We're almost there with PV Solar price/performance.

[kandrathe]

I've always been hopeful that the day would come when PV solar cells would be affordable enough to compete evenly with fossil fuels. I still have concerns about limitations (1000w / square meter), but where possible it will become more common if it can compete with the cheapest of fuels.

From reason magazine; Unlimited Free Solar Power?

Let's start with the levelized cost analysis that is the most bullish with respect to solar photovoltaic. In September, the financial advisory firm Lazard reckoned that the levelized unsubsidized cost of utility-scale solar PV is as low as $72 per megawatt-hour. (A megawatt-hour is roughly equivalent to the amount of electricity used by 330 houses during one hour.) Lazard projects that these costs will drop to $60 per megawatt-hour by 2017. Meanwhile, the low-end of natural gas generation is now $61 per megawatt-hour; for coal generation, it's $66 per megawatt-hour; and for nuclear, it’s $124 per megawatt-hour. With the current U.S. tax breaks, the low-end solar PV utility-scale costs is $56 per megawatt-hour. George Bilicic, a vice chairman of Lazard, concluded that utilities "still require conventional technologies to meet the energy needs of a developed economy, but they are using alternative technologies to create diversified portfolios of power generation resources."

Now if only we could develop hyper efficient wind generation as quickly. I live in wind country, and not sun country.

[Jester]

Even if we manage to push solar and wind down to extraordinarily low prices, I suspect we'll still need a backbone of more conventional power sources, because of intermittent generation. If both solar and wind are basically offline at the same time, then either we need a grid so colossal and efficient that the load can be shifted from somewhere else (which requires substantial overbuilding, since everywhere has to have the spare capacity to support everywhere else), or we have to switch on more conventional power plants. Either way it means slack capacity much of the time, which is expensive.

Or, I guess, we can just have the power go out every once in awhile. But that wouldn't be a good idea. Or gigantic batteries, but that's *really* expensive.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Even if we manage to push solar and wind down to extraordinarily low prices, I suspect we'll still need a backbone of more conventional power sources, because of intermittent generation. If both solar and wind are basically offline at the same time, then either we need a grid so colossal and efficient that the load can be shifted from somewhere else (which requires substantial overbuilding, since everywhere has to have the spare capacity to support everywhere else), or we have to switch on more conventional power plants. Either way it means slack capacity much of the time, which is expensive.

Or, I guess, we can just have the power go out every once in awhile. But that wouldn't be a good idea. Or gigantic batteries, but that's *really* expensive.

-Jester

I was reading about...

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/0...grid-power

... this recently.

Indeed, the team's experiments with this novel storage system carried out at 450°C displayed a current density of 275mA/cm2, with a cycling efficiency of 98% on charging and 73% ‘round-trip’ energy efficiency.

I'm not sure how big a tank of liquid metal you would need to backup the local power grid... even so, having Ng backup during night time, windless or cloudy days would still make a significant change in emissions. Then toss in advances in Combined Cycle Natural Gas with CSS and we'd drastically curtail emissions even during backup operations. Prices per Kwh would increase by 46% for carbon sequestration and storage, but would be well offset by decreases in operating costs during sunny, and windy daylight operations. A big concern would be the capital and ongoing cost for redundant systems (which also had an energy investment which must be paid back by the system).

[Jester]

I was reading about...

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2014/0...grid-power

... this recently.

Indeed, the team's experiments with this novel storage system carried out at 450°C displayed a current density of 275mA/cm2, with a cycling efficiency of 98% on charging and 73% ‘round-trip’ energy efficiency.

I'm not sure how big a tank of liquid metal you would need to backup the local power grid... even so, having Ng backup during night time, windless or cloudy days would still make a significant change in emissions. Then toss in advances in Combined Cycle Natural Gas with CSS and we'd drastically curtail emissions even during backup operations. Prices per Kwh would increase by 46% for carbon sequestration and storage, but would be well offset by decreases in operating costs during sunny, and windy daylight operations. A big concern would be the capital and ongoing cost for redundant systems (which also had an energy investment which must be paid back by the system).

