Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[jonescg]

You have to break eggs to make an omelette

Some large industrial users in Au ...(Steel producers, large paper process mills, ). ..have announced plans to install their own power generation capacity due to the increasing move to renewable grid sources and consequent insecurity of base load. Those will undoubtedly be Thermal generation, gas, waste fueled, etc, ..which makes the utility move to renewables a farce !

Meanwhile remote mine sites in WA are going solar to supplement their daytime loads http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2016-06-08/solar-pv-diesel-hybrid-power-ramped-up-at-copper-mine/7492348 with some using battery storage for running camp facilities by night. I reckon there will be enough baseload power available once households look after their own affairs. And when they do decide they need more power, I'd be very surprised if they build anything more polluting than a gas turbine.

 

[Hillhater]

...using Clean Energy Fund finance.. :wink:
Yes, they are off grid so have limited options.
But at 10MW, with 10MW of diesel back up (and night time use), you might ask why they didnt Choose either .....
.....all solar with a bigger battery ,....
..... or just run the diesel gen 24hrs since fuel is cheap to the mines, and it would more than halve the capital cost ' ??
And.. That time lapse video of the build is excellent.
[youtube]NGNvf7KV_WY[/youtube]

 

[sendler2112]

Interesting trackers that follow day/ night. But the panels are mounted flat so that, since it is located at 25* South latitude, the winter angle will be 48* at best all day long.

 

[liveforphysics]

Yep and if people learn to Reduce their consumption, at least in a domestic sense, the average roof will easily provide the home power. Maybe not all year, but on average. Our 5person home uses less than the average 1 person household, and our 2kw solar set up (small) and evacuated tubes provides about 60% of our annual consumption. This is excess is summer, break even in Autumn deficient in spring/winter by varying degrees.
We don't live a bare minimum existence, but I do wonder where people manage to dump all that power... I mean I'd have to quintuple our power useage to equal the average ( based on power supplier stats)... What the hell do people do with all that power?? I guess I'd have to take into account our wood heater to be fair, cause a lot of people have heat pumps, but that would only be a moderate increase in total power consumption.

Grid-tied inverter is what you do with all the extra power.

I can't speak for any location other than California, but here it's not a challenge to use only EVs, and to be a net grid provider with solar. This means during the night you draw from the grid, but you feed the grid more Wh of energy than you draw from it (generally by a large factor if you didn't do a ton of long distance EV travel that day.)

The most modern EV and cell mfg plants are also setup around being solar powered, for the simple reason that it's ROI is so rapid when panels are so cheap, it's just a year or two before it's like the panels cost you nothing and as a result whatever you're mfg can be as competitive as possible.

 

[Hillhater]

This published study of PV energy generated vs energy consumed in producing a PV system is interesting....
Im sure the data and results would vary for different locations and current panel tech, but the conclusions are not what you would want to believe..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379

The result of rigorously calculating the “extended ERoEI” for regions of moderate insolation levels as experienced in Switzerland and Germany proves to be very revealing. It indicates that, at least at today's state of development, the PV technology cannot offer an energy source but a NET ENERGY LOSS, since its ERoEIEXT is not only very far from the minimum value of 5 for sustainability suggested by Murphy and Hall (2011), but is less than 1.
•
Our advanced societies can only continue to develop if a surplus of energy is available, but it has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel. On the contrary we find ourselves suffering increased dependence on fossil energy. Even if we were to select, or be forced to live in a simpler, less rapidly expanding economic environment, photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation, since it involves an extremely high expenditure of material, human and capital resources.

 

[liveforphysics]

Fortunately that papers solar panel mfg processes are all based on 2008, 2011, and 2013 solar panel mfg data, which predates the production ramp to radically lower energy and materials cost to build polycrystaline plasma sprayed Si layer continous process cells, rather than growing giant perfect crystals and sawing thin sections of them and etching the junction points and manually mounting and interconnecting them.

As you likely already know, it was the swap from fragile and labor and process intensive monocrystaline cells to polycrystaline sprayed on Si cell mfg tech that caused the global solar cell price crash from >$1/Watt to bids in Indias new solar facilities at [strike]$0.18/Watt installed.[/strike] $0.65/Watt installed, $0.36/Watt for bare panels.

Showing obsolete costly mfg processes for solar doesn't achieve some guys mostly arbitrary 5:1 ratio seems to have little to no impact on today's solar realities.

Here is a very simple reality. We are sharing a closed loop environment on a shared spaceship with a mutually tied fate based on retention of a life supporting atmosphere. If we were in a space capsule together with only say 10ft diameter, so all the walls were easily in view, and the spaceship had flooring made of coal, and windows that let the sun's light through, I bet you would leave all that coal right where it sat undisturbed. Adjust the wall distance ratios in your closed loop system by a half dozen orders of magnitude and suddenly its a race for who can burn the most the soonest.

