Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Ohbse
10 kW
Hillhater said:
I'm not a finance guy, but it's pretty clear that many people much smarter than your and I think there's going to be plenty of returns.
These bids on the reverse auctions include suitable margins, as you state - they aren't charities...
Hillhater
100 TW
They may believe they are getting a return, but if they are, it will be from some future, unmentioned, benefit, not the income from power at 2C/kWh !
I want to meet the finance guy who can explain how a total revenue potential of $5m pa, for an investment of $1bn, makes any business sense. That is not a commercial proposition ..that is a joke !
I can understand how this might work in the Middle East, China, India, South America, etc,..where money moves in mysterious unregulated ways,....but not in a highly regulated commercial environment of the 1st world.
It is strange, because domestic solar is (here at least), one of the best investments i could make..
A $3000 , 5kW, system, will save me $1100 per year in power bills,.. so after 3 years, that $3k investment has paid for itself and is earning me a 30%pa return for the next 10 - 15 years !
But, looking at those utility projects,..they would never even get a second look as an investment.
I want to meet the finance guy who can explain how a total revenue potential of $5m pa, for an investment of $1bn, makes any business sense. That is not a commercial proposition ..that is a joke !
I can understand how this might work in the Middle East, China, India, South America, etc,..where money moves in mysterious unregulated ways,....but not in a highly regulated commercial environment of the 1st world.
It is strange, because domestic solar is (here at least), one of the best investments i could make..
A $3000 , 5kW, system, will save me $1100 per year in power bills,.. so after 3 years, that $3k investment has paid for itself and is earning me a 30%pa return for the next 10 - 15 years !
But, looking at those utility projects,..they would never even get a second look as an investment.
Hillhater
100 TW
well, most of the key cost numbers have been declared in the articles, no one has suggested a capital cost of below $1/W installed, but the 2.4C/kWh is a known offer/bid for the AD 350 mW project
http://cleantechies.com/2016/09/20/jinkosolar-marubeni-score-lowest-ever-solar-pv-at-us%C2%A22-42kwh-in-abu-dhabi/
Look at it another way..
that 350 mW plant will output annually 766 GWh of power , which will result in a total revenue of $18m ( before costs)
Even ignoring any operating costs etc, and allowing 20 years simply to recover the capital cost, that would imply the initial cost was $360m ! ( which fits the $1/w target)...but there is no margin, no return on the investment, no operational costs, etc etc
And that is some way off other similar 350mW installation proposal costs ($2 bn) that have been published !
https://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/breaking-australias-biggest-solar-farm-planned-for/3168073/#/0
http://cleantechies.com/2016/09/20/jinkosolar-marubeni-score-lowest-ever-solar-pv-at-us%C2%A22-42kwh-in-abu-dhabi/
Look at it another way..
that 350 mW plant will output annually 766 GWh of power , which will result in a total revenue of $18m ( before costs)
Even ignoring any operating costs etc, and allowing 20 years simply to recover the capital cost, that would imply the initial cost was $360m ! ( which fits the $1/w target)...but there is no margin, no return on the investment, no operational costs, etc etc
And that is some way off other similar 350mW installation proposal costs ($2 bn) that have been published !
https://www.gympietimes.com.au/news/breaking-australias-biggest-solar-farm-planned-for/3168073/#/0
TheBeastie
1 MW
Assuming 766GWh still might be generous long-term average estimate in my book.Hillhater said:
I been spying on the latest data of the solar farms in the USA on the official EIA gov website because none of the Wikipedia maintainers are updating the generated MWh's info as where half way past 2017,wheres the data!
I started to get suspicious so I looked at the IEA website directly.
Well they all seem to be down this quarter 2017 vs first quarter 2016 and some even dubiously haven't published any data for 2017 which I think is unusual, to me it seems like there is something to hide.
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/57695?freq=Q&ctype=linechart<ype=pin&maptype=0&pin=&linechart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57695-ALL-ALL.Q&columnchart=ELEC.PLANT.GEN.57695-ALL-ALL.Q
Topaz Solar farm EIA.gov data 2016 1st quarter vs 2017 1st quarter.
2016 : 274,993MWh / 2191_hours_in_quarter_year = 125MW average output for quarter.
2017 : 195,894MWh / 2191_hours_in_quarter_year = 89MW average output for quarter.
Reference to particular solar farm for completeness. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
I know some folks get upset by the sight of real world data and I am sorry about that, but I do try to live in the real world.
