jonescg
100 MW
And New Zealand is smashing it with electric cars, bikes, trucks and busses. Putting Australia to shame.
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
The facts are readily available..Punx0r said:
...50% of Denmarks tax revenue from electricity, is directly refunded to the renewable generators.
The cost breakdown for Germany is also very clear.
Anyone saying solar or wind genrtation is cheaper than thermal options , is either misinformed, or just lieing !
Hillhater
100 TW
Maybe because you can go anywhere in NZ without having to worry about range .. , :lol: :lol:jonescg said:
jonescg
100 MW
Mainly due to their relaxing of parallel imports; they have lots of different EVs available to them right now. We have two (Tesla S/X and BMW i3). 
And they have a few really dedicated individuals with some vision who are installing more fast chargers than all of Australia.
And they have a few really dedicated individuals with some vision who are installing more fast chargers than all of Australia.
sendler2112
100 kW
Like what?jonescg said:
Hillhater said:
Thats complete bullshit! And if pinned out the numbers for you. I don't see why you are spreading misinformation?
http://www.radiuselnet.dk/elkunder/tariffer-afgifter-og-vilkår
VAT + CO2-Tax (does not go to renewables, goes directly into national budget) = 57% of end user prices.
spotprice + fee = 13%
PSO = 10% <-- This is the direct renewable cost, used to finance the cost.
grid cost + fee = 17% + 3%
Stop ignoring facts when presented.
. . . . apparently better informed than you are. They are in fact cheaper in many areas. From Computerworld:Hillhater said:
====================
Unsubsidized wind and solar now the cheapest source for new electric power
Between 2015 and 2021, China is expected to install 40% of all worldwide wind energy and 36% of all solar
Lucas Mearian, Senior Reporter, Computerworld | Apr 17, 2017 12:31 PM PT
While investments in renewable energy slumped last year, a big drop in unsubsidized costs for new wind and solar power installations indicated that they remain popular energy alternatives.
Last year, the average "levelized cost" or total cost of generating power from solar worldwide dropped 17% percent, onshore wind costs dropped 18% and offshore wind turbine power costs fell 28%, according to a new report from the United Nations and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.
"Well, after the dramatic cost reductions of the past few years, unsubsidized wind and solar can provide the lowest cost new electrical power in an increasing number of countries, even in the developing world -- sometimes by a factor of two," Michael Liebreich, chairman of the Advisory Board at BNEF, said in the report.
The average capital cost for solar power projects of new construction in 2016 was 13% lower than in 2015, while for onshore wind the drop was 11.5% and for offshore wind, 10%.
"It's a whole new world: even though investment is down, annual installations are still up; instead of having to subsidize renewables, now authorities may have to subsidize natural gas plants to help them provide grid reliability," Liebreich said.
=================================
sendler2112
100 kW
You keep showing news articles with no hard numbers from actual existing grid scale installations to back them up. Please show us a documented cost of a solar farm with 1 year of published ac output data. Topaz was $2.2 Billion and is averaging 125MW. And has no storage. I would really like to know how much Telsa claimed as a cost to receive their 30% Federal rebate on for the new solar plus storage in Hawaii. And what it produces over a year. This will be the true answer we are looking for. Hard data published on a valid, open source please.billvon said:
I did, and you ignored it. So fool me once and all that.sendler2112 said:
The bottom line is that utilities are going to continue to purchase solar and wind because it's cheaper, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise. It has happened; it is happening; it will continue - no matter how much that damages some people's political positions.
sendler2112
100 kW
Where? Post a link.billvon said:
Ohbse
10 kW
sendler2112 said:
Incorrect. In 2004 GDP was 103 billion, in 2014 it was 200 billion, 92% growth, a total of 6.5% up tick in electrical consumption. NZ was essentially unaffected by the global financial crisis post 2008 compared with most.
Over that same period, our total petro chemical consumption was identical. Due to ever increasing average fleet economy (roughly double the US average) and increasing use of public transportation.
We're now seeing the start of significant EV uptake with the first/second generation leaf coming into the market in large numbers. I can buy a 2012 leaf with <15k miles for $7k USD drive away, today. There's push towards EV's from the countries largest electrical distribution company, they also sell PV packages direct to consumers. They are certainly not concerned about supply or grid capacity if they're actively pursuing uptake.
