Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

Another day,..another month,..
......and another classic example why wind & solar force UP the cost of electricity supply..
Courrtesy of south Australia with their “surplus” , 2+ GW, of wind and solar generation capacity...
. Note the legend..RED is GAS,...purple is IMPORTS !

 

[billvon]

Just more short sighted green spin.

Or as people without a political agenda call them, "facts."

But still no cost allowance for the essential back up generation sources or additional infrastructure cost necessary to facilitate these intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable, generation systems. !

Nope. Nor is there any cost allowance for the people that coal power sickens and kills, an inevitable result of using dirty, deadly coal power plants. But by all means add those costs if you like.

 

[Hillhater]

Just more short sighted green spin.

Or as people without a political agenda call them, "facts."...

:lol: ..The ‘Green” agenda is very heavily political..far left !
..and ”selective” facts only
.... failing to recognise the intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable , nature of wind and solar...is ignoring facts.

But still no cost allowance for the essential back up generation sources or additional infrastructure cost necessary to facilitate these intermittent, unreliable, unpredictable, generation systems. !

Nope. Nor is there any cost allowance for the people that coal power sickens and kills, an inevitable result of using dirty, deadly coal power plants. But by all means add those costs if you like.

Maybe you should compare to modern, emission compliant, plants.
But that was not the point. The statement was about the lies promoted for the SUPPLY costs of electricity generated by wind and solar.

 

[billvon]

.... failing to recognise the intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable , nature of wind and solar...is ignoring facts.

No one is ignoring that. Remember, just because you don't understand something does not mean that other people don't understand.

Maybe you should compare to modern, emission compliant, plants.

They still kill quite a lot of people. Even clean plants emit quite a lot of PM2.5, SOx and NOx pollution. Take a look at the specs - they trumpet things like "83% reduction in SOx! 98% reduction in NOx!" (compared to a plant with no emissions controls at all.) That means they are still emitting a lot of those materials.

Taking an example from the US, just two coal fired power plants in Massachusetts with 1986-era compliant emissions (i.e. already far cleaner than a plant with no controls) killed 159 people a year. If they were brought up to modern compliance those numbers would have decreased to 35 deaths a year. Australia has 21 large coal fired power plants; if they were brought up to the same standard they would kill "only" a few hundred people a year. Quite a lot - especially if your family and friends are among those killed.

http://citizensinaction.org/documents/Harvard_Study.pdf

Now, if you are going to push for zero emissions coal plants (full CCS, no emissions other than water and heat, fly and bottom ash treated as toxic waste and isolated forever) then I will agree with you. Go for it!

But that was not the point. The statement was about the lies promoted for the SUPPLY costs of electricity generated by wind and solar.

Those numbers have been confirmed by many other studies (like Lazard and BNEF) and are being acted on, with countries buying gigawatts of unsubsidized solar for pennies per kwhr. Money talks - louder than denier propaganda.

 

[furcifer]

Those numbers have been confirmed by many other studies (like Lazard and BNEF) and are being acted on, with countries buying gigawatts of unsubsidized solar for pennies per kwhr. Money talks - louder than denier propaganda.

I have to ask, do you think the costs were calculated properly? I mean if you look at solar, a lot of the "savings" has come from China's production methods, which aren't exactly "eco friendly", or safe.

Like I said, every time someone gets a pet project in their sights they tend to become a lot less critical about how things get brought to market.

 

[Hillhater]

.... failing to recognise the intermittent, unpredictable, unreliable , nature of wind and solar...is ignoring facts.

No one is ignoring that. Remember, just because you don't understand something does not mean that other people don't understand...

If not ignoring, then it is a deliberate omission of knows costs, with the intention of presenting a false comparison ?.
Its like claiming a bicycle is cheaper transport than a car...but failing to recognise that they do not provide the same functionality. How do you drop the family off at the airport using a bicycle ?...you dont, you have to hire a cab !.
And i think you got the understanding bit backwards ?...i DO understand what is being stated, but most of the target audience do not, they are fooled by the omission of those associated costs.

 

[billvon]

I have to ask, do you think the costs were calculated properly? I mean if you look at solar, a lot of the "savings" has come from China's production methods, which aren't exactly "eco friendly", or safe.

Agreed. And coal power plants built in China are horribly dirty things, as anyone who has been to Beijing can see for themselves.

There are a few ways to tally costs. One is plain construction cost. That's easy to calculate because people keep careful records of cost (because that's how they get paid.) And here you see numbers like $1000/kw for combined cycle gas plants and $1800/kw for solar-PV.

Operating costs are harder. Natural gas power plants, for example, require natural gas - and the price of that will vary. Solar-PV needs no fuel, ever, and maintenance costs are very low. But they also have "capacity factors" because the sun isn't out all the time, so that reduces the energy they can generate. Nuclear power plants have decommissioning costs, insurance costs and their physical plant takes a huge amount of power - which is power you can't sell to consumers. In addition, there is a cost of money associated with any capital expenditure that has to be taken into account.

To take all these into account, a "levelized cost of energy" is calculated. (That's what the Lazard and BNEF studies concentrate on.) If the owner can sell power for more than the LCOE, then his plant makes money. If they cannot, then it will not succeed. Potential purchasers take this into account when requesting bids on new power plants.

The LCOE isn't 100% accurate of course; it can't be. No one can know what the future cost of natural gas will be, so if a generator banks on natural gas being about as cheap as it is now, and it gets expensive, they may fail even though the project looked good on paper. In addition it does not take externalities into account like health and economic damage from pollution. But it's a good basic estimate of how much the power from a given plant will cost.

Lazard, for example, gives LCOE ranges based on where power plants are built (Niger is cheaper to build in than the US) estimated fuel costs and estimated economic performance in the future (determines how hard loans are to pay back.) From their report in late 2018:

Solar PV rooftop residential $160-$267 ($/MWH)
Solar PV rooftop C+I $81-$170
Solar PV utility scale $36-$44
Onshore wind $29-$56
Gas peaker $152-$206
Nuclear $112-$189
Coal $60-$143
CCGT $41-$74

So far their costs, based on actual bid prices, have been pretty accurate. Utility bids on solar, for example, are going from about $25 to $40 per megawatt-hour, indicating that people are willing to build utility scale solar for that price.

 

[TheBeastie]

I can't believe people still use Lazards famous LCOE charts.
Lazard is a hedge fund company, with very heavy investments in renewable energy tech.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazard#Asset_management
The fact anyone uses LCOE charts that is comparing the cost non-dispatchable energy with dispatchable energy is simply crazy.

 

[Hillhater]

LCOE figures are deceptive at the least.
They are based on many “assumptions” , speculative lifecycle periods, and future cost projections.
With so many variable and estimated inputs its very easy for the “modelers” to distort the calculation to favor any result they wish to promote.

 

[billvon]

If not ignoring, then it is a deliberate omission of knows costs, with the intention of presenting a false comparison ?.

Nope. No false comparison, no deliberate omissions.

Its like claiming a bicycle is cheaper transport than a car...but failing to recognise that they do not provide the same functionality. How do you drop the family off at the airport using a bicycle ?...you dont, you have to hire a cab !.

Right. But if the proposal is to purchase a bike to get to work, and there is nothing in the proposal about selling your car - it might well be the best and cheapest solution to your commute. No need to "hire a cab" to get to the airport.

And i think you got the understanding bit backwards ?...i DO understand what is being stated, but most of the target audience do not, they are fooled by the omission of those associated costs.

Again, no. If you have your grid powered by a combination of natural gas, nuclear and coal - and you want to add solar - you do not have to build more generation. You simply get the cheaper power, and run your peakers less often.

 

[furcifer]

Again, no. If you have your grid powered by a combination of natural gas, nuclear and coal - and you want to add solar - you do not have to build more generation. You simply get the cheaper power, and run your peakers less often.

This is somewhat true, although I think you'll find it just drives up the price at peak. And then you're dealing with a lot of inefficiency blowing off the steam when demand drops. To what extent I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if it offset a significant amount of the wind or solar generated in the same day.

The "grid" is the largest and most sophisticated machine humans have ever built. I don't think most people appreciate that when they plug their toaster in the morning. There are literally hundreds of power plants, mostly natural gas, on the other end watching and waiting for the price to go up so they can deliver those precious electrons straight to your door.

It's hard to see a future without natural gas. I think the last time I saw an industry forecast they were looking at increasing cogen capacity for the next 80 years.

 

[billvon]

This is somewhat true, although I think you'll find it just drives up the price at peak.

Well, it drives prices down during mid-day and remains about the same during peak. (No new generation/fuel needed.) We are seeing that now with changes to time-of-use metering in San Diego; the "cheap" time is in place longer, up until 4pm. Then solar generation drops off and costs go back to normal.

 

[Hillhater]

It seems even those with an obvious heavy indoctrination of IPCC BS, are having to revise their understanding of the “known science” of the CO2 cycle...

Researchers probably need to revise their ideas about where the planet’s carbon is flowing.....
....The ocean in winter is a much stronger source of CO2 than we expected,” says Peter Landschützer, a marine biogeochemist at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg who’s been studying this area. Nobody had seen this before simply because nobody had ever looked during the harsh winter.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/southern-ocean-antarctica-absorbs-less-carbon-expected
If they approached the situation with an open mind and no preconcieved ideas of what they expect to find,..then they may just produce some sensible results.

 

[Hillhater]

.

Its like claiming a bicycle is cheaper transport than a car...but failing to recognise that they do not provide the same functionality. How do you drop the family off at the airport using a bicycle ?...you dont, you have to hire a cab !.

Right. But if the proposal is to purchase a bike to get to work, and there is nothing in the proposal about selling your car - it might well be the best and cheapest solution to your commute. No need to "hire a cab" to get to the airport....

So , now you are ignoring the situation where there is no transport currently,

..... If you have your grid powered by a combination of natural gas, nuclear and coal - and you want to add solar - you do not have to build more generation. You simply get the cheaper power, and run your peakers less often.

Fine, but you are advocating elimination of fossil fuel generation ?..what do you use on those windless nights ?
And adding more capital cost facilities to a fully functional grid, cannot reduce the operating cost....
.......as every country/state that has attempted that fools errand, has discovered.

This is somewhat true, although I think you'll find it just drives up the price at peak.

Well, it drives prices down during mid-day and remains about the same during peak. (No new generation/fuel needed.) We are seeing that now with changes to time-of-use metering in San Diego; the "cheap" time is in place longer, up until 4pm. Then solar generation drops off and costs go back to normal.

As you well know, that price variation is not because it is solar, but simply because there is an oversupply compared to demand,..which would have been the same if a similar amount of gas or coal generation was added instead of solar.

 

[Punx0r]

Gas PEAKERS are run when needed. No over-supply, obviously

 

[Punx0r]

:lol: ..The ‘Green” agenda is very heavily political..far left !

What you mean is: in the recent Australian election it was. I don't know if you realise this but politicians are not always scrupulously honest. Sometimes they will even pander to whatever voters want to hear in order to secure more votes!

Renewable energy technology has also been known to exist outsise Australia. Indeed, even in countries where the acknowledgement that climate change is a problem and increased renewable energy is needed to decrease domestic CO2 emissions enjoys cross-party support.

Know this: the world is going to change around and all the denialist propoganda and fossil fuel lobby koolaid you personally consume is not going to stop it.

 

[furcifer]

This is somewhat true, although I think you'll find it just drives up the price at peak.

Well, it drives prices down during mid-day and remains about the same during peak. (No new generation/fuel needed.) We are seeing that now with changes to time-of-use metering in San Diego; the "cheap" time is in place longer, up until 4pm. Then solar generation drops off and costs go back to normal.

Not really.

We have access to the IESO, check it out it's interesting. But here in Ontario Wind and Solar are delivering about 1000MW of the required 15000MW right now. They don't drive the prices, and they're kind of a pain in the butt because they fluctuate much more than demand does.

So it's like trying to choreograph a ballet, while your clumsy brother law, that your wife made you put into the show, stumbles around all of your dancers. You're just hoping he doesn't bump into someone and take the whole show down

It does offset some of the natural gas production, the 1000MW we're getting right now means the contracted gas plants aren't running 100%. Maybe some others as well, but primarily it's going to be natural gas. Which is in and of itself a good thing.

But no, if you track the actual price of electricity by the hour, the amount of solar or wind being generated has little effect on the price. If you have access to similar stats for your area I'd take a look at them and be able to tell you.

The point I'm trying to make is that right now, accommodating renewables into the grid comes at hidden costs that aren't part of the calculation. Most of the generation comes from turbines, machines that like to run very fast and can have disastrous consequences when they are turned off, even under the best of circumstances. It's not like you can turn one off and another on at your leisure. A lot of this gets taken into account in the price per KWh, but a lot of it doesn't. It's a competitive market but the renewables can't compete, they're just forced into the fray. If that makes any sense to you.

 

[billvon]

The point I'm trying to make is that right now, accommodating renewables into the grid comes at hidden costs that aren't part of the calculation. Most of the generation comes from turbines, machines that like to run very fast and can have disastrous consequences when they are turned off, even under the best of circumstances.

That's not true for turbines intended for such service. We have a 2MW cogen plant here that provides power and heating/cooling for our company - and it starts and stops every day. It's designed for it, as are all peaker plants.

There are some older combined cycle plants that have trouble starting and stopping rapidly, and indeed do have reliability problems when operated that way. (BTW it's not the combustion turbine that has problems with the rapid cycling, it's the steam turbine used by the heat recovery cycle.) Newer CCS plants are designed for rapid startup to avoid that very problem, and can be online within a few minutes and at full power within 35 minutes.

Keep in mind that these turbines are derived from aviation, an industry that operates turbines that are far higher power density, see multiple starts and stops a day, and are designed to operate from 130F to -60F inlet temperatures, often while ingesting water and ice.

 

[furcifer]

That's not true for turbines intended for such service. We have a 2MW cogen plant here that provides power and heating/cooling for our company - and it starts and stops every day. It's designed for it, as are all peaker plants.

There are some older combined cycle plants that have trouble starting and stopping rapidly, and indeed do have reliability problems when operated that way. (BTW it's not the combustion turbine that has problems with the rapid cycling, it's the steam turbine used by the heat recovery cycle.) Newer CCS plants are designed for rapid startup to avoid that very problem, and can be online within a few minutes and at full power within 35 minutes.

Keep in mind that these turbines are derived from aviation, an industry that operates turbines that are far higher power density, see multiple starts and stops a day, and are designed to operate from 130F to -60F inlet temperatures, often while ingesting water and ice.

No turbine is designed to stop and start. None.

They can do it, and they have measures in place to do it, but its not good. You always diminish service life with stop/start cycles. That's just a fact.

The difference between a peaker plant and a contract plant is the contract, not the turbine.

You are correct though, it is most problematic with the steam recovery turbine. We had a manual wheel about 8 feet in diameter that needs to be turned in the event of a power failure to the spin down motors. Ask anyone in a cogen plant back during the big blackout about that.

And it's not the ramp up time, its the ramp down time. And all of the problems and losses involved. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if turning off some of the big cogen peakers wastes more energy than the renewables produce.

Again, I may be wrong. I've been out of the industry for 10 years. At that time renewables were a joke. Maybe the cost has come down to produce them but I don't believe any of the problems incorporating them into the grid have changed. This isn't what gets talked about though. People don't want to hear that, they just want to know they are there and they can feel good about themselves. Their actual value to society and climate change are a fart in the wind.

eta: I just wanted to clarify what I meant by "joke". It's not that aren't useful or good to build. It's just that the logistics of using them in any significant capacity presents challenges that, at least at the time were overwhelming. That's not to say we shouldn't increase capacity.

 

[Hillhater]

Gas PEAKERS are run when needed. No over-supply, obviously

Its not about the peaker plants, its due to the surplus of generation capacity available when the solar supply ( farms and Roof top) come online.

 

[furcifer]

The fact anyone uses LCOE charts that is comparing the cost non-dispatchable energy with dispatchable energy is simply crazy.

Just a side note, I believe that Topaz site in your signature is the one that destroyed a bunch of endagered animal habitat and has proven to be a tax write off for the company that owns it.

I don't know, there still seems to be a lot of leaping before we look when it comes to renewables like solar.

 

[Hillhater]

The fact anyone uses LCOE charts that is comparing the cost non-dispatchable energy with dispatchable energy is simply crazy.

Just a side note, I believe that Topaz site in your signature is the one that destroyed a bunch of endagered animal habitat and has proven to be a tax write off for the company that owns it.

I don't know, there still seems to be a lot of leaping before we look when it comes to renewables like solar.

Whilst the RE enthusiasts dont like to mention it, California in particular is littered with failed and abandoned wind and solar farms, as well as thermal solar “experiments”. Many of them barely lasted 10 years before failing both financially and technically after the first wave of panic in the 80’s.
This is by no means a complete list..
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/abandoned-dreams-of-wind-and-light

 

[furcifer]

The fact anyone uses LCOE charts that is comparing the cost non-dispatchable energy with dispatchable energy is simply crazy.

Just a side note, I believe that Topaz site in your signature is the one that destroyed a bunch of endagered animal habitat and has proven to be a tax write off for the company that owns it.

I don't know, there still seems to be a lot of leaping before we look when it comes to renewables like solar.

Whilst the RE enthusiasts dont like to mention it, California in particular is littered with failed and abandoned wind and solar farms, as well as thermal solar “experiments”. Many of them barely lasted 10 years before failing both financially and technically after the first wave of panic in the 80’s.
This is by no means a complete list..
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/abandoned-dreams-of-wind-and-light

Cool, I've never seen those, except in movies maybe?

That's why I think these projects need to be more community oriented. People need to be made responsible for the energy they use and the waste they generate. We still have this bizarre mentality that electricity is just "there" when we want it, and the garbage we make just evaporates.
When I was working for a waste management company there was a big issue in one of the Toronto suburbs with garbage cans. The guys were getting hurt picking up the trash and they wanted to convert the community to side loaders. The plan got shot down because they decided the big green garbage bins were too much of an eye sore. WTF? This is the same community that was calling 100 times a day to complain about the garbage blowing all over the place because their neighbors couldn't tie their bags and put lids on their trash cans.
I love democracy but the majority of population also tends to be morons.

 

[billvon]

No turbine is designed to stop and start. None.

That's like saying that no bicycle is designed to be ridden uphill because it puts far more stress on the rear wheel and cassette. There is indeed more stress - but bicycles are in fact designed to be ridden uphill, and design margins are chosen to accommodate that. Even if the chain/cassette would last longer if they always stayed on flat ground.

Likewise, many turbines (like the Solar turbines we use on our campus) are designed to start and stop once a day, and we've gotten over 20 years of service out of them. Maybe the turbine will only last 40 years as a result. But since its service life was quoted to us as 15 years (based on hours and start/stop cycles) we are still doing pretty well.

I would also point out that peakers aren't a result of renewables - they are a result of the fact that people don't use power evenly. We'd need them even without renewables. With renewables we just need more natural gas plants able to shut down and start up quickly. Not more plants - just more of the existing plants operating intermittently.

And it's not the ramp up time, its the ramp down time. And all of the problems and losses involved. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if turning off some of the big cogen peakers wastes more energy than the renewables produce.

Which is why fast startup CCS plants are becoming a bigger thing now. (And that means that they can shut down more rapidly as well - and maintain much of the heat in the steam generator for the next start.)

Maybe the cost has come down to produce them but I don't believe any of the problems incorporating them into the grid have changed. This isn't what gets talked about though.

Given that I went to half a dozen talks at Solar Power International 2018 that discussed wind and sun ramp rates, behind the meter storage, demand response and battery system auxiliary services, it is indeed being talked about (and worked on) - a lot. Just not on CNN.

Their actual value to society and climate change are a fart in the wind.

Well, given that I get all my power for my home and vehicles from the sun, and California gets 34% of its electrical energy from renewables, maybe it's more like two farts.

 

[furcifer]

No turbine is designed to stop and start. None.

That's like saying that no bicycle is designed to be ridden uphill because it puts far more stress on the rear wheel and cassette. There is indeed more stress - but bicycles are in fact designed to be ridden uphill, and design margins are chosen to accommodate that. Even if the chain/cassette would last longer if they always stayed on flat ground.


Well, given that I get all my power for my home and vehicles from the sun, and California gets 34% of its electrical energy from renewables, maybe it's more like two farts.

Not exactly. Most of the big gas turbines are leased from GE and Westinghouse, including their maintenance. Stop/start cycles are a significant factor in your lease price. If Specialized charged you and extra $400 for a bike because you wanted to use it in the hills instead of flatland then it would be the same.

California, isn't that the state with all of the brown outs?

eta: I was impressed at that 34% figure you cited so I checked it out. If I'm reading this correctly California only produces 2/3 of the energy it uses. So that's not actually correct, or your neighbors are only getting 17%. I'm not aware of any State that has a surplus so the 93 000GWh shortage is coming from fossil fuel. Tsk. Tsk.