Sure. SMR's are micro nuclear. You can use them singly, if you want to power a town or something, or use them in large quantities to power a big city. The Nuscale reactor is 50MWe; the SMART reactor is 100MWe. (The SMART is licensed for use by Korea.) An ideal use for something like the Nuscale reactor would be a small northern city where the reactor plant provides electricity, and the waste heat provides ~200 megawatts of municipal steam heat.cricketo said:Either way, the distributed aspect of Solar / Wind / Hydro can be extremely beneficial big time if used right. Can we have micro-nuclear ?
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
And they're not the only ones. From Bloomberg:
=====================================
Battery Power’s Latest Plunge in Costs Threatens Coal, Gas
March 26, 2019
Two technologies that were immature and expensive only a few years ago but are now at the center of the unfolding low-carbon energy transition have seen spectacular gains in cost-competitiveness in the last year.
The latest analysis by research company Bloomberg NEF (BNEF) shows that the benchmark levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, for lithium-ion batteries has fallen 35% to $187 per megawatt-hour since the first half of 2018. Meanwhile, the benchmark LCOE for offshore wind has tumbled by 24%.
Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar have also gotten cheaper, their respective benchmark LCOE reaching $50 and $57 per megawatt-hour for projects starting construction in early 2019, down 10% and 18% on the equivalent figures of a year ago.
Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF, commented: “Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience.
“Our analysis shows that the LCOE per megawatt-hour for onshore wind, solar PV and offshore wind have fallen by 49%, 84% and 56% respectively since 2010. That for lithium-ion battery storage has dropped by 76% since 2012, based on recent project costs and historical battery pack prices.”
The most striking finding in this LCOE Update, for the first-half of 2019, is on the cost improvements in lithium-ion batteries. These are opening up new opportunities for them to balance a renewables-heavy generation mix.
Batteries co-located with solar or wind projects are starting to compete, in many markets and without subsidy, with coal- and gas-fired generation for the provision of ‘dispatchable power’ that can be delivered whenever the grid needs it (as opposed to only when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining).
Electricity demand is subject to pronounced peaks and lows inter-day. Meeting the peaks has previously been the preserve of technologies such as open-cycle gas turbines and gas reciprocating engines, but these are now facing competition from batteries with anything from one to four hours of energy storage, according to the report.
Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF, said: “Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play.”
==============================
=====================================
Battery Power’s Latest Plunge in Costs Threatens Coal, Gas
March 26, 2019
Two technologies that were immature and expensive only a few years ago but are now at the center of the unfolding low-carbon energy transition have seen spectacular gains in cost-competitiveness in the last year.
The latest analysis by research company Bloomberg NEF (BNEF) shows that the benchmark levelized cost of electricity, or LCOE, for lithium-ion batteries has fallen 35% to $187 per megawatt-hour since the first half of 2018. Meanwhile, the benchmark LCOE for offshore wind has tumbled by 24%.
Onshore wind and photovoltaic solar have also gotten cheaper, their respective benchmark LCOE reaching $50 and $57 per megawatt-hour for projects starting construction in early 2019, down 10% and 18% on the equivalent figures of a year ago.
Elena Giannakopoulou, head of energy economics at BNEF, commented: “Looking back over this decade, there have been staggering improvements in the cost-competitiveness of these low-carbon options, thanks to technology innovation, economies of scale, stiff price competition and manufacturing experience.
“Our analysis shows that the LCOE per megawatt-hour for onshore wind, solar PV and offshore wind have fallen by 49%, 84% and 56% respectively since 2010. That for lithium-ion battery storage has dropped by 76% since 2012, based on recent project costs and historical battery pack prices.”
The most striking finding in this LCOE Update, for the first-half of 2019, is on the cost improvements in lithium-ion batteries. These are opening up new opportunities for them to balance a renewables-heavy generation mix.
Batteries co-located with solar or wind projects are starting to compete, in many markets and without subsidy, with coal- and gas-fired generation for the provision of ‘dispatchable power’ that can be delivered whenever the grid needs it (as opposed to only when the wind is blowing, or the sun is shining).
Electricity demand is subject to pronounced peaks and lows inter-day. Meeting the peaks has previously been the preserve of technologies such as open-cycle gas turbines and gas reciprocating engines, but these are now facing competition from batteries with anything from one to four hours of energy storage, according to the report.