As for South Australia's high use of renewables just been reading the latest news of how companies are going bankrupt and shutting down because they can't afford their power bills, so many stories like these out there.
http://www.businessreviewaustralia.com/finance/2445/South-Australia-is-about-to-have-the-worlds-most-expensive-electricity
Based in Adelaide, 38-year-old Plastics Granulating Services said it was forced to close because its electricity bill rose by $100,000 in the space of 18 months. It is a big loss to the local economy, as the site not only cleared 10,000 tonnes of plastic waste a year, but also converted it into plastics to be used in other industrial products.
Attachments
jonescg
100 MW
Wow, this renewable energy and battery storage malarkey is going nowhere in a hurry... 
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-government-announces-who-will-build-100mw-giant-battery-as-part-of-its-energy-security-plan/news-story/9f83072547f41f4f5556477942168dd9
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/sa-government-announces-who-will-build-100mw-giant-battery-as-part-of-its-energy-security-plan/news-story/9f83072547f41f4f5556477942168dd9
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
If the article is to be believed the 100Mwh will be the discharge figure misleading if you ask me same as the california install they keep slinging around 80MWh but it's 20Mwh stored and 4c discharge so the aussie plant will go one of two ways 25Mwh stored or an improved design with 5c discharge rates.
Not knowing enough about the aussie grid I can not say if this will satisfy what's needed or not, and the discussion has gone heavily towards finance as usual rather than what's actual good enough to work and build a future around for the people.
To me solar needs to be spread out not tied in one location away from source, grid losses are a big problem so the same needs to occur with the storage incentive schemes to get them spread out in people homes everywhere, but incentives are low for house owners to place both items in or around their homes that would be a more efficent system and they know this and that model makes less money for enterprise and capital investment schemes that never return the invested money the writing is on the wall this is not for the people or a green future it's to keep a hold of energy supply and peoples future dependancy for energy bills to keep filling their pockets.
Not knowing enough about the aussie grid I can not say if this will satisfy what's needed or not, and the discussion has gone heavily towards finance as usual rather than what's actual good enough to work and build a future around for the people.
To me solar needs to be spread out not tied in one location away from source, grid losses are a big problem so the same needs to occur with the storage incentive schemes to get them spread out in people homes everywhere, but incentives are low for house owners to place both items in or around their homes that would be a more efficent system and they know this and that model makes less money for enterprise and capital investment schemes that never return the invested money the writing is on the wall this is not for the people or a green future it's to keep a hold of energy supply and peoples future dependancy for energy bills to keep filling their pockets.
jonescg
100 MW
It's a 100 MW capable, 129 MWh battery. It will be capable of delivering about 10% of the state's power needs for almost an hour, rain hail or shine.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
That's seems strange that is discharge rate is lower than 1c what's it got in there Nimh cells ?
That's a step backwards compared to the cali install sounds fishy.
129MWh stored energy in those tesla units should dump just over half a giga watt max In to the grid it does not add up.
That's a step backwards compared to the cali install sounds fishy.
129MWh stored energy in those tesla units should dump just over half a giga watt max In to the grid it does not add up.
jonescg
100 MW
Probably because it sounds better to say "it can provide the state with 10% of its energy needs for an hour" than it does to say "it can provide 100% of the state's power needs for 6 minutes"
Chalo
100 TW
With lithium cells, the higher the specific capacity, the lower the maximum discharge rate. So that's one reason they might be under 1C. Another reason might be that if higher discharge isn't needed, the power electronics and physical bus can be made only big enough to support the required discharge rate (thus cheaper).
A utility scale battery bank that can support a load for 75 minutes is a lot more useful than one which can only do it for 15 minutes.
A utility scale battery bank that can support a load for 75 minutes is a lot more useful than one which can only do it for 15 minutes.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/electrek.co/2017/04/11/world-largest-solar-battery-project-south-australia/amp/
Figures make more sence on this one but still could be an asumption
The 100Mwh rings true and they have got 400 MWh discharge rates sounds about right for his stackable units quite an impressive install but any gains from being out there would be outweighed if those panels and battery's were dotted around the citys on prime non used roof locations etc.
There a big call lately for peat from bog land to be harvested for roofs it soaks up alot of the harmful contaminate in the air and can even provide clean drinking water straight off the roof cleaner bright ways of living we need rather than everything being about max return on outlays etc.
http://www.beadamoss.co.uk/page12.html
Figures make more sence on this one but still could be an asumption
The 100Mwh rings true and they have got 400 MWh discharge rates sounds about right for his stackable units quite an impressive install but any gains from being out there would be outweighed if those panels and battery's were dotted around the citys on prime non used roof locations etc.