Any super-efficient battery storage is going to set sharp arbitrage-enforced limits on price variation between high and low output times. (That is to say, a good enough battery solves all our problems.) But I'll believe that when I see it - people keep coming up with good ideas, but I've yet to see anything cheap enough and big enough to be better than just having a gas power plant. Plus, we need to consider lifecycle emissions from building all that battery capacity.

But, long story short, I think we're doing much better than I worried we'd be at this point.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But, long story short, I think we're doing much better than I worried we'd be at this point.

-Jester

Another option would be some smaller nukes as a base load backup to buy us another 50 years of research.

[Kevin]

Another option would be some smaller nukes as a base load backup to buy us another 50 years of research.

While there are still waste issues with nuke, I still tend to be in favor. I was reading this today

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physic...our-times/

which made me think of the 50 years. Fusion is still a future dream, but it's nice to see progress. 50 years sounds more reasonable than 20 for it to be a reality. Of course who knows how long it would take to commercialize and make cost effective even if we get to the point where it's possible to make reactors. Then if you have it, do you bother with other renewable sources with fusion as the on demand source. I suppose if it could take the whole load and it really is 50 years away, you might be at a point where the renewable infrastructure is needing major maintenance / replacement anyway so it would be a natural transition. Wouldn't that be convenient.


Though to speak a little more directly to Jester's point. Solar and wind will at times be offline at the same time, but wind can be 24/7, and of course when solar is offline demand is usually lower. There are even times when solar isn't online where wind will be more available, such as storms. Though that requires wind generation to be more variable than it currently is. I know some turbines have to be shut off or heavily governed if the wind speeds get too high.

I don't think that wind and solar and good batteries will be enough, I do think the grid will still need other sources to feed it during different times. But I do think converting as much as possible is still the way to go.

[Taem]

I wonder if all that's necessary as it seems crisis is striking innovation in every aspect: Can Sucking CO2 Out of the Atmosphere Really Work?

This quote from the article I linked above shows there are competing entities out there trying to do the same thing:

A more practical way to do it, Schrag says, would involve deriving fuels from biomass—which removes CO2 from the atmosphere as it grows. As that feedstock is fermented in a reactor to create ethanol, it produces a stream of pure carbon dioxide that can be captured and stored underground. It’s a proven technique and has been tested at a handful of sites worldwide.

So, what I'm inferring is with technology like this on the rise, I wonder which will win out? It seems if fossil fuels can continue to be exploited in their current form without harm to the environment via carbon capture, and the air is being scrubbed of CO2 via carbon air purifiers, then I'm fairly certain the drive to establish an alternative means of energy will greatly diminish until such a need arises again. And I'm positive if the mega corporations based on the profitability of fossil fuels and the stock market who almost made oil the standard currency had any say in it, they would much rather prefer carbon capture over alternative energy, and might even embrace it before it nets a profit and take the minimal loss as opposed to letting alternative energy become the norm. So in my mind, it's a race to develop the most cost efficient form of alternative energy that would supplant fossil fuels versus reducing carbon emissions to a healthy standard that might offset climate change.

[kandrathe]

I don't think that wind and solar and good batteries will be enough, I do think the grid will still need other sources to feed it during different times. But I do think converting as much as possible is still the way to go.

I agree with you.

Some observations to expound on that,

Fission would be cool, but it's not just that. It's also what Taem is getting at across the spectrum of technology. A high tech gadget in the 1960's was a transistor radio, an electric typewriter, a 66 Corvette burned 10mpg, in 62' music was available on compact cassette tapes. Nuclear power was more likely the thing we were going to drop on Cuba. The industry started in the mid 50's and by 1960 there were 6 units in the US generating .6 GW. Now there are 132 units in the US generating output of 99 GW. Worldwide, it's 450GW. And, uranium/plutonium are not renewable resources either with an estimate of 200 years at current usage rates. If we agree to use more nuclear for a limited amount of time (50 years), we can stop the destruction of the planet at the cost of having to keep an eye on some (more) nuclear waste. Based on our rate of technological change, 50 years is probably sufficient to figure this energy mess out.

