Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Jil]

The Topaz 25km2 solar farm put out 1,301 GWh 2015 (its best year ever!) Numbers from Wikipedia which come directly from the US http://eia.gov official website.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm#Statistics
Energy used in the USA ( 2013 ) 25,451,000 GWh (or 25,451TWh). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Current_consumption
So its 25,451,000GWh / 1,301GWh = 19,562 Topaz-solar-farms required. (19,562_solar_farms x 25km2) = 489,050km2
So it's a total solar farm size of 489,050km2 or 188,823 square miles.
Roughly the size of Texas, but wait this is only part of the problem.

Every time you see a meme that seems like baloney it probably is. If you do the numbers for battery storage that's when the numbers and costs become truly mind boggling.
While Topaz took 3 years to build which is pretty fast, for the whole USA it would at the same build rate take 58,686 years but of course we could get more people on it and crank out more solar panel factories to make more panels, how about it magically being built 10 times faster? then that means it would only take 5,868 years for the whole of the USA alone to build its clean solar based energy future (excluding energy storage etc).

Their are so many problems to this and the biggest one is how poor the human brain can function in the face of bias, the lust for seemingly free energy over-rides peoples logic part of the brain, I can only assume some folks would still look at the above data and think yeah we can do that!

Building a structure this large is going to take at least a 1000+ years and thats OK? What about the cost, this solar farm was $2.4billion. 19,562_topaz_solar_farms x $2.4b
Topaz Solar farm Wikipedia page quote Construction cost $2.4 billion
So its 46,948,800,000,000 thats $46 Trillion dollars for a USA solar farm.
If you do numbers for energy storage costs that's when it gets even more insane, the reason why most renewable energy projects dont have energy storage because the costs are completely unviable.
EIA Topaz Solar farm generation numbers for Topaz Solar Farm https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/plant/57695

OK let's challenge this with other numbers (from real world, I work in the solar industry).
To provide the ENTIRE WORLD with solar electricity for 50% of all its FINAL ENERGY consumption (were are talking about all forms of energy, not only electricity, so it would be assuming that 50% of the final energy is used as electricity, which is much more than the reality today), all you need is 0.3% of the land surface on Earth. Or 3% of the Sahara desert.
Even if we were talking of 100% of our final energy from solar power, it would be 0.6% of the land surface on Earth, 6% of the Sahara desert. Huge, as is the challenge of supplying the humankind with sustainable energy on the long term, but technically doable with very minimal impact on land resources.

Quick demo :
Final energy consumption over one year, entire world (IEA 2014) : 9425 MTOE = 110 000 billions kWh
Reference solar plant, located in south-west France (which is conservative, as you can produce in North Africa, South USA, Mexico, Australia, for example, up to 2 times more per hectare) : 1 MW per hectare, annual production = 1200 kWh/kW = 1 200 000 kWh/hectare (average over 25 years, taking into account a small decrease of you panel performance of 0.5% per year).

With this typical photovoltaic plant, to provide 50% of the world final energy consumption yearly (55 000 billions kWh), you need 45 000 GW of solar power installed, or 450 000 km2, or 0.31% of the land surface on Earth. Let's add 10% for storage capacity, and it comes to 0.34%.

So the question is not IF solar energy (backed by gas, hydro, wind and some others on a smaller scale) can become the main provider of energy for the world, the question is WHEN

Jil

PS : heating is an important subject, as it is a big part of energy consumption, but globally the part of direct heating in the energy consumption is going to decrease (as electricity has the ability to provide it in many situations, for example with heating pumps)... And solar thermal power is very efficient, and cost competitive (even for industrial heat) with gas in many parts of the world.

PS2 : concerning the availability of materials, there is no shortage issue for photovoltaic power, as 95% of the phovoltaic panels are crystalline silicium, and are made mainly of silicium (which is, roughly, refined sand), aluminium and glass. And no shortage to anticipate with lithium neither.

PS3 : about the rate of construction, don't worry if there is the demand (and the market will provide it) it will not be an issue. The China alone has built 34 GW of PV solar plants last year (it was 0.5 GW in 2010). And it's just the beginning.

PS4 : your reference of the Topaze solar project is real, but outdated and absolutely not representative. In particular with silicum panels you need less space, and there is also a trend (at least in Europe) to concentrate the solar farms, which is doable with very minimal losses (a few percents) because of inter-rows shading. Topaz is typically a project that consumes A LOT of space par kW installed. In France a 300 MWp project has recently been achieved on a 2.5 km2 land (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_solaire_de_Cestas). Frankly, 25 km2 for a 550 MWp solar farm like Topaz, I just do not understand how they have been able to use so much space.