New Zealand is highly unlikely to have any additional hydro exploitation. There are substantial ecological costs, very significant expenses and quite simply the costs VS wind/solar do not stack up. Geothermal and wind have been the fastest growing sectors of the energy market, however this is already starting to shift towards PV. There's significant momentum and lead times in NZ due a very robust approval process, both for environmental and human impact. As new projects flow through to implementation solar will make up a more significant portion of commissioned capacity. The vast majority of our Hydro capacity is >30 years old, largely automated with no remaining balance to be paid. This would of course not be the case for new builds which inevitably will be in more remote/difficult locations than the current fleet.
None of this is engineered via government intervention. We have remarkably little in terms of subsidies or encouragement from the state, the current government is fiscally conservative and 'right' leaning by NZ standards and largely uninterested in being green for greens sake. These changes are driven by market factors and by moral obligation. Many companies and individuals (including myself) choose to source electricity produced via renewable means. In the past this carried a cost delta, but in recent history this has become negligible.
NZ does have excellent access to renewable opportunities, solar insolation is good, weather is mild. Time spent out full output on wind turbines is 50% higher than Germany for example. The country is essentially a pile of volcanoes, so geothermal is obvious. We have very large amounts of rainfall and many mountains. This easy access may allow us to be one of the early nations to reach 100% (far from first however) but that's no excuse for other nations. There's plenty of untapped wind and geothermal potential in many countries, the costs of which are dropping all the time (see billvon's figures for last years reductions in price).
Sendler, regardless of your fervent belief about the right course - it's simply not plausible. There is no political will to pursue nuclear in the developed world. Developing nations are interested in results and expediency, Nuclear fails to deliver on these goals with substantial delay, long lead times and plenty of recent examples where projects have been abandoned after significant sunk costs. There is very limited opportunity for further *cost effective* hydro electric capacity in established nations and in others that are coming up it struggles to compete with more granular, fast to market options that can scale out as required. The market speaks and the market right now says cheap energy that happens to be renewable wins. This is the inflection point in rapid disruptive change. Thanks to early adopters and subsidies, the technology has matured enough to stand unassisted. Germany, Denmark etc may very well have more expensive energy - but that may not be the case for future capacity.
With swelling demand (which I think you'll find is still substantially lower than your dramatic forecasts) the market will respond. There doesn't need to be a global coordinated effort to force through revolutionary change, just subtle intervention to encourage healthy choices, revolutionary change happens on its own.
Hillhater
100 TW
Which bit do you think is bullshit ?Hanssing said:
...the 50% figure ( may be a bit rounded )... Or the price of Wind generation ?
So, Different sources , different facts ?..
At the end of the day, the one simple fact is Denmark has one of the highest electricity prices in the world, with a large part of that cost is directly related to the uptake of Wind generation and the direct subsidies used to support that renewable sector.
I also just noticed this live data site showing where Denmarks electricity is being produced currently..
Im sure there is some inter country "power trading" going on, but It shows that roughly 50% of the power is currently being imported , and very little wind generation being used ?
liveforphysics
100 TW
Cost of non-renewables inherently is auto-conclusion.
The cost in money of whatever it takes to have our spaceship work is what it is, as no monies or geography or industry has any value in a poisoned air dead spaceship.
The cost in money of whatever it takes to have our spaceship work is what it is, as no monies or geography or industry has any value in a poisoned air dead spaceship.
sendler2112
100 kW
Yes. New Zealand has such a huge percentage of hydro that it can take great advantage of intermittents without detriment to the stability of the grid. The North West USA has the same situation with hydro and the ability to seamlessly blend in 35% wind. For now. Until the available hydro to serve as naturally pumped storage is maxed out. Where there is hydro that can bit upfitted to near 100% capacity capability, even if the available flow volume would only support 65% for example, very large percentages of intermittents of 30-40% can be safely utilized and carbon or nuclear can be eliminated. For electricity.
.
So even though electrical in NZ is near 80% carbon free, oil and gas are actually still 54% of total energy with wood and coal another 13%.
.
But obviously big hydro in every viable location is the key and any ecological cost of inundation must be very heavily discounted in order to implement the most solar and wind to extend it as possible. As they have done in China with Three Gorges ect.
.
For electrical.
.