We call it waste, but really they are useful chemical byproducts of a fission reaction. Much of it can be reprocessed into more fuel, or into other useful stuff. The Europeans have taught us how to deal with it safely with glassification, which while not perfect is better than warehousing it cooling baths forever, or hiding it in spent salt mines hoping they never flood.

Yes, after reprocessing there is some "dangerous" waste that unlike what we do with coal waste can ( and should) be monitored. We have lived with and have suffered with mercury, arsenic, and other heavy metals both in the air, and in ground water contamination from all the spent coal ash that goes into land fills. It is not as easy to follow the mercury, and arsenic, etc.

Our environmental track record with coal has been abysmal, so even though it hurts us economically to be cutting out coal more quickly than we were prepared for, it is the BEST environmental news ever. It's harsh to say, but I actually believe it may be better for us to be over heated, or freezing, and deprived of electrical generation, than for the planet to be poisoned by heavy metals. Deaths resides either way. We can probably figure out the heating/cooling, electrical thing another way, but trying to clean up the heavy metal poisons out of the ecosystem takes generations. And this is irregardless of our stance on the anthropogenic impact on green house gases. If you are worried about coal and CO2, then we need to convince the Chinese not the US or Europe. Our other CO2 sin is driving cars.

In the past on the lounge, we've worked through the math on our total electrical generation versus the absolute law of maximal solar power 1000W / meter sq. hitting the planet at sea level. Or, even, the power you consume in your house, compared to the amount of solar panel area needed to replace that power. Then there are the economics of the power generation, and life cycle to consider. A natural gas furnace will cost about $1000 plus or minus depending on your house size, and will last about 20 years or so. The annual cost of the gas to heat the average house is about $2000. Ignoring how the heat gets distributed in the house, since that will be equal regardless of the heating plant. Then in order to be competitive, the solar plant replacement should be between $2000 (Nat. Gas) to $4000 (Fuel oil).

Here is a typical sales pitch on home solar, "With {our} current pricing (Jun. 2014), a medium sized grid-tie system that generates about 815 kWh a month would cost about $10,500 BEFORE the 30% federal tax credit and rebates offered by your state or utility company. This particular system includes twenty four solar panels. The Federal tax credit would take the cost down to $7,350. This price does not include installation, which can be easily accomplished by a DIY-friendly homeowner or a trusted contractor. Take a look at tax incentives for your state. "

Assuming you are in an area where the 24 solar panels can generate 815 kWh per month, and that 815kWh per month satisfies your heating, cooling and electrical needs. This system sounds like it is meant to replace only the electrical needs (possibly cooling), and not heating.

"In 2012, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh, an average of 903 kilo watt hours (kWh) per month. Louisiana had the highest annual consumption at 15,046 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,367 kWh"

If the government wanted to help expedite, what they should do is offer to bankroll (say up to $15K) home owners conversion to solar, or geothermal, or any other non-fossil fuel source. Home owners can pay them back (at the rate they'd have normally paid for energy using the fossil fuels). The one time tax incentive is fine, but most people can't really scrape together the $4-$10K it would take for the capital and labor to get the conversion installed.

Overall, though, if the efficiency of solar cells increases while the price falls, the day will come where we really can design them into every home.

Edit: Two last thoughts; There is now a track record of research confirming the relationships between energy consumption and GDP ( i.e. national wealth). The danger I see in messing with power generation and the price per KWh is the potential for negative effects to global economies. Much like the misguided detour we've taken by burning our food as fuel, I'd hate to see us adopt a politically and emotionally driven bad idea. This is also why I reject the idea of Carbon Credits, or Carbon taxes. It rewards carbon speculators sapping money from *real* infrastructure development, and I'd rather we reward the people who are really building the better mouse traps. They don't need the disincentive of more overhead, and besides, we should be driven to action by fear of *real* consequences for inaction. I think the fear mongering is actually working.

In 2008 I warned my employers about economic trouble brewing just because oil was spiking above $100/barrel . If you had been watching investments around that time, it was another era where stock prices were too good to be true. The housing bubble was the weak spot that blew, but I feel that oil prices were the pin that pricked it. The danger in a fast growing economy (over-heated) is that momentum of prices overruns the values of the stuff we produce. In other words, up until the end of 2007, it was easy to make money because everything just seemed to go up. In 2008, things started to get more rocky (again I think due to the cost of energy), and the easy money days came to a crashing halt. We are in an era of stimulation now, where the cost of borrowed money is so low, that *Rich* people can't find many good places of low risk, so choose to just sit on it and let the fed pay them in reserve interests. The common rabble, like us, languish.

