Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

Diesel has 13.3 kWh / kg. Batteries have .25 kWh / kg. Good luck farming or building gigantic things with 1/50th of the energy density.

You're comparing the calorific value of one with the usable electrical output of another. You might as well quote the energy value obtained for burning a lico pouch cell.

Nice try. People are so loyal to the solar/ battery promise that they completely lose objectivity and think it can someday replace fossil fuels 1:1. It obviously cannot. China may be positioning itself to lead the future of electric machines. But my point that I keep trying in vain to get across to solar hyped people one at a time is, A solar/ battery future will necessarily be much, much, smaller.
.
ICE engines running diesel in big industrial applications are at least 30% efficient. Large ships are over 40%. That still leaves an 18:1 advantage in density over EV's with an 80% round trip efficiency. Cut that in half again if you like for whatever perfect storm of advantages you can dream up (regenerative and PTO advantages are probably just a few percent unless you are carrying the load down). What ever. That still leave 10:1.
.
Wake up. Run the numbers. Intermittents can help. But we still will need massive steady base load generation.

 

[sendler2112]

This is a no brainer by any measure for domestic roof tops in most of the world. .

Roof top solar in NY, USA is predicated at 13% of the nameplate. On the perfect, south facing roof. Better than nothing if they are free. But even if oversized (who has that much land) and with huge battery storage, to the point where each house is always net zero, this only accounts for 30% of the grid demand in the USA. A 15% reduction in Russia and China.

 

[speedmd]

Diesel is good for small portable generation, but falls way short of large scale coal steam plant by a big margin.

Boiler: 85-88%
Turbine: 83-85%
Alternator: 96-98%
Combined efficiency: 0.88 * 0.85 * 0.98 = 0.73 = 73% best case, 67% on the low side. Roughly double that of ice diesel.

 

[speedmd]

13% of the nameplate

Roughly the efficiency of my car converting petro fuel energy to actual motion. Who cares? We can just keep putting our heads in the sand.

 

[Hillhater]

....... This is a no brainer by any measure for domestic roof tops in most of the world. Subsidies have been exactly what has been needed to get the costs down to the point that it could be implemented wide scale and financially stand on its own without them, even if the pay back is a bit longer than the local coal plant. It is the right thing to do.

Why do you believe it is the right thing to do ?
And where do you think the subsidies come from ?

 

[sendler2112]

Our heads are out of the sand but we can't just stare at the sun.
.
By the way, I am a big proponent of EV's for personal transportation. Particularly light two wheeled. But I can also easily see their comparative weakness for large agriculture and construction/ mining.

 

[speedmd]

The right thing to do IMO is to devote a sizable share of resources to promoting a variety of research initiatives and seed small production startups for R&D and scale-ability. Something in the order of 5 -10% or a bit more in wealthy countries. Lighter is much better for transport. Not bad for smaller scale ag either. Even if they have to trailer a battery for harvest season like the early trains did a coal or wood tender if the numbers work in the long run.

 

[Punx0r]

Nothing new there... Most of the big mine trucks have been Diesel hybrid for years

Yes, I meant the current diesel-electric ones (those "world's largest" type ones).

Yes, China's investment in generating capacity is seeing lots of coal plants planned but how many actually get built is a different matter as many expect them to lose out to the solar plants they are competing against. It takes around 6months for them to build a soar PV plant and 10-15 years for a coal plant.

Nice try. People are so loyal to the solar/ battery promise that they completely lose objectivity and think it can someday replace fossil fuels 1:1. It obviously cannot.

ICE engines running diesel in big industrial applications are at least 30% efficient. Large ships are over 40%. That still leaves an 18:1 advantage in density over EV's with an 80% round trip efficiency. Cut that in half again if you like for whatever perfect storm of advantages you can dream up (regenerative and PTO advantages are probably just a few percent unless you are carrying the load down). What ever. That still leave 10:1.

The improvement in energy density moving from lead acid/nicd/nimh batteries to li-ion has been approximately 10:1. By your calculations, all that has to happen is for that to occur again and it's at approximately 1:1. How much of a modern li-ion battery is it that actually stores charge (the active materials versus the support structure)? 5%?

 

[sendler2112]

How much of a modern li-ion battery is it that actually stores charge (the active materials versus the support structure)? 5%?

95%?
.
.

.
.

 

[speedmd]

Nothing new there... Most of the big mine trucks have been Diesel hy.

Are they actually recharging efficiently charged type batteries, or just making air toasters with the regen current? It would be news if they were charging a good size Li-ion / capacitor bank subsystem that could take full advantage of regen!

 

[gogo]

Don't forget about evaporation.

https://www.courthousenews.com/energy-evaporation-power-much-us-study-finds/
[EDIT] The study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00581-w

I won't pretend to understand the mechanisms involved, but I do know there's a tremendous amount of energy associated with evaporation. When I had an automotive evap cooler I calculated that I could only get 5% more cooling by starting with ice water than ambient (90F).

