Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[sendler2112]

The solar farm you posted about said it was a 10MW solar farm. How much did it cost? You still haven't said.
.
People talk about it as being a 10 MW solar farm in the news. Regular citizens read about it and say it is a 10 MW solar farm and it cost xx and yy. This is pretty close in price in $/ MW to a 1GW nuclear plant so let's build more. They are making decisions on how to go forward as a society. Based on it being called a 10MW solar farm. But that is nameplate. Completely misleading. It will only average 2MW for the year. The general public is completely unaware of this.
.
A 1.05 GW nuclear plant will average 1GW over 20 years. A 440MW gas plant will average 440 MW over 20 years. I am tying to help bring attention to this misleading information most people never new about so we can really make the best decisions. But am obviously meeting well entrenched misconceptions. One by one if need be, I will eventually make progress.

 

[billvon]

People talk about it as being a 10 MW solar farm in the news. Regular citizens read about it and say it is a 10 MW solar farm and it cost xx and yy.

Correct. And that's the right way to discuss it, so you can do apples to apples comparisons to other 10 MW solar farms.

This is pretty close in price in $/ MW to a 1GW nuclear plant so let's build more.

No. The discussion is "wow, solar is close in ENERGY costs to nuclear so let's build more."

Here's an example:
=====================================
New Solar Price Record: Tucson Utility Inks Deal For Solar Power That Costs Less Than 3 Cents Per Kilowatt-Hour

May 24th, 2017 by Steve Hanley
CleanTechnica

Reports of record-low prices for utility-scale solar power are pouring in from around the world. In Chile, prices dropped below 3 cents per kilowatt-hour last year. But such super low prices have not been part of the energy environment in the US — until now.

On May 22, Tucson Electric Power announced it had signed a 20-year power purchase agreement with NextEra Energy Resources to buy solar power from a new 100-megawatt solar power plant that will be built and operated by NextEra. The completed system will supply enough electricity to run 21,000 homes in the Tucson area. The price? Less than 3 cents per kilowatt-hour.

To put this in a little context before proceeding, the unsubsidized cost of electricity from fossil fuels has a low end of about 4.8 cents per kilowatt-hour in the US.
=====================

Note that they are comparing kilowatt-hour cost from solar to kilowatt-hour cost from fossil fuels. Not megawatts to megawatts, or peak capacity to peak capacity.

They are making decisions on how to go forward as a society.

Well, they are mainly just buying cheap energy.

Based on it being called a 10MW solar farm. But that is nameplate. Completely misleading. It will only average 2MW for the year. The general public is completely unaware of this.

The general public is completely unaware that there are 10MW solar farms to begin with; most do not even understand what a megawatt is, or the difference between energy and power, or what baseload generation means. But people who work with solar - the people who are making those "societal decisions" you are talking about - do indeed understand it.

 

[sendler2112]

How do they get the 3c/ kWh number? I get 8.8c amortized over 30 years for SolarStar if they don't spend another penny.

 

[Hillhater]

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.

OK .. Now i see the issue.....
...we are talking about different things.
I was refering to the average domestic solar system buyer who doesnt fully calculate the return on their investment.
And You are talking about the stated selling price of commercial power from solar facilities.

However you have reinforced my point about not fully calculating the costs by quoting your power price at ..

..... I have a 9.88kiloWATT system. It generates about 41 kilowatt-HOURS a day.......
....... I am paying $0.0048/kwhr, less than half a cent per kwhr. (That comes from the $6 monthly minimum charge from the utility.)

..you have completely ignored the capital outlay you made for that 10kW system (???..say $15k at commercial rates)
..which would add another $0.05/kWh to your cost ...asuming you can get 20 years life out of it without replacing anything...(and dont move house within that time !)....
And i assume you are using all of that 41kWh /day, with the grid as storage at no net cost ??....if not, you cost is higher still.

 

[sendler2112]

And i assume you are using all of that 41kWh /day, with the grid as storage at no net cost ??....if not, your cost is higher still.

