Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[AndyH]

Since you clearly do not understand the chart that I posted, let me explain it.

Many things I don't understand.

Why does the graph stop in 2012 when there is 2013 data available?

Take it somewhere else, guys.

 

[GRA]

<Snip areas of general agreement>

I think we agree on the existence of friction, especially when one tries to turn the ship more dramatically than is typical. I don't discount it, I just consider it to be in the stew already. Germany's transition has been going on since before the 1990s (RMI reports the 1980s). Their nuclear phase-out predates Fukushima. But both projects got a burst of 'afterburner' because of the disasters (Chernobyl and Fukushima). Here's a timely piece that compares/constrasts Japan and Germany: http://www.forbes.com/sites/amorylo...-into-a-loss-for-japan-and-a-win-for-germany/

I note the author Meanwhile, let's see what was skated over in the article:

I figured you'd note the author. And since you (ahem) 'respect' his and his organization so much, it forces you to try to debunk the points made, yes? Happens to me, too - I guess we're human after all. (And not a witch. Or a duck. ) The points I hoped you'd notice were the main ones - how two countries with similar challenges are coping with their decisions. My overall desire is not to get lost in details about exactly how much political friction might slow a process, but to look at the possibilities and decide which way WE might want to steer our country.

The info on coal and new coal plants and emissions has been documented in this and other threads Guy - it's a speed bump. It's used by industry in Germany and other countries and by pro-business press to 'prove' that renewables aren't working now and won't in future. Germany's the world leader in cutting their emissions - nobody on the planet has done it better. They've cut more than 27% since ratifying the Kyoto protocol - exceeding both the emission volume targets and time to reach that volume. Read Rifkin's book and read the plan for Germany and the EU then look at the results - look at what's happening in the country. That will give you the info you need to show that I'm not pulling my position out of my nether region. The rest - much from Forbes, the pro-business press, and industry (their PR messaging is different from what they're printing in their shareholder filings - that's a clue too...) - is the 'dog' in the weather/climate meme. Keep your eyes on the man, not the dog.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0vj-0imOLw[/youtube]

Andy, I've read Rifkin's book and many of Amory's as well, as you're aware. But if I were a German ratepayer, who's been subsidizing wind and solar at extremely high feed-through tariffs for years in an attempt to reduce fossil-fuel emissions, and which have resulted in the second highest average electricity rates in the EU (after only Denmark) only to find that they've actually increased despite a five-fold increase in PV/Wind, I'd sure as hell be asking WTF? Shutting nukes while burning more lignite? YGBSM! (to borrow an old Wild Weasel term).

To accept that Forbes is somehow unbiased because they printed an Op-Ed by Amory, while Bloomberg isn't because they highlight other issues doesn't hold water with me. Or are you saying the spokesperson for the German Environment Ministry who was quoted in the Bloomberg article, and by extension the Ministry itself, are biased against the transition?

Amory is an advocate; nothing wrong with that. But having watched his advocacy and predictions for a quarter century now, I figure that the truth, as usual, falls between the extremes on both ends. It's never going as well as Amory claims, and never so badly as the opponents do.

In any case, I think we've beaten this to death: I'm a pessimist/realist, you're an optimist/idealist, and never are we likely to convince the other to cross the bridge. So, I leave the last word to you - I'm on a serious reading binge at the moment, getting through a book or two a night, so am only coming up for air for short periods.

 

[AndyH]

Andy, I've read Rifkin's book and many of Amory's as well, as you're aware. But if I were a German ratepayer, who's been subsidizing wind and solar at extremely high feed-through tariffs for years in an attempt to reduce fossil-fuel emissions, and which have resulted in the second highest average electricity rates in the EU (after only Denmark) only to find that they've actually increased despite a five-fold increase in PV/Wind, I'd sure as hell be asking WTF? Shutting nukes while burning more lignite? YGBSM! (to borrow an old Wild Weasel term).

Weasels? Cool! Not many folks remember them. Amazing guys - huge respect.