 

[speedmd]

A old mill near here ran on a water wheel rope line that stretched a few hundred feet from the local creek. It powered totally mechanical weaving and sewing equipment. Had some 100 full time employees running off of this small amount of power and ran for years and years up to mid century. Some twenty five years ago the old mill was converted to a data center and had installed a 2500 Amp service that ran near capacity just to run a bunch of inefficient computing equipment and terribly inefficient climate control system. It employed a dozen unskilled and few skilled folks. Needless to say, it is no longer there. If we don't use energy wisely, we should be forced to make our own. Loosing 20mpg suvs would be a blessing.

 

[jonescg]

https://arena.gov.au/blog/andrew-blakers/

The potential is huge for pumped hydro in Oz. Easily we will have enough solar and wind going in to run our grid by day with the excess filling the upper reservoirs by night.

One good site in Western Australia would be able to provide one quarter of the daily average demand for 24 hours straight. Let's get building!

 

[Punx0r]

Who said it would be easy? Nothing worthwhile is easy.

It's not easy.
.
400 giant 500MW solar farms commisioned per year, every year. 25 GigaFactories cranking out batteries for 100 years. We currently have world production capacity of 2. What scale of mining operations does it take to feed this?
.
People are way overconfident in the techno salvation.
.
I think we should be hearing alarm bells from fossil fuel depletion. Make a more focused effort. Forget luxury globe trotting and $1000 suits. Forget 20mpg SUV's. Forget Mars. And worry about Earth.
.
We here on ES are preaching to the choir. How do we reach the spoiled general public? Buy air time in the middle of the football game to broadcast a TedX talk?

I agree it's a cop out (in any issue) to wave a hand and assume some technology or other in the future will save the day. But it's also right to be optimistic about future technology just by extrapolating from past advances. It's a fine balance.

I also agree that yes, the magnitude of global energy consumption (all forms) is daunting, often under-estimated and is the basis on which our whole modern civilisation has been built (and is therefore vital to the continuation of it). You are right that it has been/will be foolish to squander a dense energy source like fossil fuels on frivolous things. Society, attitudes and consumption may well have to gradually change along with changes in our energy sources.

 

[Jil]

I agree it's a cop out (in any issue) to wave a hand and assume some technology or other in the future will save the day. But it's also right to be optimistic about future technology just by extrapolating from past advances. It's a fine balance.

I also agree that yes, the magnitude of global energy consumption (all forms) is daunting, often under-estimated and is the basis on which our whole modern civilisation has been built (and is therefore vital to the continuation of it). You are right that it has been/will be foolish to squander a dense energy source like fossil fuels on frivolous things. Society, attitudes and consumption may well have to gradually change along with changes in our energy sources.

At the end of the day, what drive the change is money. Clean energy has to be cheap. And hopefully, thanks to the efforts of some pioneer countries (for example Germany, which has heavily subsidize renewable energy in the early years of its development), wind and solar are already competitive, and much sooner than anticipated. When you see that nuclear industry has given up the battle for low price vs. solar and wind, of that India has cancelled coal plants projects to shift to solar power, the future doesn't seem so dark to me

 

[Hillhater]

..
So there is just no question about the ability of solar energy (together with hydro and wind on a smaller scale) to become the main provider of energy for the world.....

.
Actually, all you have shown is that there is enough area for 50% of the required solar farms, and potentially enough raw materials.
That does not address many of the associated potential problems, such as manufacturing capacity, cost, etc.

.....And, as it is already one of the cheapest source of power (even with storage), ....

Unless you have some firm data to verify that statement, i will simply assume its a repeat of previous discussed "alternative facts"

 

[Jil]

..
So there is just no question about the ability of solar energy (together with hydro and wind on a smaller scale) to become the main provider of energy for the world.....

.
Actually, all you have shown is that there is enough area for 50% of the required solar farms, and potentially enough raw materials.
That does not address many of the associated potential problems, such as manufacturing capacity, cost, etc.

.....And, as it is already one of the cheapest source of power (even with storage), ....

Unless you have some firm data to verify that statement, i will simply assume its a repeat of previous discussed "alternative facts"

I do have some data, I work currently on several solar projects, and colleagues on storage projects.