Tifenn Brandily, energy economics analyst at BNEF, said: “Solar PV and onshore wind have won the race to be the cheapest sources of new ‘bulk generation’ in most countries, but the encroachment of clean technologies is now going well beyond that, threatening the balancing role that gas-fired plant operators, in particular, have been hoping to play.”
==============================
Hillhater
100 TW
Someone is Living in dreamworld. !billvon said:
Have you had a battery quote lately ?....
https://www.aussieprices.com.au/home/tesla-powerwall-2-price/
And..
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/tesla-hikes-powerwall-prices#gs.3a0tbd
Heck, I just _installed_ a battery! 3kW for $799. ($1200 with all the ancillary stuff - breakers, inverters and whatnot.) I may expand it to 6kW to better take advantage of reduce-your-use bonuses.Hillhater said:
How about you? What did you pay?
Hillhater
100 TW
Bill, you should know better than to quote rediculous prices like that on this site !billvon said:
Its obviously DIY using cheap cells .
jonescg
100 MW
Brand new kit - 5 kW hybrid inverter and 10 kWh LifePO4 battery:
Battery alone is under $4k. This stuff is getting cheaper by the day.
Battery alone is under $4k. This stuff is getting cheaper by the day.
TheBeastie
1 MW
Exactly, and if you look on more exact websites you will see the "name plate installed capacity" on a lot of states is significantly off what Electricitymap says..sendler2112 said:
For example, EM for Victoria says it has 1.27GW installed capacity for wind.
But Anero shows 1.74GW installed capacity for wind, which Vic has had online for about 2 years.
https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=false&solar=false&page=country&countryCode=AUS-VIC&remote=true
Similar gaps for other states, SA has 1.929GW installed wind which has also been its capacity for about 2 years.
This is why I find the possible mere theory that renewable groups that don't like electricitymap remarkable, because electricitymap is literally lying to make wind/solar look better than it really is, which is, of course, typical to see just about anywhere.
New report from the ABC on Solar panels in Australia.
Normally if ABC says anything remotely negative about renewable energy at all the person ends up losing their job.
So I am surprised to see this report from the ABC, I think a tiny amount of honesty crawled inside them, my theory is just guilt of association for being so extreme pro-renewables over the years.
Report on Solar panels in Australia, turns out the solar panels in Australia are only lasting 8-9 years, they now just dump them in the ground.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if-solar-panels-are-so-clean-why-do-they-produce-so-much-toxic-waste/#1df9f155121c
https://youtu.be/0L_lzUhitx8
[youtube]0L_lzUhitx8[/youtube]
From the report, it makes it clear they are going to bury the core panel that no longer functions, and recycle the aluminium frame parts etc. But it's pretty clear the core panel can NOT be "reused", or else it would be, no one wants them, because they obviously do not work.
Australia typically ships overseas huge amounts of any kind of recyclable materials including old tech like computers etc, because the cost of gas/electricity to do local deep level material recycling locally has become too expensive. Fact is no one wants these solar panels.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/sa-recycling-business-power-bills-rise-causing-closure/8654638
^This local materials recycler in SA shut down because their power bills to recycle were too expensive, sudden increase of over $1million dollars a year, this is all part of a false economy and arguably a low IQ 3rd world dysfunctional/chaotic style state situation, this is what happens when completely dumb ideas via protected broadcast media takes over, just like the solar panels no one at the ABC will take responsibility for their extreme pro-solar push they instigated over the last 10 years because the ABC is also a false economy.
False economies built on top of false economies lead to a corrupt core, this is the refined end product of typical socialism/communism, maybe it should all just be called corruptionism, keep it simple...
Of course its always more complicated, some things have no market, on the whole green jobs and UBI debate etc, it would possibly be more productive just handing out money for nothing, because if solar panels are going to be buried in the ground every 8 years, the environment would no doubt be better off with no solar panels and just paying people the pretend savings/dividend instead.
Also initially for the first guy, it covers issues about solar inverter replacement costs, I am convinced this is also a significant problem as well as poor quality solar panels. There are plenty of grid level Photovoltaics solar systems in the desert areas etc where they underperformed significantly in some periods that it was a clear that a part of the large grid solar setup had inverter failures which of course would be very expensive to replace, adding to the total cost of ownership.