Actually, if you were a German ratepayer (as I was for a time) you wouldn't be complaining about the price per kWh of electricity because the rate of price increases lower than it would have been on the old grid, because efficiency improvements mean you would be using less energy and thus would likely not see any increase in your actual bill, because you would very likely to be paying yourself for your energy (as 47% of the renewables are owned by citizens and their co-ops - their bill payments are feeding their investment accounts), and because the government and industry are doing what you and your friends marched in the street to accomplish.

(Besides - the difference in the price paid by a typical consumer is much less than a smart phone data plan. No, not the US average of about $90/month - in Europe they pay about $19/month according to Susan Crawford.)

To accept that Forbes is somehow unbiased because they printed an Op-Ed by Amory, while Bloomberg isn't because they highlight other issues doesn't hold water with me. Or are you saying the spokesperson for the German Environment Ministry who was quoted in the Bloomberg article, and by extension the Ministry itself, are biased against the transition?

I'm not pre-judging either. I'm saying that the truth is the truth even if one hears it from a liar. What I'm saying is that when one sits down to begin assembling a puzzle, they benefit greatly from a look at the box cover for clues about the destination, and from a fair level of certainty that their sealed box has all the necessary pieces. They accept that 'some assembly' will be required, that they may want/need a break before the puzzle's complete, and that the job won't be done until the last piece is in place.

When one is implementing a revolutionary energy transition where some generation modalities will eventually be off-line while others expand, one should automatically expect to hear complaints from the coal and nuclear industry. Those complaints are not a sign of a problem, they're an expected marker on the road to a completed puzzle. When one looks at more of the articles and background info and shareholder filings, they see that the energy supply industries are complaining but they're transitioning into new business models exactly as the planers outlined. In spite of the noise, the wind to H2 plants are being built and the plant that is operating is bringing the owner a rate of return in line with any other power infrastructure investment.

The cherry-picked complaints from pro-business sources (whether media or politicians) and short-term bumps and dips in emissions are the 'noise' while the overall trend of falling GHG emissions; more generation from renewables; less generation from nuclear, gas, and coal; low unemployment and growing GDP are the signals to track.

Amory is an advocate; nothing wrong with that. But having watched his advocacy and predictions for a quarter century now, I figure that the truth, as usual, falls between the extremes on both ends. It's never going as well as Amory claims, and never so badly as the opponents do.

Sometimes reality can be found between two extreme messages. Some realities, however, don't have two sides.

Lovins, Rifkin, and their crews and their business partners are much more than just advocates. They're visionaries and planners and leaders and do-ers. Reinventing Fire and the TIR aren't just books and fund-raising web pages - they're full plans that are being implemented around the world today. One example is my local grocery store - it and its 'sister' store in Austin were built using Reinventing Fire guidelines and they've cut electricity and water use in half relative to the grocery chain's other stores. I experience the benefit of Reinventing Fire about every 10 days! :lol:

But again - the point of the article was to compare/contrast how Germany and Japan took similar situations and created completely different results. I want the US result to more closely resemble Germany's rather than Japan's.

In any case, I think we've beaten this to death: I'm a pessimist/realist, you're an optimist/idealist, and never are we likely to convince the other to cross the bridge. So, I leave the last word to you - I'm on a serious reading binge at the moment, getting through a book or two a night, so am only coming up for air for short periods.

Labeling can be a real problem, can't it? With respect to you and others in this group, I think it's really important to remember that there is a time to plan a project and a time to grab a shovel to make it manifest in the 3D world. There are different groups with different spheres of responsibility in any project. The 'big picture folks' are in charge of the overall goals while the hydro designer is in charge of estimating sediment collection and deciding how best to get the required life from a Pelton turbine. Once the plan's complete, the nit-picking stops and the 'other' phase of the project starts. Yes, there will be bumps and 'gotcha' moments - those are expected. The Wild Weasel crews had to get past the initial plan where one of them would be a decoy for a surface to air missile site so that his wing man could kill the radar - and they did just that. There should absolutely be feedback to evolve and improve the system, but that doesn't mean mission accomplishment is supported in any way by nit-picking the plan into paralysis. Germany's energy transition/TIR deployment has the end goal of removing fossil fuels from their entire power/energy systems by 2050 if I recall correctly. Their goal is not to coddle the coal or nuclear industry, or live so that the pro-business press only prints positive articles, or to make life as easy as possible while eating chocolate and watching re-runs of American "reality" TV. Again - watch the man, not the dog.