 

[billvon]

Actually, my real beef with renewables is not that they are unreliable, unpredictable, or intermittent,...but that they are. NOT "cost effective " and are being promoted by deception and subsidies.

And yet people are buying unsubsidized solar generation at record low prices.

 

[Hillhater]

Actually, my real beef with renewables is not that they are unreliable, unpredictable, or intermittent,...but that they are. NOT "cost effective " and are being promoted by deception and subsidies.

And yet people are buying unsubsidized solar generation at record low prices.

That is more of a reflection on the average consumers ability to think logically.
I was not really refering to domestic PV systems but even that is heavily subsidised here, by the Gov "RET" scheme..Basicly about a 30% discount.
I really meant the large Solar Farm schemes that are also springing up everywhere due to the huge incentives and rebates being offered by Govmt in order to meet CO2 targets.
But its the deception of selling by "nameplate" kW rating such that the public may be misled into thinking what the actual output capacity of these huge areas of PV panels actually is...and the casual reference to storage batteries for back up at night......totally impractical suggestions
Likewise the Wind Turbines...

 

[Punx0r]

Actually, my real beef with renewables is not that they are unreliable, unpredictable, or intermittent,...but that they are. NOT "cost effective " and are being promoted by deception and subsidies.

And yet people are buying unsubsidized solar generation at record low prices.

That is more of a reflection on the average consumers ability to think logically.

I don't understand this, the market price for the generated electricity is what it is. It's not subject to consumer misperceptions.

The UK just opened its first subsidy-free commercial solar farm. Modest size at 10MW with 6MW battery storage. 12 weeks to construct: https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/anesco_lays_claim_to_uks_first_subsidy_free_solar_farm

That's first-world labour rates, business taxes, import duties and a famous lack of sunshine.

 

[Punx0r]

How much of a modern li-ion battery is it that actually stores charge (the active materials versus the support structure)? 5%?

95%?

.

5%

The energy density of the best cells today still involves <5% of the cell mass actually being the mass which actively changes oxidation/reduction states, and the rest being the supporting structures (anode/cathode coatings) and current collection.

https://endless-sphere.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=90509&p=1319598&hilit=cell#p1319598

 

[Hillhater]

Actually, my real beef with renewables is not that they are unreliable, unpredictable, or intermittent,...but that they are. NOT "cost effective " and are being promoted by deception and subsidies.

And yet people are buying unsubsidized solar generation at record low prices.

That is more of a reflection on the average consumers ability to think logically.
[\quote]

I don't understand this, the market price for the generated electricity is what it is. It's not subject to consumer misperceptions.

It is the payback and full life cost of solar that most dont consider.

The UK just opened its first subsidy-free commercial solar farm. Modest size at 10MW with 6MW battery storage. 12 weeks to construct: https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/anesco_lays_claim_to_uks_first_subsidy_free_solar_farm

That's first-world labour rates, business taxes, import duties and a famous lack of sunshine.

I cannot undrstand why anyone would build a commercial solar farm in the UK
It might supply 1500-2000 kWh ..but not for long.
Strange claim to make also .." First subsidy free solar" .....i read that as,," oh bugger, we missed the subsidy deadline".
I didnt see any info on cost ? .. Did i miss that ?
But it wouldnt be the first time somebody invested in a "folly" in the UK !....but at least this time it sounds as if it maybe Chinese money at risk

 

[sendler2112]

5%

How do you not consider the anode, cathode, separators, and current collection as necessary parts of a battery? The only part of a battery that is not contributing to the output is the case. And even that is required because the whole package needs to stay under compression so it doesn't puff.

 

[sendler2112]

I don't understand this, the market price for the generated electricity is what it is. It's not subject to consumer misperceptions.

The misperception that is continually reported (intentionally fostered?) in the media is that it is a 10MW solar farm but in reality it will only average 2MW at the end of the year.

 

[Punx0r]

So? Maximum output is 10MW, that's what's quoted. How many HP does your car produce on average over the year compared to the "nameplate" rating? Sounds like you're worrying about semantics, because I'm confident the people doing load/capacity planning for the grid know the difference.

Likewise, the "the payback and full life cost of solar that most dont consider" and the fact it "might supply 1500-2000 kWh ..but not for long." will have been considered by the people working out if it's fiscally viable - it's fair to assume they are not morons (nor internet armchair experts).

As for "I cannot undrstand why anyone would build a commercial solar farm in the UK". Simple: it's located where the demand is. An extension cord to an equatorial desert was likely prohibitive.