How we will convert all of the other fossil fueled machines and industry, and heat, to electrical? Most other countries have very little hydro opportunity.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_New_Zealand
.
So even though electrical in NZ is near 80% carbon free, oil and gas are actually still 54% of total energy with wood and coal another 13%.
.
But obviously big hydro in every viable location is the key and any ecological cost of inundation must be very heavily discounted in order to implement the most solar and wind to extend it as possible. As they have done in China with Three Gorges ect.
.
For electrical.
.
How we will convert all of the other fossil fueled machines and industry, and heat, to electrical? Most other countries have very little hydro opportunity.
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_New_Zealand
sendler2112
100 kW
This I agree with 100%, We must do everything that works. And areas with no hydro for storage must have some sort of new zero carbon generation to back up the intermittents with on demand base load generation.liveforphysics said:
sendler2112
100 kW
Bill Gates on TedX.
.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?utm_campaign=tedspread--a&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
.
.
https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates?utm_campaign=tedspread--a&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=tedcomshare
.
Hillhater
100 TW
Cheaper to purchace, maybe. (lower capital cost to install a facility, )...billvon said:
But also much higher financial returns due to the various subsidies and rebates available to RE generators.
They wont invest in Fossil fuel facilities because there are financial dissincentives.
These people are in business to make money, they deliberately target the peak markets for the higher spot prices, and have no interest in the bigger picture of base load/ critical supply.
PS bill..
Have you figured out yet how to "passively solar heat", or Cool,... cities like NY, chicago etc ??
spinningmagnets
100 TW
They also have much higher prices for gasoline, in order to discourage citizens from using gasoline, plus funding the adoption of alternatives. One of the things that the Netherlands (among others) have shown is that...one of the best things that a local government can do to encourage citizens to use bicycles (and ebikes) as much as possible is...to build bike-only pathways, where they are just far enough away from the cars that the cars no longer pose any danger.
The people of Denmark have voted for that kind of thing, and other countries are holding off, so...which is better? The fact remains that building new isolated bike pathways costs money, and the people of Denmark have voted to pay a high gasoline tax to add bike paths and build wind-generators.
If the price of the status quo stays low and alternatives stay high, doing those kind of things will continue to be viewed by many as a waste of money. If the prices of the status quo goes higher and alternatives comes down, then...history will wonder why more of us didn't make the sacrifices to adopt alternatives sooner.
No, cheaper to get power from. The record-low power prices are not facility capex prices; they are long term power contracts. For example, the most recent long term power purchase bid - by the Abu Dhabi Future Energy Company - was for 1.79¢/kWh over 25 years.Hillhater said:
That was an UNSUBSIDIZED price.
?? The government has a great many incentives for fossil fuel generation, including subsidized land for mining, tax breaks, outright financial subsidies and rules that place a priority on generation sources where you can stockpile fuel. And now the Trump Administration is relaxing environmental requirements so fossil fuel plants can pollute more.
And of course we would not have a single nuclear power plant in the US if the US taxpayers didn't insure every single nuclear power plant here.
Since the utilities are required by law to care about base load/critical supply, that argument doesn't fly.
Nope, and in cities you don't need to. Apartments are one of the most efficient (heating/cooling wise) ways to live - you have heated spaces on four or five of your six walls, so you only care about the remaining wall. (That old square/cubed law again.)
However, when your neighbors aren't conveniently supplying 60-80% of your heat, passive solar is a good option.
Hillhater
100 TW
Oh dear !
I am not going to repeat the cost exercise again, but there is no way anyone can generate power from solar etc at that cost....even if they have stolen the panels and have slave labour to assemble them.!
In Abu Dhabi, the whole facility was probably a gift from some Prince or other
If you think you can ever get a believable cost from those projects, you are more gullible than i thought.!
Show me the business case figures , not the figures presented for public interest.
City heating and cooling..
Remember none of your neighbors will have any heating either..you are proposing a social step back 100 yrs.
Also, you are aware that modern tall buildings are completely uninhabitable in summer without A/C ?
Whilst you are at it, figure out a non electric lift system would you ?
I am not going to repeat the cost exercise again, but there is no way anyone can generate power from solar etc at that cost....even if they have stolen the panels and have slave labour to assemble them.!