[Taem]

If the government wanted to help expedite, what they should do is offer to bankroll (say up to $15K) home owners conversion to solar, or geothermal, or any other non-fossil fuel source. Home owners can pay them back (at the rate they'd have normally paid for energy using the fossil fuels).

I'd be all for that in a big way!

The one time tax incentive is fine, but most people can't really scrape together the $4-$10K it would take for the capital and labor to get the conversion installed.

There was a huge push to get Santa Barbara County solar and Carpinteria Valley was giving additional tax breaks to whomever signed up for solar power between $250-$500 off just a few months ago. I actually seriously considered taking them up on their offer - I was going to take out a bit of equity on my home and have the solar panels installed. Until I did the math and realized we use an average of 750kwh in my home, and to get the amount of solar panels I needed to supplant this, well lets just say I wouldn't see a return in my "investment" for close to ten-years. I actually thought it might be sooner because if you factor in the average rise in inflation (3% per year) and apply that to your electric bill, you would actually come out ahead much sooner than the touted 7.5-8 year mark for solar energy... until you factor in the 6% equity line of credit loan and realize you won't see a return on your investment for 10-years. Anyway, this was the point I realized I'd rather invest into a new home instead of solar, but I did give it a good long consideration, and would still be privy to the idea once prices substantially drop.

[kandrathe]

I'd be all for that in a big way!

This is the type of thing, where the private banks drive you to home equity loans. As long as the banks are giving out loans (a big if), and based on some figures on the back of a napkin here, you can replace about $200 of electric costs, with $200 of HELOC payment (assuming the variable rates remain low at 6%, or you are willing to go for a bigger payment ~$290 fixed rate @9% rate over 10-15 years.). The key being at the end of the loan, you have bought the infrastructure so theoretically, you have some life span in the solar equipment where your maintenance costs are well below what you would be paying for power.

There was a huge push to get Santa Barbara County solar and Carpinteria Valley was giving additional tax breaks to whomever signed up for solar power between $250-$500 off just a few months ago. ...

Yeah, if you don't think it makes sense with all the government write offs, then it is obviously the more expensive way to get power. When DOIY home solar is cheaper than the grid, then everyone will suddenly be on a band wagon to beat down the doors to get it installed (temporarily driving up demand prices). This could be because either the power prices go higher, or because the prices of solar equipment drop. This is the time that the government deals will start to disappear. but there will be an overlap which might be a good place to adopt it.

So, then, once we see the solar power bandwagon, wait for a little bit for the emotional adopters to go first. Once the boom is over the oversupply deals will emerge, then you know the price will be at its lowest. We could just as well be talking about electric cars. Same thing applies.

[Taem]

if you don't think it makes sense with all the government write offs

Other than the 30% off (which was already factored into the costs) and the additional $500 off that particular company was offering, what other write-offs are we talking about? I was unaware of anything else, but if you're suggesting additional government subsidized tax write-offs at the end of the year for having solar, I'd be interested in hearing about that. I wonder if there is also a depreciation write-off you could pawn on the unit, like you can do with homes you rent out?

[Jester]

Though to speak a little more directly to Jester's point. Solar and wind will at times be offline at the same time, but wind can be 24/7, and of course when solar is offline demand is usually lower. There are even times when solar isn't online where wind will be more available, such as storms. Though that requires wind generation to be more variable than it currently is. I know some turbines have to be shut off or heavily governed if the wind speeds get too high.

Convenient though that is, it doesn't solve the problem. Even if 99% of the time, when solar is down, wind is up, and vice versa, that's still 1% of the time when both are down. (Warning: Numbers pulled out of nowhere for sake of argument!) When that happens, we still need 100% of our grid capacity to be fulfilled through some other means - at the same cost in backup capacity, either spare plants or batteries, because supplying that load once a year requires roughly the same amount of spare capacity as doing it every day. Some brownouts here or there is bad, but total output dropping to near zero because it's a miserable, windless day? That's going to shut everything off at once.