Just with public data :

PV solar kWh drops to 3.1 USD cents in Mexico, 2.4 cents in Abu Dhabi (much cheaper than coal, gas or nuclear power) :
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/02/06/mexico-signs-lowest-price-solar-contracts-in-the-world-to-date/

And solar + battery for home usage goes down to grid prices in Australia (and this is already 1 year old, and we are not talking about mass storage connected to the grid like in Hornsdale, which is even cheaper) :
http://reneweconomy.com.au/teslas-price-shock-solar-battery-as-cheap-as-grid-power-22265/

 

[Hillhater]

At the end of the day, what drive the change is money. Clean energy has to be cheap. And hopefully, thanks to the efforts of some pioneer countries (for example Germany, which has heavily subsidize renewable energy in the early years of its development), wind and solar are already competitive, and much sooner than anticipated. When you see that nuclear industry has given up the battle for low price vs. solar and wind, of that India has cancelled coal plants projects to shift to solar power, the future doesn't seem so dark to me

Money is certainly driving the change, but in the form of subsidies, not lower costs.!
What is driving the change currently is Politics , with political leaders "buying" votes and trade deals by commiting to carbon reduction agreements, (Paris etc), and consequently RE programs.
In order to stimulate renewable investment it has been necessary to provide grants, susudies, tax concessions, etc,, to make them financially viable.
If the politics change, or the financial support is withdrawn, the whole picture could change very quickly.

....I do have some data, I work currently on several solar projects, and colleagues on storage projects.

Excellent.! Please share.

 

[Jil]

At the end of the day, what drive the change is money. Clean energy has to be cheap. And hopefully, thanks to the efforts of some pioneer countries (for example Germany, which has heavily subsidize renewable energy in the early years of its development), wind and solar are already competitive, and much sooner than anticipated. When you see that nuclear industry has given up the battle for low price vs. solar and wind, of that India has cancelled coal plants projects to shift to solar power, the future doesn't seem so dark to me

Money is certainly driving the change, but in the form of subsidies, not lower costs.!
What is driving the change currently is Politics , with political leaders "buying" votes and trade deals by commiting to carbon reduction agreements, (Paris etc), and consequently RE programs.
In order to stimulate renewable investment it has been necessary to provide grants, susudies, tax concessions, etc,, to make them financially viable.
If the politics change, or the financial support is withdrawn, the whole picture could change very quickly.

We are not in 2005 anymore. In 2017, just have a look at the tendering prices for new solar projects (see my example above for Mexico). Do you really think that India, China, Mexico, Chile, Kenya,Thailand, and many others are building solar or wind plants for the "green" sticker ? No, just for the price. There is no need anymore for financial subsidies in many countries. What drives the main demand is the need for new power capacities, cheap and fast to install. "Clean" is just the icing on the cake.

But if you are so sure that the renewable energies have no future (and so that the humankind has no future, because it's linked), I'm not going to try to convince you. I have just given some data to remind those interested in the debate what is the actual costs of solar energy, and its technical/economical ability to become the main source of energy in the next decades.

 

[sendler2112]

and its technical/economical ability to become the main source of energy in the next decades.

For intermittents go to more than 40% of the grid is all dependent on the ability to build enough storage. The argument I keep seeing presented here is based on the faith that "we did it before".
.
What we did before was all the gift of incredibly dense energy from fossil fuel. We need to make sure we get the decisions right for 100% replacement including liquid fuels before the crude oil runs out which is much sooner than most people think. At which point we have lost the dense energy that "did it before".

 

[Hillhater]

Sorry, but we have seen plenty of these "contract bid" prices, and we know they do not reflect the true cost of generation, .
They are as you say, just "public" prices with non disclosed incentives and rebates available to the suppliers.
And mr Mountains costing for domestic battery justification doesnt hold much water when you consider he costed it against one of the worlds most expensive utility cost, and fails to understand the true costs of investing $16000 to offset a monthly utility bill.
But there is definitely a future for renewable energy, but maybe not to the level that some imagine and not necessarily in the forms that we currently have.
Most here seem to think solar and batteries will just keep getting cheaper and more efficient, ...i am betting on better technologies to be developed that will blow these primitive , wasteful , systems off to the history books.

 

[Jil]

I understand your doubts, but I can give you an example that I know very well : the price of solar electricity in France.
The tendering prices in my country (which is on the world average for solar irradiation, and much less than Australia) are currently around 5 to 6 eurocents per kWh. It's 2 times cheaper that the price announced for the next generation nuclear reactor.
And I can guarantee you that this price of 5 to 6 cents is a real and complete price, without any subsidies or tax rebates at all.