As for subsidies, yes, government subsidies for solar farms were removed last year. Many predicted solar farms would cease to exist as they would not be "cost effective" without being propped up by taxpayer money. Some companies did fail, installations did initially drop, but it seems the critics were wrong.

 

[Punx0r]

5%

How do you not consider the anode, cathode, separators, and current collection as necessary parts of a battery? The only part of a battery that is not contributing to the output is the case. And even that is required because the whole package needs to stay under compression so it doesn't puff.

I said "active materials versus the support structure". I never see the weight of a fuel pump or a fuel tank included in the energy density figures of diesel?

 

[sendler2112]

So? Maximum output is 10MW, that's what's quoted. How many HP does your car produce on average over the year compared to the "nameplate" rating? Sounds like you're worrying about semantics, because I'm confident the people doing load/capacity planning for the grid know the difference.

Likewise, the "the payback and full life cost of solar that most dont consider"

Yes but the public misconception is that it is 10MW. Not 2MW. So they consider the price as if it was 10MW when it is really 5 times the cost/ MWh. And then is the issue of storage which this installation apparently has but many do not. Which adds another 50% to the initial cost to make it a viable option for replacing anything for even 12 hours. And adds replacement costs every 8 years when the batteries cycle out. See my posts a few pages back for the cost analysis I did on SolarStar and Topaz if you really tried to make them viable by adding battery storage.
.
By the way, is this new installation done and online yet? And what did it really cost. There is no sense even discussing it's validity versus other alternatives if we don't know the cost.
.
And to answer the battery density reply here: It is totally ridiculous to to consider only the electrolyte, or whatever you are doing, when considering what the "true" battery density is. Electrolyte is nothing without the rest of the parts.

 

[billvon]

That is more of a reflection on the average consumers ability to think logically.

I am not talking about consumers. I am talking about utilities that are purchasing solar generation at rock-bottom, record low prices. Utilities like cheap power.

 

[billvon]

Yes but the public misconception is that it is 10MW. Not 2MW. So they consider the price as if it was 10MW when it is really 5 times the cost/ MWh.

Your claim makes no sense.

People pay for power by the kilowatt HOUR not by the kilowatt. That's why both residential and commercial systems are rated in terms of kilo (or mega, or giga) watt hour production per month, or per year. In fact, just about every solar installation outfit out there starts every quote with an energy analysis - what the resident currently uses, what he currently pays, and what he will save (which often isn't straightforward due to TOU or tiered rates.)

No one out there says "a megwatt-hour costs $120 so the solar array must cost less than $120 per megawatt" or says "your array will generate power 24 hours a day" as you as suggesting.

And then is the issue of storage which this installation apparently has but many do not. Which adds another 50% to the initial cost to make it a viable option for replacing anything for even 12 hours.

Correct. In markets like Hawaii this is already cheaper than utility power. As the prices come down this will be economical in more and more markets.

 

[sendler2112]

Yes but the public misconception is that it is 10MW. Not 2MW. So they consider the price as if it was 10MW when it is really 5 times the cost/ MWh.

Your claim makes no sense.

It does make perfect sense but you are having a hard time understanding it. The SolarStar project for example is referred to and was paid for as a 550 MW solar farm that cost something around $2.2 Billion? They don't really say what it cost but that is close to what the bail out figured as. But it really only averages 170MW on a yearly basis.
.
Simple to understand.
.
It isn't producing at 550MW
.
It is only averaging 170MW
.
Topaz and other state of the art solar farms are slightly less good at 25%.
.
Which $2.2B For SolarStar over 30 years at 170MW comes to $0.08 / kwh if I remember back a couple of pages (which people keep jumping here one by one without reading).
.
Adding just 12 hours of battery storage to make it any kind of viable replacement for baseload at $400/ kWh and replaced every 3000 cycles the price goes to $0.33 / kWh.
.
I am paying $0.039 / kWh for supply right now. Gas/ Hydro/ and Nuclear mix.
.
Simple
.

 

[billvon]

It does make perfect sense but you are having a hard time understanding it. The SolarStar project for example is referred to and was paid for as a 550 MW solar farm that cost something around $2.2 Billion? They don't really say what it cost but that is close to what the bail out figured as. But it really only averages 170MW on a yearly basis.

Right. I have a 9.88kiloWATT system. It generates about 41 kilowatt-HOURS a day.

The first number is important because that sets the price of the system, the required ratings of wiring, protection and inverters, and physical size.

The second number is important because that's what the energy output is, and that is what saves you money.

Everyone who uses solar understands this. No one is out there saying "hey! I got solar and it's not generating any power at midnight! I want my money back."

I am paying $0.039 / kWh for supply right now. Gas/ Hydro/ and Nuclear mix.

That's great! I am paying $0.0048/kwhr, less than half a cent per kwhr. (That comes from the $6 monthly minimum charge from the utility.)