Solar power is getting cheaper every year

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The use of flywheels and local wind power do show the way DE power can work. Just because you can't scale it up to Gw range doesn't make it worthless.


I'm not saying it is worthless; far from it. I'm simply saying it can't be leveraged as a substitute for baseload as a storage medium, which can and is currently done with HE.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The manipulations and roadblocks that utilities put in the path of development for distributed energy will only strengthen DE. It will push the consumer to full off grid power if the situation is right.


Unless it is illegal, like it is up here. Government always finds a way to make sure they have their claws in you, never forget that.

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The use of flywheels and local wind power do show the way DE power can work. Just because you can't scale it up to Gw range doesn't make it worthless.


I'm not saying it is worthless; far from it. I'm simply saying it can't be leveraged as a substitute for baseload as a storage medium, which can and is currently done with HE.
Then this is the wrong thread for that discussion. But the idea of DE is the opposite of baseload power.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The use of flywheels and local wind power do show the way DE power can work. Just because you can't scale it up to Gw range doesn't make it worthless.


I'm not saying it is worthless; far from it. I'm simply saying it can't be leveraged as a substitute for baseload as a storage medium, which can and is currently done with HE.
Then this is the wrong thread for that discussion. But the idea of DE is the opposite of baseload power.


But it isn't. You are distributing the baseload, that's all you are doing. Moving it from one location to many. It doesn't change its function, it doesn't change the requirement and it doesn't change its definition.

 

[SHOZ]

http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid/distributed-energy

Distributed energy consists of a range of smaller-scale and modular devices designed to provide electricity, and sometimes also thermal energy, in locations close to consumers. They include fossil and renewable energy technologies (e.g., photovoltaic arrays, wind turbines, microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells, combustion turbines, and steam turbines); energy storage devices (e.g., batteries and flywheels); and combined heat and power systems. Distributed energy offers solutions to many of the nation's most pressing energy and electric power problems, including blackouts and brownouts, energy security concerns, power quality issues, tighter emissions standards, transmission bottlenecks, and the desire for greater control over energy costs.

DOE supported the Distributed Energy Program from 1999-2007 and met its performance targets of: 1) achieving three integrated energy systems (combined heat and power systems) of greater than 70% efficiency; 2) demonstrating a 38% efficient microturbine; and 3) demonstrating a 44% efficient reciprocating engine. Distributed Energy Distributed Energy

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
http://energy.gov/oe/technology-development/smart-grid/distributed-energy

Distributed energy consists of a range of smaller-scale and modular devices designed to provide electricity, and sometimes also thermal energy, in locations close to consumers. They include fossil and renewable energy technologies (e.g., photovoltaic arrays, wind turbines, microturbines, reciprocating engines, fuel cells, combustion turbines, and steam turbines); energy storage devices (e.g., batteries and flywheels); and combined heat and power systems. Distributed energy offers solutions to many of the nation's most pressing energy and electric power problems, including blackouts and brownouts, energy security concerns, power quality issues, tighter emissions standards, transmission bottlenecks, and the desire for greater control over energy costs.

DOE supported the Distributed Energy Program from 1999-2007 and met its performance targets of: 1) achieving three integrated energy systems (combined heat and power systems) of greater than 70% efficiency; 2) demonstrating a 38% efficient microturbine; and 3) demonstrating a 44% efficient reciprocating engine. Distributed Energy Distributed Energy


You are making my point.

The concept is the decentralization of the baseload providers. The baseload still exists, how it is accounted for simply changes. The cost of that change is what is concerning, both in terms of initial investment as well as ongoing costs to the consumer. A large power plant, owned by a company that runs a pile of these plants generating a pile of power, all the time, has the economy of scale working on its side. That is, the power it generates is cheap because it makes so much of it. You decentralize that generation, you risk increasing the cost. It is like Walmart versus your local corner store. Walmart has better prices because of the economies of scale, they are a huge entity with a great amount of vertical integration that guarantees them profit based on volume of product moved. The same cannot be said for your local store. As we move from the Walmart to corner store model, that product will get more expensive IMHO. You can look at Denmark and their obscene "green" energy prices as an example of what happens here when one goes all out to push these big centralized generators out of the picture.

 

[SHOZ]

Putting money into dinosaurs like coal and nuclear are just as bad at driving up the cost as many of those bills are yet to come due.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Putting money into dinosaurs like coal and nuclear are just as bad at driving up the cost as many of those bills are yet to come due.


That's where our opinions differ. Given how much power can be extracted by properly implemented nuclear (as you should recall, based on our numerous previous discussions) as well as the use of the waste to again, generate more power, get reprocessed and then again generate more power, nuclear has a lot of potential and a density higher than anything else available by a HUGE margin. I do agree with the idea of phasing out coal and oil however as the elimination of burning fossil fuels and the pollution generated by that process makes perfect sense. Where you can't do hydro electric for base-load/storage, a small 700MW gen-4 CANDU (or however many are needed) burning Thorium and/or coupled with a breeder to burn waste makes a lot of sense and is a big departure from the current nuclear climate in places like the US, but part of the moving forward plan in places like China.

 

[SHOZ]

It's strange you have great foresight in the future when discussing the status quo and what may happen but with new power generators it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
My takeaway from what Shannow has stated is that the economics of operating a plant depend on the operator being able to SELL that power on the market. If you displace the demand for that power with renewables, you've removed a portion of that ability. That money is used for paying staff, buying fuel, maintenance, upgrades....etc. Once the plant becomes non-viable, it is shuttered. The operator is not in the game to lose money; they are not a charity. Unlike the renewables, which, in many locations, are paid to NOT make power at times (as per my Ontario thread) and are compensated via contracts that guarantee them well above market value, these "dirty" generators are not. They make money because of the volume of power they are able produce and sell at the low market rates.


Yes, there are fixed costs and fuel costs (and other fixed and variable costs) in doing anything.

Traditionally, during peaks, because the excess supply is lower, and the risk to the stability of the grid is higher, you bid and get paid more per MWh...at night when demand drops off, you go as low as you can go, and bid lower so that you can stay in the game for tomorrow's peak.

The actual COST of making the power will clearly be less than you make in the daytime (hopefully), and often more than the cost of Generation off peak...but if you come off, you have $100,000 in diesel to get back going, and it takes time/life off the machines...take a measured hit in the pocket overnight to avoid those costs tomorrow or into the future.

THAT's why you have cheaper off peak power to charge your S3 today.

When you displace the generation of MW, you save the fuel costs, but spread the variable costs across fewer MW, they HAVE to become more expensive to break even...and that's what the greens are telling us about, that's what vikas' video states that these things damage the existing business models, and make them have to rethink their business.

Get enough intrusion of these energy harvesting technologies in the market, and the maximum available power in the middle of the day is increased...supply and demand says that you don't then get the traditional daytime prices, those preices are spread over fewer MW generated, and demand is still the same overnight when you used to be prepared to take a loss, so you lose money.

Do it for a few months, then mothball the most expensive plant in the region, and keep doing so until the supply/demand curve settles out and generators can stay in business.

what I don't get is that I'm stating that I have observed this in my country, and it's being dismissed as head in the sand.
* My state was having 500MW of rooftop solar installed per annum.
* my sate lost about 1 coal fired unit per annum during that period.
* South Australia installed 1,500MW of wind over time
* over not long a period of time, they lost all of their coal power stations
* South Australia is now playing a price/volume game with their NG fleet, if they generate, the gas prices go up, if they don't the electricity prices go up.

South Australia wholesale prices were around 20c for the last month versus 8c for the rest.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I think turtlevette's point about the who rate curve changing makes sense. Instead of our current demand/pricing curve, you will have dynamic pricing that follows the changing load curve and may mean that plugging your Tesla in at night all of a sudden isn't cheap anymore, but may in fact be the most expensive time to charge, as you are doing it the same time as everybody else and where is that power now coming from?


Seriously true...
Some of the retailers in the UK are offering free electricity over the weekend if you install a smart meter...what's the other side of THAT coin ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
It's strange you have great foresight in the future when discussing the status quo and what may happen but with new power generators it's all smoke and mirrors.


It isn't strange at all. We know how these current generators operate, whilst we don't know what mediums will appear in the future to deal with the storage issues, all we have to work with are what are available currently and their subsequent costs. The cost of hydro has steadily increased as renewables have been installed in this province. That is what we've been dealing with. In places like Denmark, with HEAVY investment in renewables, they pay some of the highest hydro rates in the world. These are both a reality, not theory. While I would love for the progress of going green to bring with it a reduction in the cost of electricity, the current scenarios playing out have yielded the opposite. If that changes I will be elated, but have little faith in that being the case.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Vikas
Here is the video that I was trying to find. It is very interesting prediction.


There are few flaws with the video contents:

1. Elon Musk in 2014 said that he expected to reduce the cost by 30% when the gigafactory starts producing Li-on battery cell onsite, using either Lithium mines in Nevada or import from Chile or elsewhere, not 30-50% or more as claimed by the speaker.

2. After 2020 when battery costs less than $200 per kWh then it doesn't make economic sense to build new "peaker(s)", but does it make sense to spend billions for batteries to replace perfectly working "peakers" ?

3. At 6 min 15 second speaker talks about "storage as service" to businesses. This will work only for a percentage of businesses who use their service. If they provide batteries to all utility's customers, peak demand will shift from hot afternoon summer to midnight when all batteries are charging. Power companies are not so dumb and they will not take a lost everyday, they will shift the high cost from day to night.

4. Something isn't right about Texas utility company Oncor plan to invest $5 Billion to batteries. Oncor isn't a power company it is a transmission and distribution company. This $5 Billion investment will save its customers on average a whopping 34 cents a month, from $180 to $179.66.

Saving of 34 cents is about 2kWh a month, nobody can control their power usage down to less than 5 kWh a month. Month to month power usage varies more than 20-30 kWh. The whopping 34 cents in saving is no more noise.

Quote:
Oncor hired the Brattle Group to analyze the impact of $5.2 billion invested in distributed, utility-controlled batteries. The Boston-based consulting group reported that ERCOT could see positive impacts from up to 5 gigawatts of “grid-integrated, distributed electricity storage,” based on the presumption that battery prices will fall to $350 per kilowatt-hour, about half the cost of the cheapest lithium-ion batteries available today (PDF). At those prices, Oncor’s distributed storage fleet could drive average Texas residential power bills down by 34 cents to $179.66 a month, according to the report.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/r...tributed-Energy

Back to Dubai, the so called "peakers" are used every summer day from 2-3 PM till 9-10 PM. To replace all "peakers" they may need to invest many billions US Dollars for storage to be able to satisfy demand during hot summer months.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
This site has some of the rudest people I've seen on forums.


I don't know, just because people have different opinion and not sharing a rose tint glasses doesn't mean they are rude.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Multiply by the number of families and businesses, install smart meters (they AREN'T being installed to make billing easier), and you'll be paying more.


Actually, firing the meter readers are the biggest money saver on residential accounts.

 

[PandaBear]

Personally, I don't see the big deal about leaving excessive generation capacity on and wasting them regardless of where they are from. Leaving the solar panel disconnected on the residential side, blowing out steam and leaving the existing fossil plant exhaust hotter, paying customers to use idle power at a discount or free, implementing wasteful storage at the customer or production side (battery, flywheel, pumping water up stream, freezing a block of ice at night, whatever), all are good solution if it really cost the producer or grid so much money to match generation and usage.

At least around my neck of the wood, the problem is when the grid is overloaded local generators gouge utility companies for what they can, and if the utility can prevent it with inefficient means like solar panel, battery, tiered pricing, I think it is still a good thing to do.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
The use of flywheels and local wind power do show the way DE power can work. Just because you can't scale it up to Gw range doesn't make it worthless.


It's already having an impact...

http://www.metering.com/news/us-solar-pv-fitch-ratings/

Quote:
A new report states that the rapid adoption of residential solar PV systems and net energy metering are potential long-term threats to investor-owned business models.
.
.
.
The firm recommends Investor Owned Utilities (IOU) and regulators design new tariff charges including a large fixed charge component to sustain their operations in line with the growing adoption of distributed generation resources.


So the recommendation is that connection fees (the bit you can't change) goes up and tarrifes down, to better secure income.

All this stuff is having an effect in real time.

Imagining that everyone can put solar on their roof, earn a tidy sum, and charge their EV on cheap overnight power is the epitome of having one's head buried in the sand.

http://www.metering.com/news/energy-storage-canada-asa/

Quote:
In Canada, a consortium of utilities and energy solutions firms established an alliance to enhance the deployment of energy storage technologies in Alberta province.
.
.
.
It added that, “with renewable energy as part of the power portfolio, the electrical grid would become complex and needs to be dealt with greater focus with respect to its planning and design so as to optimally use the network assets and renewable resources.

 

[SHOZ]

Utilities and Politicians are killing the net metering. For me the extra 4 cents I would get would not be the goal.

But here is a page with real time numbers on some members in the coop and their renewable net metering gains.

Renewable Energy Data

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


Solar power-------------- 800 MW---800 MW-----zero-----zero
Traditional power(new) 2,200 MW 3,200 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Where power storage is needed ?


Regionally,

It'll be a lot worse than that. Try 2200. 200 1000 10 4000

I'm curious. Are you "self taught" ?

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

----------------------------8AM-12PM 12PM-6PM 6PM-10PM 10PM-8AM
Traditional power(old)--- 3,000 MW 4,000 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Solar power---------------- 800 MW---800 MW-----zero-----zero
Traditional power(new)-- 2,200 MW 3,200 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Where power storage is needed ?

I just showed an example of how Dubai power company can and should incorporate the 800 MWH of solar power into their current demand/supply capacity without a need of storage. I just showed the difference in supply between old system and new system between 8AM and 6PM.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

No. You are absolutely wrong for claiming "WHEN you end up with a renewable power scheme, my point IS that you MUST include storage"

I gave you an example of why and how you incorporate the new found renewable power in to your total power supply with a single watt of power storage is needed.

You need to get your head out of the sand first, you need to know that the people who runs multi-billions power companies are not too dumb. They know solar isn't available 24/7 and they know that they need to provide power to their customers 24/7 not 8-10 hours a day.


Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
You aren't quite understanding what he's saying, that's why you are at odds with him right now and claiming he is wrong.

The goal is never to just install 800MW of solar and allow it to coexist with something like a coal plant. The idea is to install enough renewables to REPLACE the coal plant.

As much as I search I couldn't find anything to suggest DEWA (Dubai Electricity and Water Authority) plan to replace all current power plants with renewable, and I could not find any document to suggest DEWA is buying or will buy energy storage (in this case most likely batteries) anytime soon.

It is clearly DEWA will incorporate this cheap solar power into their existing power source of coal fired power plants and/or other types. If you look at Dubai and the whole middle-east weather in summer you can easily see all available power plants there are running at full speed all afternoon. There are very few "peakers" in middle-east countries.

I am not saying batteries don't have a place in the future of power supply side, especially when cost per kWh is falling below $250 or $200, by that time no more new traditional power plants will be built, existing but aging plants a the end of its life will be replaced with batteries instead of build new plants. When battery cost per kWh falls below $50 then most current power plants may be may be used as "peaker" only.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There are very few "peakers" in middle-east countries.


OK Jimmy, you've been wheeling out legal definitions of EV's left right and centre.

What is it that makes these intermittently operated plant "not peakers"...or another one of your made up representations.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Shannow

So the recommendation is that connection fees (the bit you can't change) goes up and tarrifes down, to better secure income.

All this stuff is having an effect in real time.

Imagining that everyone can put solar on their roof, earn a tidy sum, and charge their EV on cheap overnight power is the epitome of having one's head buried in the sand.



Here is the thing, the fixed cost part of the power generation is going to be there no matter what. If we can reduce the variable cost, like fuel and maintenance and staffing, because of reduced generation and charge more on the fixed one I have no problem with it.

It is like because cars are more efficient now we have to increase gas tax per gallon to pay for the road, but we don't want to do it, so we just prevent cars from getting more efficient or going electric.

Maybe a better solution is to limit solar feed so power plants can run within a window of duty cycle, rather than limiting the amount of solar panels hooked up to the grid so that power plants can gouge customers during heat storms and grid overload.