Yes, this another part of the equation that is overlooked when people brag about how much they make from their grid tied home solar. Most electricity companies have been compelled by the government to incentivise home solar further by banking your excess power on paper during peaks. To be delivered later at 1:1 of the full delivery price. This is the proverbial meter running backwards. And my company does it. They settle up once per year in March and April when it has the best advantage for the home owner to have drawn down any surplus without having to pay for it. But this is a big mandated contribution to the individual from the electric company since they are buying the power that they sell you for $0.04 but giving the home owner credit for their surplus at the full delivery price of $0.13 or whatever it works out to at the bottom of your bill. Minus only the monthly flat service fee. This is a big loss for the company. One of the less spoken continuing subsidies that is forced on them by the government to seed early adoption. Everyone pays more for electricity as a result to cover the cost. Which I am ok with for now as long as it doesn't go to the extreme that they have in Germany where the utilities give out solar panels to any roof and send the cost down stream to all of the customers.
.
But then again, I'm not ok with the miss-stated numbers that home solar owners throw around that don't take these expenses into consideration. Sombody is paying for it. Just not them.

 

[Hillhater]

People talk about it as being a 10 MW solar farm in the news. Regular citizens read about it and say it is a 10 MW solar farm and it cost xx and yy.

.. Correct. And that's the right way to discuss it, so you can do apples to apples comparisons to other 10 MW solar farms.

.....sure, and you can do direct comparisons with Wind farms also.
...but you cannot do a comparason on MW with a conventional thermal gas, coal, Nuclear etc generator ...which most people have been used to hearing about....because it is misleading.
All power plants should be compared on a GWh/year basis... But they rarely are, especially when they are being proposed.
Without actual project costs for that 10MW ..( 17.5GWh/yr)UK solar plant we have to make an assumption based on standard PV costs of approx $2000/kW installed. Which indicates something around $20m ?
Again , rough calculation would put the average cost per kWh at $0.06 if depreciated over 20 years....with no operating costs or costs of finance .
But the point is , for under $200k you could wheel in to a car park space, a containerised , fully automated, gas powered generator that would provide the same GWh/yr...continuous 24 hr ...(ah yes, that solar couldnt do that , could it !) with only the fuel and maintenance costs ($0.04/kWh) to pay.
But my guess for that 10MW solar plant is that it is no more than a "peaker"or "firming" installation, using its (unstated) battery capacity to support system voltage and frequency for a few minutes each day, and the solar to keep the batteries charged. That is the only practical use for such a limited plant, and one of the few ways the costs can be recovered from the higher peak/firming power costs.
EDIT:-
Confirmed that it is a peaker plant with UK distributors offering £130 MWh, for peak supply ($0.20 /kWh ?)
https://www.ft.com/content/8ea432e4-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

 

[sendler2112]

.you have completely ignored the capital outlay you made for that 10kW system (???..say $15k at commercial rates).

10kW system is $17,000 just for the parts via the cheapest availability on the internet in the USA. The local installed quote I got for 9kW was $33,000. I talk with another person in Boston who was happy to pay $43,000 for 10kW with better panels, installed. Even though he will be lucky to average 1.5kW on a yearly basis. The big advantage that is being given to home owners right now is from the utility company banking the surplus at 1:1 of the delivered rate minus the flat fee. So he will end up using/ banking $48,900 over 20 years, $73,440 over 30 years if it lasts that long.
.
If the companies keep that 1:1 deal which could revert to them giving back only the wholesale price they buy electricity for of 4c. Or it is possible that it could eventually go to court where in Nevada the utility sued to force home owners to disconnect the brand new panels that were just a few years old.

 

[sendler2112]

Without actual project costs for that 10MW ..( 17.5GWh/yr)UK solar plant we have to make an assumption based on standard PV costs of approx $2000/kW installed. Which indicates something around $20m ?

Confirmed that it is a peaker plant with UK distributors offering £130 MWh, for peak supply ($0.20 /kWh ?)
https://www.ft.com/content/8ea432e4-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

Don't forget the cost of the batteries. 6MW. equals how many MWh? Who knows because they never quote the batteries using the correct metric either. Are they going to spec them at 1C? .25C? who knows. 24MWh of batteries with invertors would cost another $9.6 million at $400/ kWh. Store just 12 hours of the average and you would need 3 sets over the 30 years. So add another $30 mil to your $20 over 30 years. Maybe you could push the batteries to 4,500 cycles and not toss them until they have deteriorated 50% to 6 hours storage. $40 Million for 17.5 GWh= $0.44 / kWh.
.
Battery storage is the killer if you really think solar can replace non-intermittents to supply baseload.