Sure, perfect quality well made solar panels could last 25 years, but its ALWAYS about the real-world data just like "capacity factor performance" on wind vs Nuclear etc the differences are simply massive when it comes to the actual generation MWh data.
This thread almost should be renamed to "real-world data on Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear vs theoretical that never happens". I continually stress the importance of real-world data or else people just get hopelessly biased on the subject, this is really what this whole thread is all about.
I know a guy who bought some second-hand solar panels (everything else brand new like new inverter etc) and we were both shocked at how bad the performance was even during the summer, somehow a lot of panels do break down in performance, on a level you would not believe. The solar panel business is the PERFECT business to deliberately manufacture cheap/poor quality panels and install a product designed to only last about 8 years so that they can disappear with the money in that long multi-year timeline, this situation is likely to always happen, forever.
The ABC video report also mentions the epidemic of 600,000 "solar orphans", where folks have after a few years ended up with broken or poorly performing solar products and no way to claim warranty.
ABC 7:30 reports on renewables have been ridiculously supportive of solar and wind renewable technologies over the last 10 years, to a point that its just silly, so its possible this ABC 7:30 report was honest for the first time based out of guilt from bad reporting from the past and to also help force light and honesty on the subject.
If you want a "1 minute window" into the typical reporting ABC does basically every day on climate change and renewables check out this video, I downloaded it for times like this, because ABC is incredible/ridiculous when it comes to pro-renewables and climate change alarmism. It is propaganda and brainwashing, all broadcast media do it, some a lot more than others.
https://youtu.be/hTkBg7JJBo0
New article from Shellenberger: The Dirty Secret Of Renewables Advocates Is That They Protect Fossil Fuel Interests, Not The Climate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/03/28/the-dirty-secret-of-renewables-advocates-is-that-they-protect-fossil-fuel-interests-not-the-climate/#1ad3f6be1b07
Fermi Energia of Estonia has selected Moltex Energy as its preferred technology for its plans to establish carbon-free energy production in the Baltic region. Moltex Energy said yesterday that the two companies had signed a Memorandum of Understanding which expresses their intention to work together, including a feasibility study for the siting of a Moltex advanced reactor and the development of a suitable licensing regime.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Estonia-to-study-siting-of-Moltex-advanced-reactor
TheBeastie said:
I call BS. Outside of abuse (dropping things on them, focusing sun on them, power washing the back of them) I have never seen a solar panel fail - including some that have been in San Diego sun for more than 25 years.
Hillhater
100 TW
Now who is in denial ?billvon said:
What was BS ?..
....the fact that they were scrapping 5-600 panels a day ?
......the fact that some solar panels fail within 10 years ?
......the fact that there is no system to recycle them short of land fill dumps ?
....or You think the guy was an actor in a high vis vest , talking from a script with coal dust on it ??
Hillhater said:
Let's look at the original statement :
That is different from your paraphrasing and from the content of the video:
1) Original statement broadly states solar panels in Australia last 8-9 years. Not some. Not cheap crap as described in the video. Solar panels period, all of them.
2) Video shows a recycling location specializing in solar panel disposal. They do show panels being stripped of brackets and electronic components. That is not just dumping them in the ground.
Finally, the video portrays solar power as a scam and inherently unreliable technology. Either most Australians have their hands growing out of their asses that they can't deploy solar installations correctly, or this video is propaganda built on selective use of facts.
jonescg
100 MW
Bollocks. Solar panels are being replaced after 8 or 9 years because installers don't want to (or the CEC says they can't) add to existing systems - rather they are advised to replace all of the old panels with higher powered new panels.
At $155 per panel, it's cheap enough to do this.
The 8 or 9 year old ~190 W panels are still perfectly fine; nothing wrong with them and they continue to put out 95% of their original power. They are just so cheap now that they are of nuisance value.
Or just put them on your roof anyway...
At $155 per panel, it's cheap enough to do this.
The 8 or 9 year old ~190 W panels are still perfectly fine; nothing wrong with them and they continue to put out 95% of their original power. They are just so cheap now that they are of nuisance value.