There a big call lately for peat from bog land to be harvested for roofs it soaks up alot of the harmful contaminate in the air and can even provide clean drinking water straight off the roof cleaner bright ways of living we need rather than everything being about max return on outlays etc.
http://www.beadamoss.co.uk/page12.html
Hillhater
100 TW
You cannot have a 400 MWh discharge from a 100MWh capacity battery pack .
You could have a 400 MW doscharge form it,
.... but as Chalo said that needs a mugh greater investment in support equipment and reduces the life cycles of the battery.
..whilst this will be a big battery bank, im not sure it is the solution to the lack of generation capacity in SA.
A few days of low cloud, without much wind and they will be stuffed again.
You could have a 400 MW doscharge form it,
.... but as Chalo said that needs a mugh greater investment in support equipment and reduces the life cycles of the battery.
..whilst this will be a big battery bank, im not sure it is the solution to the lack of generation capacity in SA.
A few days of low cloud, without much wind and they will be stuffed again.
Ianhill
1 MW
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2015
- Messages
- 2,871
My fault hillhater on the incorrect term used, my predictive txt is a nightmare typing away it changes all sorts, I'd say that install is barely a plaster on an exposed puss filled wound.
And the grid tie needed will be a monster no doubt it wont come cheap
And the grid tie needed will be a monster no doubt it wont come cheap
Hillhater
100 TW
Actually , dont worry about the cloudy days......aparently the battery farm will only be connected to a wind farm,..no Solar ! Seems an odd plan ?
TheBeastie
1 MW
I like how they put out that crap about how many homes it can power etc but its only a battery pack big enough to recharge about 170 Tesla Semi Trucks.
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/tesla-electric-truck/
Quote from article “I imagine they’ll use a 600-kWh battery, possibly up to 800-kWh,” says Nikola CEO Trevor Milton. (The Model S sedan sports a pack that tops out at 100 kilowatt-hours.) With a little math, Milton figures “Musk’s truck will get around 200 to 300 miles range.” Not much"
So if they use just under a 1MWh or 0.8MWh (800KWh) if the whole low emissions future goes as envisioned (or why bother in the first place) then South Australias massive battery will be good to charge 170 Tesla semi trucks if its not windy and Victoria is charging too much for the 1MWh spot price from the coal powerstations etc.
The amazing thing is once you do the costs for everyone transitioning to this clean future the costs to get there go into the trillions just for a single state/city, perfect if you want enough money to do a manned mission to Mars but not good for general folks.
SA is building for the past and not the future, but it's a perfect setup to milk folks of massive amounts of money continuously forever.
Yes pulling 100MW's from a 130MWh battery should shorten its life cycle considerably due to higher draw, everything suggests it will be heavily used, thus 170 trucks being charged will turn to 100 trucks pretty quickly over the years. It will need to be replaced eventually, thus requiring the burning of lots of coal to produce the 21700 steel cylinder, coal burning for even the nickel coating to prevent corrosion and ignoring all the other mining transportation etc that went into producing the pack in the first place.
Even if you chose the black line below on this chart its still about %20 lost after less then 2 years of usage. For the most part I kind of see South Australia as secretively weird on its renewable energy so theres no telling how hard this battery pack might end up being used I am sure it will be good for a few years at least and as long as no one buys any Tesla Semi trucks and sticks to combustion vehicles we will end up forever and ever putting out more co2, never changing anything, technically.
Apparently, the wind in South Australia has been extra low lately so I am sure the Premier of South Australia (Jay Weatherill) is just itching for the battery pack as well as itching for more industries that use a lot of electricity to shut down so it's all easier to manage.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/lack-of-wind-blows-out-south-australia-power-costs/news-story/4ba33127cece152d31ffe202cbe09ab4
Lack of wind blows out South Australia power costs. The slowest wind conditions on record in some places of South Australia have slashed east coast wind generation in the June quarter, pushing up electricity prices, cutting wind farm profits and spurring concerns about future energy market planning.
The problem is he already needs a battery pack that doesn't last hours but weeks and he hasn't got it his 1.5 hour pack yet..
https://www.wired.com/2017/04/tesla-electric-truck/
Quote from article “I imagine they’ll use a 600-kWh battery, possibly up to 800-kWh,” says Nikola CEO Trevor Milton. (The Model S sedan sports a pack that tops out at 100 kilowatt-hours.) With a little math, Milton figures “Musk’s truck will get around 200 to 300 miles range.” Not much"
So if they use just under a 1MWh or 0.8MWh (800KWh) if the whole low emissions future goes as envisioned (or why bother in the first place) then South Australias massive battery will be good to charge 170 Tesla semi trucks if its not windy and Victoria is charging too much for the 1MWh spot price from the coal powerstations etc.