 

[Hanssing]

Just saw the issue where the EV-haters dont belive in electrical dump-trucks.....

https://ing.dk/artikel/elektrisk-dumper-bliver-verdens-stoerste-elkoeretoej-205590

Its in danish, sorry, but its a dump truck that will generate energy, since it moves down with load
But it could "just" be recharged if going up a pit mine.

See this link, which is a press-release in English:
https://www.empa.ch/web/s604/e-dumper

Never before has a vehicle of this performance class been constructed to conquer slopes of up to 13 percent inclination under the harshest of environmental conditions while straining the batteries with electrical currents of up to 3,000 amperes, but also charging them by 40 kWh during a single descent and traveling as an energy plus vehicle on balance (plus 10 kWh of energy per roundtrip). If the use of the new vehicle proves successful, Ciments Vigier SA could power up to eight vehicles purely electrically in the long run. For Kuhn Schweiz AG this opens up new fields for large-scale construction machines, such as in tunnel construction or in residential areas that are sensitive to exhaust gas and noise.

 

[Hillhater]

I was not aware that there were any "EV haters" here ?..
......but some of us do like to ocasionally inject a bit of realism at those with "battery tinted sunglasses". on.! :wink:
Good article but i note that it is still in design/development....not actually working yet.
Also, its intended for a very specific and somewhat unusual role,...hauling ore downhill !..but a smart solution for sure.
I wonder if it will actually produce an excess of energy allowing for the losses and efficiencys of motors, batteries, inverters etc,..and if it does, what will they do with the excess ?
Oh and whilst that is certainly a big dump truck @ 110tons loaded, it certainly is not the "largest electric vehicle" or even the largest working Battery powered electric vehicle in the world, which i think would be that car ferry "Ampere" in Norway.
But even that is soon to be superceeded by a pair of Scandinavian Ferries, each with 4000+ MWh batteries and a vessel displacement of 8000+ tons.
https://electrek.co/2017/08/24/all-electric-ferries-abb/

 

[Hillhater]

Without actual project costs for that 10MW ..( 17.5GWh/yr)UK solar plant we have to make an assumption based on standard PV costs of approx $2000/kW installed. Which indicates something around $20m ?

Confirmed that it is a peaker plant with UK distributors offering £130 MWh, for peak supply ($0.20 /kWh ?)
https://www.ft.com/content/8ea432e4-a1e9-11e7-9e4f-7f5e6a7c98a2

Don't forget the cost of the batteries. 6MW. equals how many MWh? ........
Battery storage is the killer if you really think solar can replace non-intermittents to supply baseload.

From that article, i concluded that the batteries were part of an existing solar project,..on an ajoining "subsidised" site..so i suspect the cost is already adsorbed. They admit the 10MW farm would not be viable without the batteries to enable the "Peaking " (cash farming ?) business plan !
As you say, if they had to include the cost of those batteries, the system would not be viable.!

 

[jonescg]

At the South Australian BFB* party, Elon said that Australia would only need about 1900 km2 (44 km by 44 km) of solar to power the nation.

Knowing how acrimonious these numbers can be, I worked out what this equated to.

Assuming 175 W/m2 for a typical solar panel (probably better nowadays, but it's a good start), that's 175 MW per km2. At 1900 km2, you have 332,500 MW of solar.

Australia's average demand for electricity is about 35,000 MW. So there you have it - Elon correctly assumed a roughly 10% capacity factor for said solar array.

*Big frocking Battery

 

[Hillhater]

Unfortunately, Elon seems to think the sun shines 24 hrs a day....every day.
...or that those panels are 50+% efficient.
Going to need a bigger battery also !
He should be presenting at the "Festivall of Dangerous Ideas " !

 

[sendler2112]