This published study of PV energy generated vs energy consumed in producing a PV system is interesting....
Im sure the data and results would vary for different locations and current panel tech, but the conclusions are not what you would want to believe..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379

The result of rigorously calculating the “extended ERoEI” for regions of moderate insolation levels as experienced in Switzerland and Germany proves to be very revealing. It indicates that, at least at today's state of development, the PV technology cannot offer an energy source but a NET ENERGY LOSS, since its ERoEIEXT is not only very far from the minimum value of 5 for sustainability suggested by Murphy and Hall (2011), but is less than 1.
•
Our advanced societies can only continue to develop if a surplus of energy is available, but it has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel. On the contrary we find ourselves suffering increased dependence on fossil energy. Even if we were to select, or be forced to live in a simpler, less rapidly expanding economic environment, photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation, since it involves an extremely high expenditure of material, human and capital resources.

 

[sendler2112]

But without a rock solid baseload grid none of that works. Solar in New York is predicated for a year round average at 13% of the nameplate capacity. Doing the install yourself and buying from Wholesalesolar.com, and with the 55% tax refunds, the ROI is 6 years. with installation and 55% refund the ROI is 10 years. Throw out the government participation and the ROI is 21 years. And this is without storage so you are still relying on the grid or it won't work.

 

[sendler2112]

As you likely already know, it was the swap from fragile and labor and process intensive monocrystaline cells to polycrystaline sprayed on Si cell mfg tech that caused the global solar cell price crash from >$1/Watt to bids in Indias new solar facilities at $0.18/Watt installed.

I've never seen any solar farm projects completed for anywhere near that price point. Of $1/ Watt. Let alone anything less. Most installations in the US are still running closer to $3/ Watt.
PS. Not including the land.

 

[Hillhater]

Best cost (proposed) for a utility PV plant currently is $0.65 $/W... And that is in India basicly using slave labour ( a significant part of the project costs)
The best proposed cost in the USA is $1.25 /W ..but that is not a completed project either.
Further, those costs are inevitably deceptive. " $/Nameplate capacity" figures, so x4 for reality check !
Panel costs have actuallt started increasing recently (+10% last month) due to huge demand from china and restricted supply.
Luke,.... sure panel technology and manufacturing has changed and i would accept that the energy required may well have reduced significantly, ..
..but that energy for panel manufacture was less than 50% of the total energy input to a functional PV installation, so even if they could magicly reduce that component to ZERO...the remaining energy required would still not lift the ERoEI ratio above 2.

 

[liveforphysics]

I was mistaken on india solar costs, my apologies.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2016/09/19/india-imported-solar-module-prices-plunge-to-36-us-cents-per-watt-peak_100026178/


You're right solar in India does seem to have recently increased, and I was mixed up with my above price and will correct post.

 

[Hanssing]

This published study of PV energy generated vs energy consumed in producing a PV system is interesting....
Im sure the data and results would vary for different locations and current panel tech, but the conclusions are not what you would want to believe..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516301379

The result of rigorously calculating the “extended ERoEI” for regions of moderate insolation levels as experienced in Switzerland and Germany proves to be very revealing. It indicates that, at least at today's state of development, the PV technology cannot offer an energy source but a NET ENERGY LOSS, since its ERoEIEXT is not only very far from the minimum value of 5 for sustainability suggested by Murphy and Hall (2011), but is less than 1.
•
Our advanced societies can only continue to develop if a surplus of energy is available, but it has become clear that photovoltaic energy at least will not help in any way to replace the fossil fuel. On the contrary we find ourselves suffering increased dependence on fossil energy. Even if we were to select, or be forced to live in a simpler, less rapidly expanding economic environment, photovoltaic technology would not be a wise choice for helping to deliver affordable, environmentally favourable and reliable electricity regions of low, or even moderate insolation, since it involves an extremely high expenditure of material, human and capital resources.

I would note, that the study is interesting, its also widely debated.
See this response amongst others: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516307066

We have carefully analysed this paper, and found methodological inconsistencies and calculation errors that, in combination, render its conclusions not scientifically sound.

They end up with EROI of 7-9 ie. a factor of 10 in difference. Also they mention:

It is interesting to note that a recent independent meta-analysis of the net energy of PV also assigned the lowest possible score of 1 (on a 1–5 scale) to Ferroni and Hopkirk's work under the ‘reliability’ and ‘data age’ criteria, respectively because “the data could only be traced via a secondary grey literature publication of the authors” and “the studies cite older studies which again cite older studies” (Koppelaar, 2016).