-Jester

[LavCat]

Some brownouts here or there is bad, but total output dropping to near zero because it's a miserable, windless day? That's going to shut everything off at once.

-Jester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

[Jester]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power

But how are you going to predict when there are tides? So mysterious!

On a more serious note, I'm happy to build loads of tidal plants, contingent on the usual concerns about local impact. Can we really get enough juice out of them? Anything that provides a consistent backbone at least helps mitigate the variance problems with solar and wind, although only pure reliable energy (or some really killer batteries) will eliminate them.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I know some turbines have to be shut off or heavily governed if the wind speeds get too high.

When the temp gets to just around freezing, and there is some light moisture the blades get coated with ice. At some point, the ice chunks break off and become ice missiles.

[Jester]

When the temp gets to just around freezing, and there is some light moisture the blades get coated with ice. At some point, the ice chunks break off and become ice missiles.

Ice blades? Ice missiles? Are you sure you're posting in the right forum?

-Jester

[kandrathe]

When the temp gets to just around freezing, and there is some light moisture the blades get coated with ice. At some point, the ice chunks break off and become ice missiles.

Ice blades? Ice missiles? Are you sure you're posting in the right forum?

-Jester

I've read about some solar focusing plants get so hot nearer the focal point that birds flying though spontaneously ignite. They call them "smokers". Pretty gruesome nonetheless.

We could call them flaming bone missiles, in the spirit of Diablo.

[Kevin]

Though to speak a little more directly to Jester's point. Solar and wind will at times be offline at the same time, but wind can be 24/7, and of course when solar is offline demand is usually lower. There are even times when solar isn't online where wind will be more available, such as storms. Though that requires wind generation to be more variable than it currently is. I know some turbines have to be shut off or heavily governed if the wind speeds get too high.

Convenient though that is, it doesn't solve the problem. Even if 99% of the time, when solar is down, wind is up, and vice versa, that's still 1% of the time when both are down. (Warning: Numbers pulled out of nowhere for sake of argument!) When that happens, we still need 100% of our grid capacity to be fulfilled through some other means - at the same cost in backup capacity, either spare plants or batteries, because supplying that load once a year requires roughly the same amount of spare capacity as doing it every day. Some brownouts here or there is bad, but total output dropping to near zero because it's a miserable, windless day? That's going to shut everything off at once.

-Jester

Oh I'm in complete agree with you. It's not a simple problem, I was just point out that the tow major solar sources (because wind is the results of solar energy too) are somewhat complimentary. As you say, regardless of source of generation you need 100% of capacity to be filled 100% of the time. Distributed generation runs into some of the same problems. Joe is on the grid with his solar panels that generate on average what his house needs, but there are times he is dumping 90% of his generation into the grid and times when he is pulling 100% of his needs from the grid, or he is off grid and just has brown/black outs or wasted generation, or his own batteries or gasoline generator or whatever to stay off the grid.

I didn't mean to imply that it was the answer. Maybe the gap is filled by orbiting solar collectors that beam power down, but that feels like a fusion reactor solution too, if we can do that, we don't we just do it all that way? Weather effects (depending on the transfer mechanisms) and generation prediction become trivial or pointless. But again, I'd rather we get more distributed generation now while we keep working towards better solutions. Fighting the money trail isn't the easiest thing to do, oil companies have more of it than anyone else besides some governments.

On an environmental impact level, as Kandrathe was saying, we still have vehicle issues to clean up, but that problem, like coal, is also going to be more of a China and India issue than an US and Europe issue if it isn't already. Doesn't mean I don't want the US to attack the problems. There are battery technologies that are in theory and some cases demo stages that look to triple the life of cell phones, and one of the primary researches has a final goal of improving car batteries for electric cars. The goal is to triple the range of the electrics that are out there now. Some of the scuttlebutt is that Telsa is hoping some of this will be a reality before they release the Model X and that is part of the delays that has seen. Who knows.