Wikipedia says for 2014 Australia consumed 224,000,000,000 kWh for the year.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption
.
Change the prefix to Mega by moving the ecimal 3 places. 224,000,000 MWh.
.
Divide by 8760 number of hours in a year. 25,570.7 MW average electrical consumption for Australia. 25,570,700,000 W
.
The SolarWorld SW340 is a nice, high end panel. 17.29% efficiency. 180 W/ m^2. $1.03/ W. $355.00 each not delivered.
.
https://www.wholesalesolar.com/1922342/solarworld/solar-panels/solarworld-sw340-xl-black-black-mono-solar-panel
.
25,570,700,000 W / 180 W/ m^2 = 14,205,944.44 m^2 and 7,520,794 panels. For a nameplate output.
.
$2,670 Billion. For the nameplate. Multiply times 5 assuming a 20% capacity when installed not in a high desert. SolarStar does 31%. Topaz does 24.4%. Desert Sunlight does 26.7%
.
Upstate NY, USA does 13%.
.
37,604,000 panels, $13,350 Billion dollars US. $13.35 Trillion. Just for panels not installed and no land or wires. And no inverters to make AC.
.
$2US/ W installed would double this to $26 Trillion with the inverters and construction costs. But no storage. So it still has a very limited usefullness.
.
71 km^2 panel area. How much more for the space between panels? Roads, buildings, ect?
.
Now add the batteries for just 12 hours storage. Which isn't nearly enough but we will all have to get used to working when the sun shines and waiting it out when it doesn't for a few days.
.
25,570,700 kW continuous average consumption for Australia in 2014. Times 12 hours. = 306,848,400 kWh. Times $400US/ kWh for gridscale Tesla PowerPacks with inverters.
.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/grid-scale-energy-storage-balance-of-systems-costs-will-decline-41-by-2020#gs.YpLl1kU
.
$12,274,000,000 dollars US. These batteries will drift down to 50% remaining capacity in 4,500 cycles/ 15 years to require replacement again. So $25 Trillion for batteries for 30 years.
.
30 years x 8760 hours x 25,570,700 kW continous production assuming there was never more than 12 hours of poor sun for the batteries to cover,
.
= 6.72 TWh over 30 years / $40 Trillion = $0.167 / kWh amortized over 30 years. Very few investors will buy in at $0.167/ kWh.
.
This is $0.055 just for the panels. with no installation. racks, wires, inverters, land. Nothing else but the panels. How do we keep getting news articles stating $0.03/ kWh?
.
Maybe the panels will last 50 years making them $0.033 just for the panels with no installation or any way to use them.
.
I'm sure there are better algorithms for adding Batteries a little at a time to maintain the 12 hours storage but I will leave that to someone else and just simplfy it to 2X sets of batteries over 30 years for this discussion.
.
So we are at $40 Trillion just for the parts. For something that will have several total days long blackouts per year. North east USA would be much worse due the rainy, snowy weather.
.
The USA would be 17 times this figure. $680 Trillion over 30 years to replace just 2014 electricity totals. Multiply by 3 to replace all energy. And double that in 30 years for growth worldwide.
.
Run the numbers.
.
A 1.05GW nuclear plant averages 1GW, rain or shine. For 50 years plus some refueling costs. We can get Gen3+ plants to $10 Billion ea if we buckle down and try to get good at it.
.
This is 433,500,000,000 kWh over 50 years / by $10,000,000,000 constuction cost = $0.023 over 50 years. Cheaper than the price of just solar panels not installed.
.
The average ongoing operating costs for a nuclear plant in 2008 was $0.0186 / kWh for fuel and operating and management. For some really good, high paying jobs.
.
https://atomicinsights.com/nuclear-energy-is-cheap-and-disruptive-controlling-the-initial-cost-of-nuclear-power-plants-is-a-solvable-problem/
.
It is less for fuel at first but let's say $0.0186 would be the average. $0.0416 / kWh for 50 years. And they never need batteries or have blackouts.
.
Not to mention getting good at finding industrial co-uses for the waste geat.
.
Rock solid 24/7 nuclear is cheaper than installing just solar panels that can only help peaks at less than 15% of the grid and is 4 times cheaper than blackout prone solar plus batteries.
.
We must be pragmatic to make wise decisions going forward. And get busy while we have the energy wealth to implement these changes.

 

[liveforphysics]

Unfortunately, Elon seems to think the sun shines 24 hrs a day....every day.
...or that those panels are 50+% efficient.
Going to need a bigger battery also !
He should be presenting at the "Festivall of Dangerous Ideas " !

As far as dangerous ideas, continuing to dig up and burn things (coal, CH4, gasoline, diesel, or unstable atoms), definitely has a known outcome, and never had any path forward that wasn't merely a delayed conclusion of life on the spaceship.

 

[billvon]

Unfortunately, Elon seems to think the sun shines 24 hrs a day....every day.

Which is why he is selling . . . batteries for solar storage?

Might be a bit of a flaw in your theory there.