In Abu Dhabi, the whole facility was probably a gift from some Prince or other
If you think you can ever get a believable cost from those projects, you are more gullible than i thought.!
Show me the business case figures , not the figures presented for public interest.
City heating and cooling..
Remember none of your neighbors will have any heating either..you are proposing a social step back 100 yrs.
Also, you are aware that modern tall buildings are completely uninhabitable in summer without A/C ?
Whilst you are at it, figure out a non electric lift system would you ?
You keep telling yourself that! Ten years ago some people were positive that solar would never be affordable at all.Hillhater said:
Who said that none of them will have heating? You are making things up again.
It is certainly true that buildings that are designed for A/C are uninhabitable in summer without A/C. Why would you give up A/C in a building like that, though?
If you really want to live without A/C, there are a great many ways to do it, as millions of people living in tall apartment buildings in India will tell you.
Sure, you could use water power. In fact, done well, you'd need a very small amount of water to replace what is lost to friction, since the exact same load goes up and comes down. But why? Electricity is easy to generate and is a lot easier to work with than a water powered lift.
Yes that is an interesting question, and its not solved but we're actively moving towards it.sendler2112 said:
Heating -> Here intermittency is fairly simple to solve, short-term storage is very cheap, and seasonal storage with large water-tanks is known working cheap methods.
Heatpumps will help with intermittency for power-uptake from grid when needed.
For heating only, direct solar-to-water is best and cheapest, expecially for district-heating with seasonal tanks.
Waste-product burnes instead of landfills, again primarily for district-heating.
They can co-generate electricity. Wastepiles then becomes one type of seasonal storage.
Trains -> Electric, with panteographs.
Cars -> Electric BAttery-powered, I give zero chance to fuelcells.
Trucks and lorries -> Electric, batterypowered. and pantheograph where applicable.
Now the really difficult ones:
Ships: I see no change in the near future, its either chemically bonded or nuclear bonded. Best bet is chemical.
One future potential could be cryogenic H2, but I doubt we will see this within the next 25-50 years.
Airplanes: I see no change in the near future, its chemically bonded for long distance, or a micracle in batterytech has to happen.
One future potential could be cryogenic H2, but I doubt we will see this within the next 25-50 years.
I think it was 10 years ago that this was seriously investigated. But I cant find the link or the site.
It gave the airplanes a different look, but on paper it was doable. Aircrafts can cover the needed cost due to their operation-hours.
"all" we need is electricity from nuclear or renewables
And a lot of it.Hillhater
100 TW
No bill, you said that, starting back in your Oct 6 post claiming passive heating could be used instead of gas or electric.billvon said:
Again, you seem to have forgotten that it was your idea to swap the current power supply for a renewable one, but couldnt explain how you were going to solar power The Cities like NY etc.billvon said:
I suspect those millions in India would happily exchange living conditions with you bill...give it a try !
I will let just you think that water lift thing through a bit more ....( you may need a pump somewhere in there !)billvon said:
..and one more, it was your idea to "go solar" everywhere,..and you were going to explain how to do that in the cities !
sendler2112
100 kW
Storage other than natural hydro is very expensive. $400/kWh for batteries with electronics. And they last how many cycles? 15 years is 5,500 cycles. Battery storage adds $0.09/kWh to electrical cost of production over 15 years to a project and is ongoing like a fuel cost as you referbish them. Adding fixed battery storage to a solar farm is a big waste. The better option going forard is to try to use up all of the solar in real time by installing millions of charging stations at work places so that EV's can always charge when the sun is peaking and offer V2G at night when people are asleep. Large scale farm equipment will have to charge all day and work at night but the energy density is very poor. They will need to swap several large batteries.Hanssing said:
.
A large farm machine uses 570 Liters of diesel per day = 5,700 kWh per day. Even if you cut that by 2.5 for the extra efficiency of electric motors with round trip losses you get 2,300 kWh per day for a large size farm machine. 12 Tesla grid scale 200kWh powerpacks per day to hot swap in and out. For just one tractor. We are going to need to start making a lot of wire to get all of this power around. 100kW continuous average for each tractor during use.
sendler2112
100 kW
Low bids do not tell us what it really costs. The only thing that can really tell us what solar PV actually costs is to post the total expenditure for a completed project and it's recorded annual AC output. Then figure an expected life span. And add some operating and maintainance costs.billvon said:
