Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Punx0r]

0F is about-17C.

Coldest I've experienced is -38F with a windspeed of 120mph. Now _that_ was cold. (And that was also about -38C; the scales meet at -40C.)

A lot of people report peak productions well above summer maximums (although for much shorter times due to the shorter days.)

Quite right, apologies, I misremembered the crossover point...

Your last point is very interesting!

I was thinking earlier about seasonal adjustment of panels. It doesn't need to be electric and automated. A simple pivot bolt and a locking pin inserted into different holes corresponding to a seasonal angle setting would be very cheap and allow a one or two man team to adjust a field of panels in a day.

 

[sendler2112]

$5 Million for 2 MW is alot to tie up in something covered in snow 3 months of the year and is fixed halfway between summer and equinox tilt. Pros need to hear these things and see these photos when you guys go to seminars. But building a large farm to allow for a 60+* winter tilt (70* sun angle at 10 and 2 in NY) to shed snow and not shadow the lower section of the next row will almost triple the space between rows over just giving up at 45* sun. Add in single axis trackers from 45* to 45* and you have just doubled the spacing in that direction also. See the tangent of the angle of the shadow.
.
https://images.sampletemplates.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/05095308/PDF-Sin-Cos-Tan-Chart.jpg
.
http://www.affordable-solar.com/learning-center/building-a-system/calculating-tilted-array-spacing/
.
Big farms in high latitudes take up alot more land if you want to try to get anything out of them during the winter and would benefit from a couple guys to adjust the tilt a couple times per year and keep them clean.
.
Solar isn't going to replace fossil heating.

 

[Chalo]

The Germans use a lot of PV solar successfully, and they're at really high north latitudes, with hideous weather. I think it has a lot to do with their willingness to do it well, and the fact that there aren't large domestic business or political interests there promoting oil and gas-- because they don't really have any.

Here in the USA, we have well-funded industries with a strong pro-fossil fuels agenda. So of course we have tons of "information" suggesting that renewable energy isn't economical.

 

[TheBeastie]

Niagara Falls hydro has 5 GW installed capacity. Shared 50%/ 50% with Canada. I couldn't find anything on actual production average. Massive as this hydro source is, it wouldn't come close to propping up a 100% RE blend of 24GW on long winter nights if the wind dies.
.
These numbers are daunting. 100 GW of wind turbines. And this is for just 1 state out of 50 in the USA. And then 6X for the world.

Niagara Falls is pretty much frozen over so not much power coming out of there.

Not much power coming from Wind in Alberta Canada, when they really need it, -26c https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSW2Yx-UIAA__c_.jpg
About %5 capacity

What I can't get over with Solar is that even if the power was decent the footprint is still very unacceptable

I still think all these crazy renewable energy projects are just the result of misinformed people which is the result of bad mainstream media and renewable energy facebook memes.
When looking at some of the garbage that comes out of the mouths of some people this makes sense to me.

 

[billvon]

Are there any amature solar measurement kits available that could log a few days of energy data?

I use the NREL tables as a starting point: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html They are pretty accurate and I have had good luck using them in New York, Arizona and San Diego.

The next thing you have to figure out is exposure. I use a Solar Pathfinder and a grease pencil (https://www.solarpathfinder.com/) to survey the site; it's simple and bulletproof. There are other digital camera based systems that are out there but I've never tried them.

The above two will give you a pretty accurate indication of how much power you will generate during which times of the year. You can increase it by using tracking mounts, but with solar so cheap that's usually not needed.

If you want actual data you can get a solar panel and try it. It can be any size you want; it just has to match the type of cell (i.e. CdTe or single crystal or whatever.) Short the output leads and measure the current. Subtract about 5% from that and you've got your typical operating current; multiply that by the Vmppt rating of the panel to find power.

 

[billvon]

I was thinking earlier about seasonal adjustment of panels. It doesn't need to be electric and automated. A simple pivot bolt and a locking pin inserted into different holes corresponding to a seasonal angle setting would be very cheap and allow a one or two man team to adjust a field of panels in a day.

That used to be very common. With solar so cheap nowadays it's becoming more common to just put up two arrays (say, one vertical and one optimized for summer.) A lot of home installs, for example, now use east and west side arrays, connected to a common inverter. Since the two arrays don't peak at the same time, the inverter can be smaller (and cheaper) overall - but allows generation for more of the day.

 

[billvon]

Niagara Falls is pretty much frozen over so not much power coming out of there.

The turbines that generate power from the falls are miles from the falls themselves - so freezing of the falls themselves doesn't mean much.

What I can't get over with Solar is that even if the power was decent the footprint is still very unacceptable

It's perfectly acceptable to most people. Most people can cover 100% of their load with nothing more than the space on their roof. And for the rest - most people are just fine with square miles of solar collectors. They are less OK with coal plant deaths and powerplant meltdowns.

I still think all these crazy renewable energy projects are just the result of misinformed people which is the result of bad mainstream media and renewable energy facebook memes.
When looking at some of the garbage that comes out of the mouths of some people this makes sense to me.

Hmm. It would be fun to watch you say that to someone who gets all their power from solar.

 

[Hillhater]

The Germans use a lot of PV solar successfully, and they're at really high north latitudes, with hideous weather. I think it has a lot to do with their willingness to do it well, and the fact that there aren't large domestic business or political interests there promoting oil and gas-- because they don't really have any. ...

??? Rewind a few pages Chalo and get some of the facts on Germany.
They have over 30GW of solar installed compared to a average demand load of 60 GW.....
...but at best in summer they only average approx 3 GW from the solar. ( over 24 hrs )
In winter the output is trivial...averaging less than 1 GW.
Oh, and Germany has plenty of coal,
The reason they are so heavily into RE is purely political..they have been governed by green politics for many years.

 

[TheBeastie]

Charts on Germany

A woman got a power bill of $284billion dollars USD, probably after she rang up her energy provider and demanded that all her energy is sourced from renewables.
http://www.afr.com/news/world/north-america/woman-gets-electricity-bill-for-367-billion-20171227-h0aghk

On the plus side it looks like she doesn't have to pay it off until late 2018

 

[sendler2112]

Charts on Germany

.
.

Pictures are worth a thousand words. Germany has been the world leader in RE build out. But it needs at least another 10X solar and 3X wind. Solar pv is so intermittent in the winter in Northern Latitudes. Narrow spikes. There is so little area under the graph making energy. No conceivable amount of batteries will flatten that out. And the wind didn't blow for ten days in a row. Distributed solar pv in winter plus batteries will be better than nothing to provide very basic needs for a very thrifty house (if it uses radiant heat from biomass), but it cannot power a civilization. Not this one. The USA is at 1% electrical uptake from solar. Keep in mind that is showing only electricity consumption. We will eventually need to replace all fossil energy which will be seasonally 3-5X that amount. Plus another 30% growth in 30 years. And develope effective liquid fuel conversion to power farm and mining machinery.
.
All of this technology works fine if the population was 1/5th and people grew most of their own food/ biomass heat. And could stay home from work when there is a shortage of energy/ migrate in winter. And could share wealth more evenly. We have to find a de-growth economy that works while most "jobs" shift to energy transformation and sustainable food production without artificial fertilizers.

 

[jimw1960]

Back in my grad school days doing field research on the Greenland Ice Sheet, we used solar arrays to power several of the experiments. This was at 78 degrees north, a full 12 degrees above the Arctic Circle, where the sun would just go around in a circle all day. We never had problems with snow covering the panels, perhaps because they were at fairly steep angles. Of course they only work in the months when it was not 24 hours of dark but cold and snow was not an issue.

 

[Hillhater]

deleted".............

 

[Hillhater]

The first coal power plant opened in 1882. That was 135 years to ramp up to the point where it supplies a big chunk of our power.

The first natural gas power plant opened in 1940. That's 77 years to ramp up.

We've done it before; we can do it again. It might take another 77 years. It might take a lot less if we put the effort into it,

Coal was supplying the bulk of power throughout most of the 1900's....capacity dictated only by demand growth.
Gas plants are mostly introduced as a substute for coal to help meet emmissions targets, whilst maintaining a reliable power supply.

The Photovoltaic cell was first produced in 1941, and the first commercial PV solar farm on line in 1982.....so thats 35 years of " ramp up"....to get to ~~1-2% ??

 

[Hillhater]

I believe coal plants suffer a similar problem if they are located somewhere with no coal.....

Well actually NO.
....one of the often overlooked advantages of coal is that it can easily be transported and stored relatively cheaply...no special containers required. And most coal generators stockpile several weeks of fuel to guard against supply chain issues...even if they are not built on a coal source.

Coal requires a train or cargo ship to transport, electricity can be potentially be sent thousands of miles in a matter of seconds from wherever has available wind/solar/wave/hydro/geothermal. Before you say "that kind of grid would be difficult/expensive to build" take a good look at the complexity of the petroleum infrastructure. Take the Deepwater Horizon well: someone developed the technology and fronted the money to drill in over 4000ft of water to a total depth of over 35,000ft! That is hard! Even then the oil was 250 miles from anywhere useful and still had to be refined into a useable fuel.

I think you have forgotten the basis of your original point...that coal plants need a local supply of fuel.
...Which is of course untrue, as there are numerous such plants around the world fueled on imported coal ftom countries such as Australia, Brazil etc. it is a cheap , stable, solid fuel that can be easily and cheaply transported and stockpiled.
You may want to check the practical limitations, and efficiencies , of transfering electrical power over similar distances...let alone storing any significant quantity.

 

[sendler2112]

Crazy weather ths year. We are going to need some coal to get through this.
.
.

.
.

 

[TheBeastie]

I think you have forgotten the basis of your original point...that coal plants need a local supply of fuel.
...Which is of course untrue, as there are numerous such plants around the world fueled on imported coal ftom countries such as Australia, Brazil etc. it is a cheap , stable, solid fuel that can be easily and cheaply transported and stockpiled.
You may want to check the practical limitations, and efficiencies , of transfering electrical power over similar distances...let alone storing any significant quantity.

Yeah if you look at this large 6,224-megawatt (MW) coal power plant complex in Bình Thuận province, Vietnam via googlemaps you can see its purely powered by coal imports via sea. That relatively tiny pile of coal can deliver epic power for probably a few weeks.
6224MW is pretty big too by Australia power-station standards, this single power-station could power a whole state or a whole small country in Europe like Denmark or Norway or probably most of Africa (since a lot of people in Africa there aren't on a grid)
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Vinh_Tan_power_station#V.C4.A9nh_T.C3.A2n-1

https://goo.gl/maps/bc9XiJMs1Fu
View attachment 1

This is just one of the practically countless new power-stations quietly being built around the world, while renewable energy clickbait news websites celebrate comparatively crappy achievements in renewable energy projects the coal-power stations just keep getting bigger and bigger.
The thing I can't get over with people who provide links from renewable energy news websites is that they are fully aware of clickbait driven tacky news sites that are riddled with made-up gossip about celebrities etc but they don't see renewable-energy news sites as the same thing, the loving bias completely over-rides their logic.

When looking at electricitymap you can see the co2 by country comparison, France kicks the arse of Germany even after Germanies epic installation of renewables.
If renewables are so good at lowering CO2 levels then how is Germany using over 60% renewable energy emitting almost 5x the CO2 that France? If CO2 is your concern then the figure makes the answer obvious.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DSLs_b_VwAAVo8M.jpg
Actually, I just updated it as right now its even bigger difference.
Nuclear France at 33grams per CO2e KWh and Germany at a whopping 228grams, almost 10 times as much, be interesting to see how bad Germany is with emissions once it closes down all its nuclear.
Without even trying France as inadvertently made Germany look like a joke.

 

[billvon]

Coal was supplying the bulk of power throughout most of the 1900's....capacity dictated only by demand growth.
Gas plants are mostly introduced as a substute for coal to help meet emmissions targets, whilst maintaining a reliable power supply.

Gas plants are growing like crazy because natural gas is so cheap compared to coal.

The Photovoltaic cell was first produced in 1941, and the first commercial PV solar farm on line in 1982.....so thats 35 years of " ramp up"....to get to ~~1-2% ??

35 years of ramp-up has gotten us to 72 terawatt-hours a year of solar generation. 35 years after the first coal power plant opened (1917) the US as a while didn't even consume that much electrical power a year _total_ (because most places didn't have electric power.)

I think that's doing pretty well.

 

[Hillhater]

Gas plants are growing like crazy because natural gas is so cheap compared to coal....

if not for weak politics,...Coal would still be the #2 choice for power , .
....It has numerous technical advantages.
Nuclear would be #1.

.......35 years of ramp-up has gotten us to 72 terawatt-hours a year of solar generation. 35 years after the first coal power plant opened (1917) the US as a while didn't even consume that much electrical power a year _total_ (because most places didn't have electric power.)
I think that's doing pretty well.

As i said, ....Coal increased at a rate in response to demand....and still is !
I guess 72 TWh sounds better to you than <2% of the total demand ??...
.....because that is what it is as a % of the 3910 TWh the USA generates each year !
After 35 years i would think that's doing pretty poorly, !......
.....even with all the social and political pressure used to promote it.

 

[Ianhill]

Look at South Wales in the 1960's coal was king then cheap oil came on the scene and we jumped on it coal then took a back step being more expensive.
At this time mechanisation was brought in so machines could remove upto 50 ton of ore a minute making coal cheaper and more profitable so we still used it on a major scale.
Then came along margret thatcher she saw that the nuclear age was upon us and its energy made the saudi oil look expensive and she jumped on it and killed the mines.
Wales has always been the laughing stock of uk the coal was bought at £52 a ton over the Severn bridge in england but in wales the same quality coal the National coal board forced to be sold for £32 leaving mine owners broke and mines closing and flooding eventually being filled in.
The result of all this means that our country has always chased the cheap energy source the cleaner green part is the joke as we now use more energy than ever before year on year and have a nuclear waste sight that not even the mangers are sure of the long term goal. Pools of radioactive water seeping into the water table at least we could use coal and carbon capture, nuclear is just a disjointed mess at the moment no proper future putting flasks of waste in the ground with stupid notes and illustrations like it's for a cave man with no English skills playing sharads trying to explain not to open the flask or die.
South Wales valleys are now full of drugs unemployment and areas that have had no serious investment for over 50 years only building after building knocked down with supermarkets erected and industry desolved into thin air with very little to show other than a city built of the backs of the blood sweat and tears of miners it broke the communitys and left a mess that will be repeated time and time again for as long as we exploit the third world or invade country's for the black gold,
It's still going on with battery's, solar panels all sorts of tech.
Live in a bubble all we like the truth of it is those who pretend to be Green are no where near and then there's country's that don't give a damn so be prepared for a sun tan that's makes your skin fall off and chest complaints from birth as well as all sorts of cancers with out even getting started on the food chain etc we may have pushed to hard and playing a time game for earth to reset and chuck us off.
[youtube]yQ_oZx-auuo[/youtube]

 

[billvon]

Gas plants are growing like crazy because natural gas is so cheap compared to coal....

if not for weak politics,...Coal would still be the #2 choice for power , .
....It has numerous technical advantages.

What are its technical advantages? It is painful to mine, ship, store, burn - and it is then difficult to store the waste after burning it. It's an annoying fuel. Which is one reason it's so expensive.

And it is because of _good_ politics that we have an EPA, which is why we are seeing thousands fewer people die of coal power plant pollution. That is a good thing, no matter what side of the aisle you are on.

As i said, ....Coal increased at a rate in response to demand....and still is !

So is solar.

Currently coal is the politically correct fuel to support. (Hundreds of jobs for miners, economy in red states, Trump support etc etc.) But I'd recommend looking beyond political correctness at what the best energy source is for the future.

 

[Hillhater]

What are its technical advantages? It is painful to mine, ship, store, burn - and it is then difficult to store the waste after burning it. It's an annoying fuel. Which is one reason it's so expensive.....

...?? I guess i should expect those comments from such a biased viewpoint..
Coal is currently plentiful and cheap and easy to both mine (pretty much automated now) , ship ( simple open trains, ships, etc. and store (open, uncovered, piles on bare ground !)
It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source

Currently coal is the politically correct fuel to support. (Hundreds of jobs for miners, economy in red states, Trump support etc etc.) But I'd recommend looking beyond political correctness at what the best energy source is for the future.

I wouldnt say coal has much political support at the moment..worldwide.its a political outcast....and i certainly would not suggest its the best energy source for the future (it may not be available).
And i dont think our politicians have any interest in what might be the "best " future energy source, all they are concerned with is the next election.
PS.. I also do not think Solar or Wind are likely candidates for utility scale future energy supply.

 

[billvon]

Coal is currently plentiful and cheap and easy to both mine (pretty much automated now)

Natural gas is both more plentiful and cheaper to mine. (And you can make natural gas.)

, ship ( simple open trains, ships)

And natural gas is even easier. Don't even need a ship - all you need is a pipe, which is the lowest of low tech.

It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source.

2016 levelized costs of utility scale energy:
Natural gas $42-$78/MWHr
Coal $60-$142/MWHr
Solar $43-$53
Wind $30-$60

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-2017/

I wouldnt say coal has much political support at the moment..

Our president has made it quite clear that coal is the politically correct energy source to support, and has directed the DOE to ignore DOE studies and throw its support behind coal. Coal generators are getting subsidies from the DOE, and they are writing rules to promote coal over other, cheaper forms of power. Any regulations that bear on coal power plants and coal mining are getting slashed. It is the "correct" thing to support if you want to get political support in the US.

 

[sendler2112]

Curious. How do they determine these costs? From my earlier post on the 2MW site pictured a few posts above.
.
"The 2,000 kW solar farm is constructed on about 10 acres of land. From what I was able to obtain from the owner the construction cost was a bit over $5,000,000. It produces about 2,750,000 kWh per year. It is remotely metered by the owner, NextEra energy but it is not a public site."
.
So roughly $2.50/W installed capacity running at 15.7%
.
$0.165/kWh over 30 years.
.
And this is without any continuing operation and management costs.
.
Even if you put this farm in the desert to increase the capacity factor to 25% which is as good as it gets without trackers, that is still $100/ MWh over 30 years with no additional operating costs yet added in.

 

[Hillhater]

Coal is currently plentiful and cheap and easy to both mine (pretty much automated now)

Natural gas is both more plentiful and cheaper to mine. (And you can make natural gas.)

, ship ( simple open trains, ships)

And natural gas is even easier. Don't even need a ship - all you need is a pipe, which is the lowest of low tech.

It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source.

2016 levelized costs of utility scale energy:
Natural gas $42-$78/MWHr
Coal $60-$142/MWHr
Solar $43-$53
Wind $30-$60

You are selectively quoting, and forgetting the point..
Remember where this all started ..?...electricity generation in high latitudes, solar being ineffective ??
Hence my statement was..

It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source....

So your gas supply pipe either has to be trans ocean, or you ship CNG/LNG with all the infrastructure and cost that implies ! Gas is only cheap if you have it available locally and cheap.
(Note, Australia floats on gas and yet it is still too expensive to use in modern power stations...because of political and social extraction limitations)
..... We have already said Solar is a non starter...too far north (see Germanys current situation !)
.. Wind cannot supply reliable and continuous power without 100% thermal back up ..(again, refer to Germany)
....maybe with enough batteries ..a few dozen GWh...but that would blow the price out again !
So we are back to good old dirty coal as the only realistic economical solution.
Unles you are one of those who believe burning millions of tons of wood chips is sustainable and renewable ?

 

[billvon]

Remember where this all started ..?...electricity generation in high latitudes, solar being ineffective ??

No, this thread started out comparing wind and solar to coal, gasoline and nuclear. (Check out the title.)

So your gas supply pipe either has to be trans ocean, or you ship CNG/LNG with all the infrastructure and cost that implies ! Gas is only cheap if you have it available locally and cheap.

And coal is only cheap if you have it available locally, or have massive port facilities and rail lines to deliver it. A pipe is a lot easier.

.. We have already said Solar is a non starter...too far north (see Germanys current situation !)

Well, no, you have said that. The rest of the world has decided it is a starter, has started it, and is installing it at record rates. And that will be true no matter how much you deny it.

So we are back to good old dirty coal as the only realistic economical solution.

Which is why it's declining so rapidly in the US, despite a massive political effort to anoint it as the politically correct source? Hmm. Might have a problem with your logic there.

Unles you are one of those who believe burning millions of tons of wood chips is sustainable and renewable ?

Burning wood chips is indeed both sustainable and renewable (look up the definitions of those words) but it's not - and should not be - our main source of energy. It's a great secondary source when the wood is available anyway as trash.