The amazing thing is once you do the costs for everyone transitioning to this clean future the costs to get there go into the trillions just for a single state/city, perfect if you want enough money to do a manned mission to Mars but not good for general folks.
SA is building for the past and not the future, but it's a perfect setup to milk folks of massive amounts of money continuously forever.
Yes pulling 100MW's from a 130MWh battery should shorten its life cycle considerably due to higher draw, everything suggests it will be heavily used, thus 170 trucks being charged will turn to 100 trucks pretty quickly over the years. It will need to be replaced eventually, thus requiring the burning of lots of coal to produce the 21700 steel cylinder, coal burning for even the nickel coating to prevent corrosion and ignoring all the other mining transportation etc that went into producing the pack in the first place.
Even if you chose the black line below on this chart its still about %20 lost after less then 2 years of usage. For the most part I kind of see South Australia as secretively weird on its renewable energy so theres no telling how hard this battery pack might end up being used I am sure it will be good for a few years at least and as long as no one buys any Tesla Semi trucks and sticks to combustion vehicles we will end up forever and ever putting out more co2, never changing anything, technically.
Apparently, the wind in South Australia has been extra low lately so I am sure the Premier of South Australia (Jay Weatherill) is just itching for the battery pack as well as itching for more industries that use a lot of electricity to shut down so it's all easier to manage.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/lack-of-wind-blows-out-south-australia-power-costs/news-story/4ba33127cece152d31ffe202cbe09ab4
Lack of wind blows out South Australia power costs. The slowest wind conditions on record in some places of South Australia have slashed east coast wind generation in the June quarter, pushing up electricity prices, cutting wind farm profits and spurring concerns about future energy market planning.
The problem is he already needs a battery pack that doesn't last hours but weeks and he hasn't got it his 1.5 hour pack yet..
jonescg
100 MW
So Mike, what do you propose South Australia do to resolve their energy issues?
In 25 words or less, explain the solution. This is your safe space - say what you like. Go!
In 25 words or less, explain the solution. This is your safe space - say what you like. Go!
Hillhater
100 TW
Its ok,....they have a cunning plan and it is already working well..jonescg said:
They are making electricity so expensive that industry, jobs, and hence population, will reduce to meet the available power capacity !!..
In the meantime, if they want SA to remain in the First World category, they could stop arsing about and fire up the new gas powered generators they already have for "back up" , and then start installing some more CC gas generators that are cheaper to install and run than wind or solar, and provide power 24/7 !.....its a "no brainer",.....so even Wetherill should understand
jonescg
100 MW
Hillhater said:
The problem is that those generators are controlled by the AMEO, not the government. If the AMEO deems them firing up to be too expensive or not profitable, they won't fire them up. I think the SA government would have done what you'd suggested had they been in control of the generators, but they are beholden to a very skewed electricity market.
Hillhater
100 TW
Maybe they will learn the lesson of keeping control of your key service systems rather than selling off infrastructure for short term cash profit.
Im willing to bet they will have to build more fossil fueled generation eventually ...(but it will likely take a change of state government before it happens)
Oops ! I should have read the rest of the Advertiser article before i gave my ideas .....
Im willing to bet they will have to build more fossil fueled generation eventually ...(but it will likely take a change of state government before it happens)
Oops ! I should have read the rest of the Advertiser article before i gave my ideas .....
Chalo
100 TW
This South Australia debacle is another excellent cautionary example of how profit making business ruins things that should be simple and straightforward.
Not everything should be for profit. And things that we can't live without should specifically be not for profit.
Not everything should be for profit. And things that we can't live without should specifically be not for profit.
Ohbse
10 kW
Totally agree Chalo.
SA's issues are *NOT* a technology issue, they aren't because wind or solar or anything is non-viable, they're because of a bizarre economic situation where running the state into the ground makes them the most money.
None of that changes the fact that renewables are going to continue to dominate and disrupt.
SA's issues are *NOT* a technology issue, they aren't because wind or solar or anything is non-viable, they're because of a bizarre economic situation where running the state into the ground makes them the most money.
None of that changes the fact that renewables are going to continue to dominate and disrupt.
Similar threads