It would be nice though, the model S has a 265 mile range, you get that to just 700 and that pretty much gives you full driving freedom, especially for a Tesla specifically as they already have great coverage on their rapid charge stations. I think 500 miles is the goal for a lot of manufacturers for the break even point. That beats the range of a lot of gasoline powered vehicles for a single tank. It gets you to a full day of driving. Sure I've done over 1,000 miles in a day but most people will do 500 a day a handful of times in their life.

There are all kinds of technologies in developing that are converging to points where I'm expecting things to look very different in 50 years. I know not much of prediction as 50 years has seen lots of changes regardless of what 50 you pick since at least 1600 or so. We've been stuck burning old long dead plant and animal material for a lot longer than 50 years as our primary source of energy. I can see a majority of the power generated, for everything, being from other sources in 50 years. I'm hoping the "fossil fuel age" doesn't get much longer.

[kandrathe]

It would be nice though, the model S has a 265 mile range, you get that to just 700 and that pretty much gives you full driving freedom, especially for a Tesla specifically as they already have great coverage on their rapid charge stations. I think 500 miles is the goal for a lot of manufacturers for the break even point. That beats the range of a lot of gasoline powered vehicles for a single tank. It gets you to a full day of driving. Sure I've done over 1,000 miles in a day but most people will do 500 a day a handful of times in their life.

200+ handles most peoples daily driving habits. I'm not so worried about 700 miles driving. More worried about finding recharging places and the time it takes, so I can continue on my trip in the morning. That said, I think a good solution will be more like a battery exchange. Sort of like what happens with gas grill propane tanks. The issue there is standardization, and the service station would test the batteries and ensure the quality standards are met.

[Kevin]

200+ handles most peoples daily driving habits. I'm not so worried about 700 miles driving. More worried about finding recharging places and the time it takes, so I can continue on my trip in the morning. That said, I think a good solution will be more like a battery exchange. Sort of like what happens with gas grill propane tanks. The issue there is standardization, and the service station would test the batteries and ensure the quality standards are met.

It does, but there are enough people like me who average 30 - 60 miles a week and then every month or two end up doing 300 - 700 in a day. The Tesla supercharger stations (free to use for any Tesla owner) plan to have most of the major travel corridors covered by the end of 2015, no it's no where near as ubiquitous as gas stations, but it could be. Right now it's at 119 stations ( http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger ). These are Tesla specific stations too, but with all their patents being freely available, in a move that was designed to help get others to build compatible infrastructure like this by using Tesla designs, more could be on the way. Get Exxon or BP or just one of the other major oil companies to buy in to some sort of pay for charge rapid charging stations and full coverage problem solved in a year or two since they already have the real estate with all the partner gas stations.

A 30 minute charge time is still longer than most people want, but is not unreasonable for a 250 mile range (though 30 minutes would only add back to about 175 miles, it's still 75 minutes for a full charge). That's around 4 hours of driving in the US if you stay within reasonable range of the speed limits so stopping for 30 minutes to charge, eat, stretch, etc isn't crazy.

I've read about the battery swap stations but I'm not sure about them. Part of the issue with it is the way warranties work on batteries, they have expected life times, etc. You do a full swap and you might end up with batteries that have a year of cycles left when yours had 10 years left. If 90% of your charging is done with the vehicle plugged into your garage that is a problem. It's not an insurmountable problem, and if you changed the full battery set every time you "charged" your vehicle it's not an issue, but that isn't how folks use electrics.

More rapid charging stations combined with longer vehicle ranges is what is being worked on and deployed right now. If the rapid chargers still get you to 80% of a charge in 40 minutes (and I don't know if they will on the new battery techs) and full range is 500 miles most people won't care, a 15 minute charge would get you about 150 miles more range in that case, 30 minutes gets you around 300. That range makes cross country trips possible with a charge happening at a natural food / restroom stop. Private charging stations don't mind the longer charge times since it makes it more likely that you'll buy something else.

I think the charge station, likely with a pay for power, like pay for gas and not the $2000 up front on the vehicle and free at specific stations model, will probably win out. It would be nice if those stations were all solar/wind powered, but if everyone were electric and all the gasoline stations were charging stations, they are still pulling from the grid.