 

[Hillhater]

Not surprising there is a lot of response to such a controversial report on a sensitive subject which is central to the energy/ CO2 debate.
Its easy even for a "layman" like me to find flaws in both papers, but i suspect the debate will rumble on for many years with no conclusive outcome.

 

[liveforphysics]

Not surprising there is a lot of response to such a controversial report on a sensitive subject which is central to the energy/ CO2 debate.
Its easy even for a "layman" like me to find flaws in both papers, but i suspect the debate will rumble on for many years with no conclusive outcome.

Burning things most certainly has a known outcome.

Personally I think it's reasonable for a culture to make solar panels with solar power, and keep boot-strapping that cycle of scaling factory size as you can scale solar panel mfg to support the new solar factories. If you also invest heavily in recycling the materials in worn out panels and using solar to recycle the raw materials into the newest panel design when they wear out.

 

[sendler2112]

I was mistaken on india solar costs, my apologies.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2016/09/19/india-imported-solar-module-prices-plunge-to-36-us-cents-per-watt-peak_100026178/


You're right solar in India does seem to have recently increased, and I was mixed up with my above price and will correct post.

Quoting the stated wholesale price of raw panels as listed in an online magazine article doesn't tell us what it costs to build a solar farm. All of this talk just misleads people. A form of advertising hype to promote one industry over another. Show me a reputable report of the actual cost of a solar farm project complete at the end as it is commisioned. And then multiply that by 4 to get the actual yearly average cost per Watt (in the best location with no rain). Topaz uses cheap panels and is doing 25% of the nameplate. Solar Star used top line panels and is doing 31%. And then show us the actual cost of an energy storage farm (Pumped hydro? Batteries? Flywheels?) as commisioned.

 

[sendler2112]

The Desert Sunlight farm in Cali is one of the newest and was completed in 2015 using thin film cells and is doing 26.7% of the 550MW nameplate. NY, USA installations are predicated at 13%. The stated loan guarantees are $1.47 Billion but I don't know if that even tells us all that was spent to complete the project. Were there any government rebates ot tax incentives? But that is the only number published so we will run with it. So the cost per namepkate capacity is $2.67/ Watt. The cost per actual output is $10 / Watt. And this includes no storage. Which Tesla power is quoting at $0.40 / Wh for grid modules. So to store only 12 hours of the average would add another $0.7 Billion. Plus installation to a factor of 2? Which will smooth the output for 1 day. Total costs of $20 / Watt? with 12 hours storage? If it rains for a day the batteries will run out overnight and you will get nothing. 1 day of rain. Nothing. Please wake up people. You are in a solar trance of misinformation.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm
.

 

[Hillhater]

I blame the money mostly.
There is so much to be made from renewable energy certificates, carbon credits, grants, subsidies, etc etc.....that there is a huge financial incentive for energy generators "go with the flow" .
Politicians will likewise support anything they think will win a few voters ot campaign donations.
Whilst the majority of the public will just swallow the headlines about "free energy from the Sun/wind". But never queery why energy costs keep increasing.

 

[sendler2112]

So the other arguement that pops up is what does this farm cost over the 25 year lifetime of output.
.
Distributed + storage is fine to help with personal needs. If you have the solar area. But most people will live in appartment buildings. The baseload consumption for infrastucture of society is immense. Way too much for rooftop to even make a dent. 3 TeraWatt continous average just for electricity. Which is 20,500 of these solar farms. 10 TerraWatt average for all energy would triple that. Which is forecast to double by 2050. Solar plus storage cannot do any small portion of this by then. Storage becomes the big issue when you try to commit to a solar baseload grid.
.
By the way. Over a 25 year service life if they don't spend another penny, The solar farm divides out to 8.5c/ kWh. With no storage. Of course the final consumer of farm energy will pay an additional 1.3 times that for distibution, fees and taxes and some profit. That is without the storage. Lets say the storage will very optimistically last 3000 cycles. 8 years. You will go through at least 3 sets of batteries in 25 years. Let's say the first set was installed for no additional cost. $0.7 Billion The next 2 sets will have installation costs. 0.1 Billion each? Who knows? So $2.3 Billion to store 12 hours of average output for 25 years. Total system price of $3.8 Billion for 25 years. 35.4c/ kWh with 12 hours of storage. Cost. Not distributed. Your home mounted system would be a bit more at 37.4c / kWh with storage over it's 25 year life.
.

 

[Chalo]

Given that the money return on investment over 20 years for PV panels at end user retail prices is now over 10:1, I think it's very safe to say that people claiming that PV doesn't have an economically viable EROEI are disseminating misinformation.

