in, reducing scale drives further price increases, increasing scarcity of readily accessible sources incrementally increases costs and makes alternatives feasible etc

Oviously that "ignor" feature is not verry effective,..or you would not be responding again .
Certainly the arguments being made for RE are economic, but as mentioned above, they are false arguments based on flawed comparasons.
If you had bothered to scan the cost data i posted for the recent experience in Australia, you would see a small example of how our states with advanced RE programms are reducing costs for their consumers .
Nearly a billion dollars extra for a few hours of power !
You see , its not about how much it costs to generate a MW of power, its what it can cost when that power IS NOT available.
Businesses that get cut off when there is a cloud passing over, or the wind drops, will not be happy, and they are not happy when they have to bear the extra costs of back up power....they shut up shop and relocate toplaces with a cheap reliable power supply......Its already happened here !
As you said for fossil fuel sourced power....
RE power will only get more more expensive as more costs are factored in....storage, backup, grid upgrades, replacement of "short life" technology. Etc etc
I suspect you have hit the "ignor" button on reality too !..... but that one seems to be working well for you.

sorry - double posting

Hillhater said:

OR..the answer is so impractical that you dare not post it ?
OR.. You dont know either. ?

Click to expand...

I already posted "the answer":

https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=89002&start=3250#p1443736

You don't like it or you don't agree or whatever.

Let it be, I feel no need to discuss this with you. What's the point? I say it will work just fine, you say it will not.

I guess we will find out in a few years.

Cephalotus said:

I guess we will find out in a few years.

Click to expand...

Yup! It's totally worth a try. Developed countries have too much money, as demonstrated by their militaries and military programs. It would be better to spend it on the prospective of clean future.

German Utility company ENBW will build a 175MW solar power plant in Brandenburg, East Germany.

This is a solar power plant without any suibsidies which just will sell electricity at market Prices.

This is just the start of "phase 2"

https://www.pveurope.eu/News/Markets-Money/Germany-Utility-EnBW-plans-to-build-175MW-subsidy-free-solar-park

Solar power starts to be competitve in cloudy Germany!

It looks like behind the meter battery storage is exploding in Australia (metaphorically ).

In 2016: 6,500 batteries installed.
In 2017: 21,000
In 2018: 33,000 (all from the CEC's survey of PV in Australia)
In 2019: BNEF predicts a conservative 70,000 batteries will be connected to solar homes .

Now in Australia, one in five households (about 2 million) has solar on the roof, and it's steadily growing. The average system size is 6 kW peak. The average battery install is about 10 kWh, but like solar PV the economics will become so favourable going bigger is better. The homes that installed batteries in 2017 will be doubling their packs by the end of the year because it's cheap enough to do so. They will effectively become off-grid homes, with industry consuming the bulk of grid power (if they don't already have solar on the roof).

Australia's households will be going solar+storage quicker than you can say "It's never going to work"

jonescg said:

Now in Australia, one in five households (about 2 million) has solar on the roof, and it's steadily growing. The average system size is 6 kW peak. The average battery install is about 10 kWh

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that home electricity is only 20% (40% in hot areas with high cooling demand) of regional electricity. Which is only 20% of total energy.

sendler2112 said:

jonescg said:

Now in Australia, one in five households (about 2 million) has solar on the roof, and it's steadily growing. The average system size is 6 kW peak. The average battery install is about 10 kWh

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that home electricity is only 20% (40% in hot areas with high cooling demand) of regional electricity. Which is only 20% of total energy.

Click to expand...

It's changed a lot over the last couple of decades. It used to be that wood fires provided most heat. Then resistive heating elements in the 70s and 80s, then in the 90s it was gas. We're starting to see a shift back to electricity for heating now that reverse cycle AC systems are pretty efficient. But yes, industry will consume the bulk of the electricity generated on the grid. If houses use less, it means more for industry, however their power costs will no longer be subsidised by residential tariffs. At least in Australia, the vast majority of the population lives below the 30th parallel, so the year is cooler than it is hotter.

jonescg said:

It looks like behind the meter battery storage is exploding in Australia (metaphorically ).