 

[speedmd]

The sun most definitely shines on the earth 24 hours a day. Just not in the same spot. Deal with it! :lol:

 

[sendler2112]

The sun most definitely shines on the earth 24 hours a day. Just not in the same spot. Deal with it! :lol:

"Deal with it" basing eveything on solar plus storage will unfortunately result in the final crash of the world economic system. Solar plus storage is not dense enough. Soon enough. Definitely not with batteries. We need to pull out all of the stops on hydro to go with the solar and wind. And build at least 60-70% of the rest of the fossil fuel replacement from nuclear, geo, and whatever other non-intermittent sources we can come up with.

 

[billvon]

"Deal with it" basing eveything on solar plus storage will unfortunately result in the final crash of the world economic system.

In 1968 a noted biologist wrote this:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ..."

Since then, deaths from starvation have declined.

So I'm not too worried about a "final crash" of the world economic system, whether or not we base everything on solar plus battery storage. It would be hideously expensive, of course, and all that money would go right back into the economy, in the form of jobs for miners, designers, installers, linemen etc.

However, we don't need to "base everything on solar + storage" for decades. Existing plants will provide power while the renewable grid is built out. I agree on hydro, and in areas where hydro is practical it makes a lot of sense as storage. Nuclear is great but it's very expensive, and people have shown they don't want to spend that much on power, especially when natural gas (and now even solar+storage) is cheaper.

 

[sendler2112]

Solar plus batterystorage is at least 4 times the price of new nuclear as I have shown above. Just for the parts. I haven't come up with any more current data for the cost of instalation of such facilities. Since there really are none at a grid scale that have been built yet. other than to just tack on the price batteries to an existing solar farm as I did in the example of SoalarStar. which will amortize to $0.08 per kWh over 30 years and $0.33 per kWh adding 12 hours battery storage.
.
Solar plus batteries is very, very, expensive. $0.17 just for the parts. A new nuclear plant is $0.023 for the plant initially and $0.019 for operation..

 

[jonescg]

My point was that Elon correctly assumed a 10% capacity factor - something roughly half of this entire thread is dedicated to thrashing about. And indeed, if you run the numbers you can see how big (and expensive) said battery would need to be. But couple that with other storage approaches and high capacity factor sources of energy (including nuclear) and you have a working grid that burns very little carbon.

Would / could / should Australia build enough solar to power the nation? Maybe we could. Maybe we should. One thing we do know is that it's possible.

 

[Hillhater]

Would / could / should Australia build enough solar to power the nation? Maybe we could. Maybe we should. One thing we do know is that it's possible.

"Theoretically possible"..? Maybe.
....but practically or financially viable ? ....How ?
And what other storage options do you see being realistic for Australia ?

 

[spinningmagnets]

Tesla is quietly deploying solar panels and power-walls to the hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico hospitals and other key facilities.

Funny how the oil-drenched nay-sayers are not showing up with free diesel-generators and tankers full of free fuel...

 

[jonescg]

Batteries + solar for homes and businesses - this will happen regardless of initiatives or subsidies. There's 30% of the demand taken care of in ~30 years.
Large scale wind and solar + batteries for output levelling and peak response. This will cover about 30% to 50% of industrial demand, leaving about another 40% or power from other sources.
Pumped storage for peak response and creation of inertia. This pushes the intermittent sources well into the evening.
(Eventually) nuclear reactors for base load. These will take at least 15 years to become acceptable, and another 15 years to be built. So the power is switched on in 30 years time.

Gas and coal plants will continue operating in Australia for another 35 years, so we will have some spare TWh up our sleeves.

I remember when my parent's put solar on their house in the bush and it cost $10 a watt. People were saying it was clearly un-viable and could never work on a large scale. Now one in four homes have at least 1.3 kW on their roof. It was subsidised, for sure. But so was every coal and gas plant in the country (only to be sold to the private sector for a song, and not used properly due to the AEMO's structure).

Australia will have a huge renewable component in its energy mix. It's going to happen and it will be paid for by those who want it. If you don't like it, vote them out. But so far it's a pretty compelling case.

 

[liveforphysics]

Sun still shines on our shared spaceship if you do something clever with it if not.

Burning fuel at train car loads a second in a closed loop system thats life all shares the razor thin delicate outer mix of gasses as a shared and closed life support system ends quickly enough if we adopt to something that long-term works or not.