Perhaps there will be a disruption in the technology as you think, for the moment we don't see it coming either in solar or batteries sector. But what we see is a continuous improvement in performances and a contiuous drop in price. And the technology as it exists has the technical capacity to replace totally fossils fuels (including nuclear). With a massive effort, I totally agree with that, but the current world energy landscape has been built over 2 centuries, the shift to clean energy is not going to happen in a few years.

 

[billvon]

Frankly, 25 km2 for a 550 MWp solar farm like Topaz, I just do not understand how they have been able to use so much space.

They used FirstSolar CdTe panels; these panels were about 12% efficient. (But, back then, much cheaper per watt than crystalline.) CdTe panels are now up to 19%. Crystalline cell panels are now around 22% - allowing almost twice the power in the same area as the Topaz plant.

 

[Hillhater]

We are not in 2005 anymore. In 2017, just have a look at the tendering prices for new solar projects (see my example above for Mexico). Do you really think that India, China, Mexico, Chile, Kenya,Thailand, and many others are building solar or wind plants for the "green" sticker ? No, just for the price. There is no need anymore for financial subsidies in many countries. .

2005?..
Be very careful of your sources for real financial data !....especially when dealing with places like India, China, Mexico, etc...etc
I prfer to rely on figures from sources such as eia.gov who pblish detailed costings for plants entering service in 2022 ( PV Solar $7.4 c/kWh)
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
Or our own Australian Government 2017 Scientific report on Energy options for the future which costed PV solar at Au$9.1c/kWh without storage or Au$13.8c/kWh if 3 hrs of storage is included...gas is Au$8.34c/kWh ,..with coal even cheaper atAu$7.6 c/kWh.
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/1d6b0464-6162-4223-ac08-3395a6b1c7fa/files/electricity-market-review-final-report.pdf
We currently have a "contract price" of $75/MWh stated for a CST project , which subsequently was revealed to be dependent on our $80/kWh RET rebate to RE generators ...and a few other incentives !

EDIT...
I forgot to add that all the above costings were based on a conventional "standard" LCOE assumption of a 30 year working life, which we know is very conservative for thermal generators, and very optomistic for for Solar.

 

[sendler2112]

the other big mistake I see common in the media and in discussions is that solar PV proponents put their technology up against fossil fuel and nuclear as if it were a 1:1 replacement. But solar can never be a majority percentage of the grid without massive storage expenses.

 

[Hillhater]

https://arena.gov.au/blog/andrew-blakers/

The potential is huge for pumped hydro in Oz. Easily we will have enough solar and wind going in to run our grid by day with the excess filling the upper reservoirs by night.

One good site in Western Australia would be able to provide one quarter of the daily average demand for 24 hours straight. Let's get building!

No mention of costs in that article ?
...assuming its similar to the eia figure for Hydro generation of US$7.0c/kWh, (Au$10c/kWh) then you can simply add that to the cost of solar generation...or in short, $18+ c/kWh
Also, you might have noticed that Snowy 2 is still the biggest resource in that list by far...but we know it is only a 2GW capacity system.
So we have to find systems able to supply 10 times that to fill the base need.

 

[billvon]

the other big mistake I see common in the media and in discussions is that solar PV proponents put their technology up against fossil fuel and nuclear as if it were a 1:1 replacement. But solar can never be a majority percentage of the grid without massive storage expenses.

Agreed. Just as oil could never have made it without massive government subsidies, huge expensive refineries, massive pipelines and millions of expensive, dangerous oil wells.

 

[sendler2112]

Oil is so energy dense it's use swamps all associated secondary costs. Up until very soon. And then we will be left out in the cold.

 

[Jil]

At first glance, the discussion on ES about energy appears to be more interesting and argued than on other forums !

 

[sendler2112]

At first glance, the discussion on ES about energy appears to be more interesting and argued than on other forums !

Welcome. Good to have another knowledgeable professional involved. I don't mean to be anti solar PV. But there is so much incomplete media hype right now that I am forced to play devil's advocate to make sure it's inherent shortcomings in ever totally replacing our current fossil grid and liquid fuel are considered as we make crucial decisions since we are essentially forced to start over during the next 100 years. I would invite everyone once again (since apparently not one person has despite repeated attempts) to study:

Nate Hagens
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
Read all of Tom Murphy do the math
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.
Read the post carbon institute's Richard Heinberg.
.
http://noapp4that.org/
.
http://www.postcarbon.org/
.
Just for a start.