In 2016: 6,500 batteries installed.
In 2017: 21,000
In 2018: 33,000 (all from the CEC's survey of PV in Australia)
In 2019: BNEF predicts a conservative 70,000 batteries will be connected to solar homes .

Now in Australia, one in five households (about 2 million) has solar on the roof, and it's steadily growing. The average system size is 6 kW peak. The average battery install is about 10 kWh, but like solar PV the economics will become so favourable going bigger is better. The homes that installed batteries in 2017 will be doubling their packs by the end of the year because it's cheap enough to do so. They will effectively become off-grid homes, with industry consuming the bulk of grid power (if they don't already have solar on the roof).

Australia's households will be going solar+storage quicker than you can say "It's never going to work"

Click to expand...

I suspect that the 70,000 installations for 2019, (4 times last years total) , is assuming SA goes ahead with their " virtual power plant" proposal, which includes 650MWh of subsidised houshold battery installations.
Auatralian solar is so heavily subsidised, anyone who can afford it would be foolish to ignor the possibility
A 6kW system with a 10 kWh battery can be a little as $15k installed.
But there are limits....
According to the last Census, Auatralia has 7.6 m housholds.
But 1.25 m of those are apartments/units which have little oportunity for RT solar.
Also, 30% of all households are rented...again with little prospect of RT benefits..
So we are left with approx 4.5m potential for RT installs
However there will be some (say 1m) , who simply cannot afford the costs ( cash or loan repayments)
And others whos property is simply not suitable ..trees, shading, roof configuration, etc
The end result is there are probably only about 3 m households in total that are likely to utilise RT solar, and 2m of those have already done so.!

And whilst its a good deal for those than can take advantage of the oportunity, you have to consider the effect overall on the population. ..Social consequences..
For every kWh of power not taken from the grid, the operating , maintenance, repair and distribution costs have to be redistributed between the remaining grid users, in the form of higher electricity costs.
Fundamentally that means that the wealthy (lucky) RT users are being subsidised by the unfortunate folks who cannot take advantage or afford RT solar !
How easily can you rest knowing that pensioners and low income families are helping to pay for your electricity ?

Hillhater said:

How easily can you rest knowing that pensioners and low income families are helping to pay for your electricity ?

Click to expand...

LOL! The ol' "How long have you been beating your wife?" trick. Love it!

M

I have 100% unsubsidised solar on my roof. It cost me $1100.

They can remove the rooftop solar subsidy completely and it will still go nuts. Indeed, I believe they should wind them back now that they have achieved what they set out to achieve.

I sleep well at night. As to those who wilfully delay progress on reducing emissions... pump up the Valium.

jonescg said:

I have 100% unsubsidised solar on my roof. It cost me $1100.

They can remove the rooftop solar subsidy completely and it will still go nuts. Indeed, I believe they should wind them back now that they have achieved what they set out to achieve.

I sleep well at night. As to those who wilfully delay progress on reducing emissions... pump up the Valium.

Click to expand...

I assume you are still grid connected, because you wont have storage or back up at that cost level
Whilst the subsidies are a economic joke, i dont object since it is our (taxpayer) mony that funds it..
But Its not the equipment cost that is the problem.
The progressive reduction of demand for grid supply forces up the power costs for those that cannot get on the solar party waggon. the low income and disadvantaged
If it were to continue to its ultimate goal of high % of RT solar ( it wont, for many reasons ). , it could litterally make the grid unviable causing a few problems for all industries, community services, transport, water supplies, etc etc.
As it is, it is already causing increased costs to all of those service areas and industry.
Ps... Didnt i read that WA had already placed restrictions on RT solar installations because it was disrupting grid supplies ?
It is not all roses in the RT solar garden !

Hillhater said:

It is not all roses in the RT solar garden !

Click to expand...

Yes, but have you stopped beating your wife HH?

M

MJSfoto1956 said:

Hillhater said:

It is not all roses in the RT solar garden !

Click to expand...

Yes, but have you stopped beating your wife HH?
M

Click to expand...

? Which one ? :wink: