Solar power is getting cheaper every year

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south...6d3541d3863da4f

Quote:
Where does South Australia’s power come from?

During the 2015 financial year, gas accounted for 37 per cent of the electricity, wind 34 per cent, coal 23 per cent, and solar 7 per cent. Additionally, SA imported around 10 per cent of its total from Victoria via the interconnector to meet demand when there was not enough capacity locally.

With the closure of Alinta’s Northern power station at Port Augusta occurring on May 9 this year, coal is now out of the equation. At 1pm yesterday, SA was generating 1730 MW of electricity — of that 71 per cent wind, 24 per cent gas, and 5 per cent solar.


Quote:
Is the State Government’s renewable energy policy and is it to blame?

Analysts have blamed the Government’s hurried pursuit of renewable energy for forcing the closure of baseload fossil fuel plants like that at Port Augusta. They say the focus on wind, an unreliable power source, as opposed planning for a more diverse range of renewables that include the more reliable geothermal has contributed to price volatility since coal-fired baseload power was switched off on May 9.

Australian Industry Group chief Innes Willox said SA’s current energy crisis has many causes, but the closure at Port Augusta has helped set the scene.

“The loss of that generation capacity raises the likelihood that shortfalls in the interconnector or renewable generation send prices soaring,” he said.

“But most of all, the closure happened so fast that the market had little time to prepare or adjust. It’s a clear marker of the danger of disorderly transitions.”


Quote:
Should SA have more solar generation?

SA’s solar generation relies on household rooftop panels. The state had a huge uptake — nearly one-third of SA homes have them installed — was came about off the back initial generous feed-in tariffs. However on September 30 that comes to an end.

Large-scale solar farms are popular throughout much of the rest of the world but issues with storage meant they can also be unreliable.

There have been two solar thermal plants proposed for Port Augusta, which have storage capability and now a two-stage 120MW solar and battery project proposed for Roxby Downs.


Quote:
Are prices expected to continue to rise?

Completion of the interconnector upgrade should help smooth out recent volatility. However, SA is facing wholesale electricity prices that are roughly double that of other states for more than two years, according to figures from the Australian Energy Regulator.

Wholesale energy costs are the prices charged by power stations. They add up to about half the standard business or households bill, which also includes costs for building poles and wires.

SA currently pays $70 per megawatt hour for its wholesale power, and the AER forecasts that charge will rise to peak of $94 by mid 2018, when the price in Victoria will be just $41.

What it means for households, businesses and jobs?

Business SA senior policy adviser Andrew McKenna said industry thrives on certainty and the recent high and volatile wholesale electricity prices have undermined confidence in energy intensive sectors like manufacturing and irrigated agriculture.

“While existing businesses will try and hang on in SA, it will become increasingly difficult to attract new investment and jobs in energy intensive industry should our wholesale electricity prices remain effectively double those of adjoining states,” he said.
 
From the other side...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-21/en...-market/7646106

And what I've been saying...

Quote:
Mr Wood said the state's good wind resources meant it became of focus of federal policies bolstering green energy.

"Sometimes South Australia has been producing more than 100 per cent of its requirements on the basis of wind but that's fine when the wind is blowing but other times what do you do?
"So South Australia has been particularly exposed as a result of a combination of circumstances. Again I emphasis we should not blame renewable for this, it's a consequence of what we have done without giving appropriate thought to what happens next."


That's WRT throwing in these technologies with subsidies and mandates, and pushing the baseloaders out of the market.


Quote:
Green Markets energy analyst Tristan Edis said the rules about upgrading and creating new transmissions needed to acknowledge broader benefits including increased competition.

He said renewables were being unfairly blamed for the impact of high gas demand on South Australia's energy market and sounded a warning about the AEMC's review.

"The thing I worry about is this could be used as a subterfuge to undermine efforts to try to reduce our very high carbon emissions," he said.

"Basically there are a series of incumbent electricity generators that are threatened by the addition of renewable energy, so we need to be very careful about that.

"But there is a genuine issue, which is that we do need to have the ability to have generators rapidly respond, that are controllable, in response to change in wind and solar."
 
Originally Posted By: 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.



GRRR those greedy capitalist power plants! How dare they run a profit and not be run like a charity!
smirk.gif
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The comparison below shows the old power generation and the new way with solar power incorporated in 24 hours time frame.

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


OK, regarding the linear lego brick model that you think models power grids, here's a simplistic preso of all of the things that need to go into modelling the grid and generation itself.

https://www.iea.org/media/training/presentations/latinamerica2014/7B_8B_9B_Grid_Integration.pdf

It's 79 page presentation, and at a high level, but you can surely see that it's pretty complicated...
 
No one is arguing it does not take backup for wind and solar.

Just where would the nuclear industry be without the US government's development cost paid for by the US taxpayer?
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No one is arguing it does not take backup for wind and solar.

Just where would the nuclear industry be without the US government's development cost paid for by the US taxpayer?


Some of that cost was to develop ways of breeding weapons-grade plutonium, it wasn't just about making electricity. So you have to factor that into military spending as well. You also have a fleet of nuclear powered carriers, subs....etc. These are a result of that same investment.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No one is arguing it does not take backup for wind and solar.

Just where would the nuclear industry be without the US government's development cost paid for by the US taxpayer?


Some of that cost was to develop ways of breeding weapons-grade plutonium, it wasn't just about making electricity. So you have to factor that into military spending as well. You also have a fleet of nuclear powered carriers, subs....etc. These are a result of that same investment.
Yes I suppose it was only a few 100 billions the US taxpayer directly helped support the power industry. What about the 100s of millions the nuclear industry is clamoring for now to keep uneconomical plants open?
 
Seeing some of the stats shannow posts makes me think renewables will work out better than I thought. Running 100% on wind? Amazing. Am I interpreting that right?

The saving grace will be natural gas turbines. They're so incredibly cheap and can be installed like overnight. Who cares if they only run minutes or hours a day to fill the gaps. Once renewables are over poliferated, it won't matter anymore.

But Australia is a special case. Here the load density is so high we'll never be able to run on 100% wind and solar.
 
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Seeing some of the stats shannow posts makes me think renewables will work out better than I thought. Running 100% on wind? Amazing. Am I interpreting that right?

The saving grace will be natural gas turbines. They're so incredibly cheap and can be installed like overnight. Who cares if they only run minutes or hours a day to fill the gaps. Once renewables are over poliferated, it won't matter anymore.

But Australia is a special case. Here the load density is so high we'll never be able to run on 100% wind and solar.




AHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAA!!!!!


You realize how lunatic the green weenies are about using gas plants to back up their unreliable wind?


You may as well try to build the gas well in a children's playground.
smile.gif
 
The east coast of the US is full of natural gas deposits not even drilled yet and there are many wells that are drilled and capped. No shortage of that in the US for decades.

Nat gas puts out about 1/2 of the CO2 coal does and no ash, mercury, sulfur either.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
No one is arguing it does not take backup for wind and solar.

Just where would the nuclear industry be without the US government's development cost paid for by the US taxpayer?


Some of that cost was to develop ways of breeding weapons-grade plutonium, it wasn't just about making electricity. So you have to factor that into military spending as well. You also have a fleet of nuclear powered carriers, subs....etc. These are a result of that same investment.
Yes I suppose it was only a few 100 billions the US taxpayer directly helped support the power industry. What about the 100s of millions the nuclear industry is clamoring for now to keep uneconomical plants open?


I would like to see numbers for how much was really spent (not your posit) and then how much of that spending was directly for power generation. However, that may not be broken out in a way we can see. A better example might be looking at how much AECL has spent developing the CANDU, as that has absolutely no weapons/defence purpose and was entirely for generation.
 
In theory, solar panel would never be cheap enough for mass deployment, just like electric car. In practice, someone has done poor investment in them and now the fixed cost are already paid for, it is just a matter of putting them in the field and pay the variable cost.

The more I see the more I love those single cycle GT peaker plants, they are likely the silver bullets we're looking for.
 
Interesting history piece on the CANDU:

Quote:
In preparation for the commitment of a station incorporating the new conceptual design, negotiations for a commercial agreement between AECL, Ontario Hydro, the federal government, and the Ontario provincial government were commenced in September of 1963. As an outcome, Hydro agreed to proceed with two 500 MW units as the first stage of what was to become the Pickering-A Generating Station. The commitment of two units at the same time permitted economies of planning, manufacturing, and construction through the sequencing and sharing of both facilities and personnel. The financing arrangement called for Hydro to contribute to the capital cost at a level corresponding to two comparable coal-fired units (based on the Lambton plant). The federal government, through AECL, and the provincial government would provide, respectively, 54% and 46% of the additional capital funds required for the nuclear units as compared to the Lambton coal-fired units. The Agreement called for the federal and provincial governments to recover their investments through proportional sharing in the savings in total generating costs realized by Hydro as compared to the Lambton coal-fired units.


So essentially, the recoupment of the investment costs in deploying the conceptual design of what became Pickering was based on the cost savings versus coal. Pretty interesting.
 
Interesting thread gents....just finished catching up. Haven't had much time to wade in lately, but a few random thoughts:
  • As usual, location, location, location rules. What is needed and works here may not work else where. Therefore, "it depends" is necessary to most responses.
    .
  • I have a solar water heater. Been in use for about 30yrs now. Well paid for itself as the neighborhood I live in is 100% electric unless you have a propane tank. During the Summer, I have more hot water than I know what to do with as I don't take hot showers after coming in from yard work, exercising, working on the sled, etc. 100% cold water, which in reality, really isn't that cold this time of year. But it beats +80°F of the local lakes.

    During the Winter, it may provide all the hot water I need but that depends on how cold it is, how cloudy it is, wind speed, etc. If not, at least it pre-heats the 70°F cold water to about 100°F or so, so I only have to pay for electricity to heat it up another 30°F or so. On the other side, electricity here is billed at a substantial discount compared to Summer rates, so it's fighting that.
    .
  • Given the lower cost of LED lighting & solar panels, I can see many indoor lighting needs taken care of with a separate DC buss & house wiring. Batteries could be used to provide night-time lighting needs as the current draw is quite low. Powering the HVAC system though (220VAC @ 15A?) may be best left to the AC buss as both the compressor + two blower motors starting probably pull > 100A on start-up.
    .
  • Regarding DE, years ago I studied about this using nuclear power. Each homeowner was responsible for about a quail eggs worth. Too bad our current society isn't near smart nor sophisticated enough to deal with this. But there it is....
    .
  • I read the links that worked. Interesing what they're doing up in Alaska and I'm all for it. They were smart to still have diesel backup and not overly rely on wind. The author made it sound as if a 1MW flywheel was stored in a small box "behind the computers" but I doubt it's that simple. I would have liked to read more engineering details. Unfortunately such details are often missing for those of us with technical backgrounds.
    .
  • So far, no one has mentioned the consequences nor issues with back-feeding a power grid from multiple neighborhood sources, when it wasn't designed for that in the first place. It does have its limits......
    .
  • Down here, I've read that solar electric output & efficiency drops quickly due to increasing ambient temps. A few decades ago, 3M installed several arrays using lenses to concentrate the solar energy, but they also cooled the individual cells with water or maybe anti-freeze. They used this to heat water within the building. All of their collectors were also on trackers. Rather inventive for the time. They also installed a co-generation facility. Not sure how it's all worked out currently.
    .
  • Scaling is still an issue. Going "off grid" in one house, in a temperate climate, with owners who like the heat, with no air conditioning is one thing. Doing so en masse however, is another matter all together. Where I live, wind is far too inconsistent. Have plenty of solar though (~1100 W/sqr mtr most days this time of year). Here the rule is to minimize solar collection, save for solar water heating. Up North, you want all you can gather to use for heat. Here, we have Summer & February. Up North, maybe 3 months of Summer? Even then, is AC necessary? Properly orientering a house in a standard subdivision can greatly increase housing costs on the other hand. Ground source heat-pumps work great here, but the problem is most live on top of limestone domes, thus installation costs are high. I'm lucky to have 4" of top soil for the grass. Mostly because I've been adding compost to it for over 25yrs though....my water bill is now at least $50/month, even when I use zero gallons. That rate includes NO water either. When it was cheaper, it included about 2000ga. No more.
    .
  • Re: Coal. Due to EPA regs. a coal plant East of here can't use any local coal due to the sulphur content. Thus it's shipped on rail cars all the way from Wyoming, I believe. The "meanie-greenies" still HATE that plant however, no matter how efficient it's become. They HATE it because it's COAL and it's STILL OPERATING. They want it GONE, regardless of the cost. Period. They could care less about the poor though and the cost of power for those on fixed incomes. All that matters is THEIR VISION. As irrational, irresponsible and short-sighted as it is. "Let them eat cake (use fans)" comes to mind......
    .
  • As for me, I like things to be as efficient as reasonably possible. I don't do it "for the environment". I was long into efficiency way-back-when, perhaps being told as a kid numerous times "Shut the door...you're letting out the air conditioning.....don't stand there with the refigerator door open...you're letting out the cold.....turn OFF that light...don't waste electricity and so on and so forth. It had nothing to do with the "environment". As an adult, I have to pay the bills and they're far higher than my parents could have ever imagined. My 26yr old HVAC system is tight and clean and keeps the indoor humidity at about 38%, which lets me raise the thermostat. I use small Vornado fans to mix the air and ceiling fans also.

    Due to a ridge vent, enlarged soffit vents, light colored shingles, radiant barrier in the attic and a very large tree in my Western yard, my vented attic is at max about 10°F above outdoor ambient when the Sun transits and the roof is fully exposed to its radiation. Solar heat index this time of year is about 135°F, shingle temp is about 150°F. Ceiling temps throughout my house though are about 80°F, which is what the t-stat is set on. I've been in houses with 10' ceilings where you can feel attic heat on your cheeks when sitting still! That's nuts in this climate!

    I'm in no way advocating that everyone needs to be as efficient as I am. Not only is that unrealistic, but impossible. I'm far off the bell-curve. I'm naturally curious about all of this though and being an EE, dive into the details. Having a tight house with dry air inside when living in a humid climate is a blessing though. As I type, it's 77° outside and 98% RH! In my study it's 82°, 39% RH and I have the Vornado set on medium. I have yet to turn the t-stat down to 79° but it's not a pressing matter. All of my close neighbors houses feel too warm and far too humid to me. When they come over here, they're really surprised.

    Fine Homebuilding has some GREAT articles for sealing up a house, ductwork, adding insulation, etc. I've learned a lot there. So does Ask This Old House. Elsewhere are great articles on duct sizing & sealing, doing a load calculation, cleaning condensor & evaporator coils. Well worth the effort to educate yourself as a homeowner. This isn't rocket science and I don't have fancy, expensive new windows either. The E-bill down here is third in line from the mortgage & car payment. > $300/mo isn't all that uncommon.

    My point, is I've tightened up everything possible on the amount of energy I use. When it comes to the SUPPLY side, I wish I had a check box on my bill to support the South Tx. Nuclear Project (STNP). Every time it goes off line for maintainence, electric rates escalate despite all the "green sources" Austin energy has paid for. Fortunately, it's one of the most reliable, cost-effective nuclear plants in the USA. It was designed for four reactors. It currently has two, each generating 1,350 MW.

    From 2007 "Austin's 16% ownership of the STP is one of the key reasons the Austin energy fuel charge is among the lowest in the state, as nuclear fuel is substantially lower in cost than natural gas, coal, or renewables." They've since raised rates about 18% to pay for the boondoggle-renewables they got themselves into before the cost of wholesale NG fell through the basement. Ouch......
 
Originally Posted By: 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.


Here's Musk's View...how does that work with your linear lego model ?

Elon Musk: Tesla Powerpack Doesn't Need Renewables

Quote:
Ultimately, said Musk, storage allows utilities to turn off power plants or defer new ones.

“You can basically, in principle, shut down half of the world’s power plants if you had stationary storage,” he said.

Utilities currently have to build power plants to meet peak demand, and then some. Batteries allow utilities to store energy when demand is low and use it when demand is high, without turning on more power plants.


“The fundamental economics of cost are always true, meaning there’s always a cost advantage of system-wide implementation of stationary storage because of high peak to trough of electricity usage.”
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ




I sincerely hope someone contacts the CBO and asks if this is the "revised" chart or the first one where they fudge the figures to present a specific picture.

I remember the guy telling us we get 1.50 in value for every tax dollar, too...
 
Last edited:
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. [/quote]
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Here's Musk's View...how does that work with your linear lego model ?

Elon Musk: Tesla Powerpack Doesn't Need Renewables

Quote:
Ultimately, said Musk, storage allows utilities to turn off power plants or defer new ones.

“You can basically, in principle, shut down half of the world’s power plants if you had stationary storage,” he said.

Utilities currently have to build power plants to meet peak demand, and then some. Batteries allow utilities to store energy when demand is low and use it when demand is high, without turning on more power plants.


“The fundamental economics of cost are always true, meaning there’s always a cost advantage of system-wide implementation of stationary storage because of high peak to trough of electricity usage.”

Power storage can be used by any utility company, but does it needed especially in Dubai when they have the new 800 MWH solar power in the near future ? My answer is no, Dubai doesn't need any storage as of now and in the near future.

When the 800 MWH solar power is online they only need to turn on less daytime power plants, instead of X MWH with traditional power they need only X-800 MWH.

Elon Musk is just a salesman for power storage because his company is in battery business now.

When battery cost less than $200 KWH installed then new peakers and/or replacement of old power plants will not be built, because it costs more than battery. But as of now at $350-400 KWH battery is not cost effective in replacing tradition power plants. It may be used instead of new peakers, but more than that doesn't make economical sense.

Back to topic, I am pretty sure that any utility company in any country will be happy to pay 2.5 US cents for 1 kWh solar power. The problem is somehow Dubai got that contract but no one else could get that deal.
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: SHOZ




I sincerely hope someone contacts the CBO and asks if this is the "revised" chart or the first one where they fudge the figures to present a specific picture.

I remember the guy telling us we get 1.50 in value for every tax dollar, too...
These are tax credits and not direct government payments.
 
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
SteveSRT8 said:
SHOZ said:
These are tax credits and not direct government payments.


Yes, that was quite clear. But they would still seem a bit revenue negative to a government that is way short every time! Since we borrow money and pay huge interest as well anything that involves revenues should be carefully evaluated just like expenditures...
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
SteveSRT8 said:
SHOZ said:
These are tax credits and not direct government payments.


Yes, that was quite clear. But they would still seem a bit revenue negative to a government that is way short every time! Since we borrow money and pay huge interest as well anything that involves revenues should be carefully evaluated just like expenditures...
In debt a 'reported' $19T. Give me a break. They could cut out all tax credits and barely make a dent. Do you feel guilty taking tax deductions?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top