 

[billvon]

At first glance, the discussion on ES about energy appears to be more interesting and argued than on other forums !

Well, it is filled with people who design and build their own electric vehicles - so there's a bit more technical competence here than on your average Internet forum.

 

[craneplaneguy]

Ask somebody who is off grid and REALLY needing some middle of a long winter's night charge on their expensive house battery how much a gallon of gasoline is worth. I really didn't realize how much energy is contained in a single gallon, until in just that situation. By running that gallon through the generator and then through the Trace inverter/charger I had at the time, and making a note of the battery volt rise, and then the resultant "work" I got out of the battery until it was back at the pre charge voltage, it was obvious that it is a pretty wonderous product, warts and all. It isn't going away in our lifetimes anyway. One advantage to being grid tied: no generator needed ever. Then again, as cheap as solar is now, compared to 'back then", if I was off grid again my need for a gasoline recharge would be somewhere between rare and never. I never used more then 10 or 15 gallons a winter, but it was crucial and got me over the hump, until the next sunny or windy day. You will not see a true off grid home without a serious backup generator, something no one likes to talk about much!

 

[liveforphysics]

Ask somebody who is off grid and REALLY needing some middle of a long winter's night charge on their expensive house battery how much a gallon of gasoline is worth. I really didn't realize how much energy is contained in a single gallon, until in just that situation. By running that gallon through the generator and then through the Trace inverter/charger I had at the time, and making a note of the battery volt rise, and then the resultant "work" I got out of the battery until it was back at the pre charge voltage, it was obvious that it is a pretty wonderous product, warts and all. It isn't going away in our lifetimes anyway. One advantage to being grid tied: no generator needed ever. Then again, as cheap as solar is now, compared to 'back then", if I was off grid again my need for a gasoline recharge would be somewhere between rare and never. I never used more then 10 or 15 gallons a winter, but it was crucial and got me over the hump, until the next sunny or windy day. You will not see a true off grid home without a serious backup generator, something no one likes to talk about much!

What if you just had 2x the pannels? Pannels cost will approach cost of roofing materials alone.

Your generator is only going to give you about ~10kWh useful per gallon, if you feel comfortable with a 10gal gas can and your generator you may also feel comfortable with a 100kWh battery. The biggest difference is, the sun's going to shine anyways, but the gasoline relies on a complex web of pumping and transporting and electricity spent refining and then fuel spent transporting it again to a gas station, then you spend more energy to pick it up and bring it home. Sun just keeps shining auto-magically.

 

[Jil]

At first glance, the discussion on ES about energy appears to be more interesting and argued than on other forums !

Welcome. Good to have another knowledgeable professional involved. I don't mean to be anti solar PV. But there is so much incomplete media hype right now that I am forced to play devil's advocate to make sure it's inherent shortcomings in ever totally replacing our current fossil grid and liquid fuel are considered as we make crucial decisions since we are essentially forced to start over during the next 100 years. I would invite everyone once again (since apparently not one person has despite repeated attempts) to study:

Nate Hagens
.
https://youtu.be/YUSpsT6Oqrg
.
Read all of Tom Murphy do the math
.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/post-index/
.
Read the post carbon institute's Richard Heinberg.
.
http://noapp4that.org/
.
http://www.postcarbon.org/
.
Just for a start.

I have started with http://noapp4that.org/, very interesting reading.

 

[sendler2112]

I'm not sure why Heinberg wrote so much about high tech carbon mitigation concepts via carbon-capture-sequestration of fossil energy, capture-burn-capture-squester via biomass and then on to extreme climate engineering schemes like arial aerosols, when the whole point of the manifesto is to show that adding more high tech solutions to our situation is a bandaid to our problems of a growth dependant economy and wealth inequity and vast overpopulation and resource depletion provided thanks to the incredible energy density of our current and one time stroboscopic pulse of fossil fuel.
.
The Nate Hagens lecture is an easy 1.2 hour watch and really makes it simple to understand how man made energy underpins everything in the man made world, how the current free market economic system only functions on constant growth and is generally tied to energy consumption 1:1, and how the evolution that led to the human brain makes us neuro-chemically prone to addiction and over consumption now that we have power over nature. And each other.