Or just put them on your roof anyway...
What was BS is the claim that "solar panels in Australia are only lasting 8-9 years." I have no doubt some stupid people are throwing out perfectly good panels. (I've seen them do it, and gotten some free panels out of them.) Nor do I doubt that some panels are destroyed by things like lightning or falling TV antennas.Hillhater said:What was BS ?..
....the fact that they were scrapping 5-600 panels a day ?
......the fact that some solar panels fail within 10 years ?
......the fact that there is no system to recycle them short of land fill dumps ?
....or You think the guy was an actor in a high vis vest , talking from a script with coal dust on it ??
That's not the same as "they only last 8-9 years." Actual data indicates that degradation for ALL panels, from ALL causes, is about .8% a year. That means after 30 years they are still producing 76% of their output. This includes panels from 20 years ago when EVA wasn't as good.
Modern panels degrade at .5% a year, and very modern panels, like Sunpower panels, are at .3%. That means that after 40 years they are still generating 88% of their original power.
They will probably outlive _you_, never mind last longer than 9 years.
Hillhater
100 TW
Jeez ! ..you guys are getting real touchy over any slight against RE.billvon said:
Nobody said All panels were only lasting 8-9 yrs. ..You are debating a gramatical detail when you know perfectly well the comment in video simply stated that they were seeing panels being replaced after 8-9 yrs ..with no specific reason stated. There must be hundreds of reason why panels are replaced, including damage, component failure, etc etc. No body suggested it was because their efficiency had fell dramatically ! Sometimes sh1t happens.
As for not all the panel being dumped to land fill (because the al surround was removed) ....THATS BECAUSE IT IS A RECYCLING CENTER ! ....that is their job....you know what the point was !
Is that your mea culpa? If so, accepted.Hillhater said:
"But it's pretty clear the core panel can NOT be "reused", or else it would be, no one wants them, because they obviously do not work. "
You were saying?
The OP said it was because "they obviously do not work."
Hillhater
100 TW
You are pontificating over trivial details ....
Bottom line.....more thsn 600 panels a day ( and increasing), are being scrapped within 8-9 yrs of being installed.
And there is no real recycling option available other than land fill.
Unless you have facts to disprove that point, i will asume you are just trying to distract from the main point.
Bottom line.....more thsn 600 panels a day ( and increasing), are being scrapped within 8-9 yrs of being installed.
And there is no real recycling option available other than land fill.
Unless you have facts to disprove that point, i will asume you are just trying to distract from the main point.
Apology accepted.Hillhater said:
Did you even watch the video?
"the modules are being stripped down to their components and separated for reuse." So glass and aluminum, which make up 90% of a module by weight. The remainder is EVA and the cells themselves.
The facts are in the video you neglected to watch.
If you are going to use a video to try to prove your point, it behooves you to watch it first.
Hillhater
100 TW
Yes, i watched the video....
...infact i watched the whole 1 hr documentary !..( and they did not say they were salvaging the glass !)
But You are still pontificating over details bill..
the core panel ends up as landfil... (as does 90% of glass in Australia incidentally !). and yes they were salvaging the aluminium frame ...but as they said they were the only facility doing that, its certain there are other waste disposal facilities that do not bother with that dismantling process (have you been to a waste disposal center lately. ? ) ..
Just to add to your irritation and denial raptures... You might consider that when those 8-9 yr old panels were installed, Australia only had less than 200MW of solar PV in total ! ...
Which means that those 600 panels a day ( 120-150,000 per year) represents over 10% of those installed ! :wink:
...infact i watched the whole 1 hr documentary !..( and they did not say they were salvaging the glass !)
But You are still pontificating over details bill..
the core panel ends up as landfil... (as does 90% of glass in Australia incidentally !). and yes they were salvaging the aluminium frame ...but as they said they were the only facility doing that, its certain there are other waste disposal facilities that do not bother with that dismantling process (have you been to a waste disposal center lately. ? ) ..
Just to add to your irritation and denial raptures... You might consider that when those 8-9 yr old panels were installed, Australia only had less than 200MW of solar PV in total ! ...
Which means that those 600 panels a day ( 120-150,000 per year) represents over 10% of those installed ! :wink:
Similar threads