Photovoltaics would have to be very, very expensive and shockingly filthy to manufacture before they're even in the same ballpark as fossil energy, in terms of sustainability.

 

[liveforphysics]

Does anyone have a long term useful energy source that isn't solar?

Otherwise, efforts would be best spent towards solving whatever the problems may be with solar. I've never built a large scale solar farm, but my own panels peak over nameplate on clear days and have delivered exactly what I had estimated and I've not seen anything not to like about it yet ( my ROI was instant because panels were a gift from a friend who is an engineer for a local solar mfg who gave me cosmetic defect panels).

If someone makes a solar farm that was over claiming output on the project bid vs what is installaled by 300-400% it seems something would have to be a grossly huge miscalculation or intentionally being optimistic for whatever motivations. It's pretty easy to look up the average solar irradiation energy for a location and to test a few panels in those conditions to measure real output.

 

[sendler2112]

Given that the money return on investment over 20 years for PV panels at end user retail prices is now over 10:1.

Where do you guys come up with this?
.
Must be you didn't read my post above based on real information with references. Here is another example:
.
I recently got a quote from the NY state organization "Solar Estimate.org". 9kW to cover what I use (as if anyone really has enough roof for that) system installed was $26,000. The stated expected output factor for my area was 13% of the nameplate. So 1.17kW average for the year. So 10, 250 kWh per year. I'm paying 12c/ kWh at the most at the bottom of my electric bill including all taxes and fees. The true number. Dollars paid divided by the kWh's used. So that system will average $1,230 payback / year. Not really because I still have to the $17/ month connection fee, but anyway. So $1,026 payback / year/ So payback is 25.3 years with no incentives. With the currently huge federal tax credit of 30% plus the equally huge state tax credit of 25% I can take over 5 years I would eventually get the price down to $11,700 and pay it back in 11.4 years with the incentives. If I could buy the parts from wholesalesolar.com and install it myself for no charge the system price would still be $15,100 and payback in 14.7 years with no incentives. And this is grid tie no storage which still relies entirely on a rock solid baseload grid from something non-intermittent.
.
Where do you guys get your numbers?

 

[sendler2112]

If someone makes a solar farm that was over claiming output on the project bid vs what is installaled by 300-400% it seems something would have to be a grossly huge miscalculation or intentionally being optimistic for whatever motivations. It's pretty easy to look up the average solar irradiation energy for a location and to test a few panels in those conditions to measure real output.

It is a shock to finally read the truth isn't it. Panels are rated at peak. The projects are sold (and talked about in the news) at nameplate capacity. The best solar farm is averaging 31% of this since it is dark 1/2 the time and conditions are less than perfect at other times when it is not night. It is all over Wikipedia for you to read. SolarStar is exceptional. Most other really good desert farms are around 26%. The best wind is at 41% of the nameplate. However that is deduced. NY wind on the Tug Hill is predicated at 30%. But wind is so variable on a minute to minute scale and difficult to balance on the grid, It's replacement value is derated again by 1/3 so that becomes 10%. The information is all here to read if you dig. Which I have been doing for the last couple years. We are being mislead by the press.

 

[liveforphysics]

We are being mislead by the press.

We can definitely agree on that!

If you are handy with wiring and brackets, I don't know if your local Craiglist has pallets of cheap used solar panels come up as often as they do in the bay area, but I bet you could get the 9kW nameplate you need to do your home and get it on your roof for <$5k total (at least in the bay area that would be easy.)

Then your ROI doesn't look so bad (~5-years?), and your panels were already part of a recycled waste stream with respect to use of resources.

 

[sendler2112]

I can't start quoting figures based on used panels. That doesn't do any discussion any good. The best price on a 9kW system all included with disconnect panel, inverters, wiring, ect is $15,000 delivered.

 

[liveforphysics]

I can't start quoting figures based on used panels. That doesn't do any discussion any good. The best price on a 9kW system all included with disconnect panel, inverters, wiring, ect is $15,000 delivered.

For your own home though it would be fine to go with used panels if you're in a penny pinch to make it happen. Otherwise paying $15k or whatever seems like a bargain VS extinction (but that's just my own bias.)

 

[craneplaneguy]

I knock 20 to 30% off the "nameplate" rating, and my grid tie customers tell me on an annual basis that works out correctly. I have over a dozen installs out there and nobody is complaining about less then predicted output.

The warm fuzzy feeling of knowing you are producing 100% (or more, in my case) of your electrical energy is, priceless, payback be damned! That's free heat, refrigeration, cooking and laundry loads, running the well pump and irrigating, all free, for the rest of my life, plus the previous 10. I never bothered to do the math on payback when i went grid on my "new" property, after 28 years off grid I knew I wanted to do it, and could care less how it pencils out.