I'm actually an optimist at times and a pessimist at others; sometimes an idealist but mostly a pragmatist. We have a problem, we have the tech and brain power to fix the problem, and the clock's ticking. The best use of my time is mission dependent - sometimes I'll be the decoy and sometimes the shooter. I'll continue to support folks with plans and worn boots, and I'll keep pushing politicians to listen to them - even if that means carrying a sign that says "We Said No" and getting knocked on my butt by a water cannon.

Enjoy your reading; I'll get back to mine.

 

[AndyH]

New storage is not required - "Only the myth holds us back."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF9H7aIYAzE[/youtube]

 

[woodgeek]

Phew. Quite a long thread.

I want to get back to the OP. Here it goes.

At low penetration, the cost of a RE source is the cost of building, financing and operating the resource. For technologies currently at scale, we have a very good idea what those cost per kWh today. It seems we all agree on the basic numbers, and the likelihood that solar PV will get a lot cheaper in the future.

What @WetEV seemed to be saying is that with intermittency, sometimes you will need storage if you want to be near 100% RE. And during those times, the cost of electricity will be the cost of the RE generation + the cost of the storage. And that is higher than the cost of the RE alone.

We appear to be disagreeing about at what penetration level storage is needed and how much. Seems kinda silly to argue about it, since it depends on the location/country/island, the RE source portfolio and the amount of demand response allowed by the population, the amount of long-distance (e.g. DCHV) transmission invested in, etc.

@AndyH seems to be a fan of the RMI and similar studies that describe (in varying levels of detail) a 100% RE 'Ecotopic' future for the US, Germany, NY, etc. I have read these too, and I think the purpose is never to be an actual PLAN. In reality, these studies are trying to show that such a future is possible with existing technology. The 'style' they come up with largely avoids storage by using a diversity of RE sources, spread over geographical areas, with demand response and some source curtailment. They do this because currently no one has a low-cost turnkey storage solution (off-grid AGM systems run $0.25-50/kWh delivered). To discuss solutions that have storage is contra their goal....convincing skeptics that the RE ecotopia is feasible with existing tech.

Our future economy will not be designed by the RMI. It will be built by individuals and businesspeople interacting in a RE marketplace, with little pushes and pulls from public policy (hopefully in the right direction).

I suppose the following:

--any cheap RE technology will look like an opportunity to folks with money, and will grow exponentially until it hits its own (site) limits OR it approaches 100% grid demand at peak output, at which curtailment is required (affecting ROI) or storage must be fielded.

--I think Big Hydro is cheap, dispatchable rather than intermittent, but is near its capacity in the US.

--I think onshore wind is still growing exponentially, but costs are flat because the best sites are getting used up (near transmission). It will continue to grow, but no one I have seen suggests it ever getting much more than 20% energy penetration in the US.

--I think PV is still growing exponentially, getting cheaper, and can easily grow in most areas of the US to the point that it can hit 100% grid demand at peak output (noon). I think HI is getting there now, SoCal in the next few years (passing Germany), and the rest of the US could be there in 10-15 years. This will happen without a massive German-style spending spree. It will be done by folks wanting to make money doing it.

--If no cheap, scalable storage solution is found, solar penetration will asymptote to 25-50% energy penetration after that. No sense in arguing about numbers IMO. I happen to think that cheap battery storage WILL be developed in the next 10 years or so, and that this will allow the growth of PV to continue smoothly well past the 25-50% energy level. There is currently not a huge market for such storage....starting in a few years (with high solar PV in some areas) there will be a HUGE market, and the solution(s) will get built then.

IOW, I see a future ecotopic US economy driven by cheap PV and cheap battery storage, built by folks out to make a profit. I think **technically** it could be here in 20 years, projecting current PV growth rates. Any technical or public policy roadblocks would delay that a bit. I also think a lot of this PV will be 'industrial'...not rooftop, with better economy of scale and easier integration with grid operators.

--A side effect of all this, IMO, is that a lot of other more expensive RE technology will get crowded out by cheap PV+storage. I think on-shore wind will be cheap enough to survive, especially being diurnally and seasonally complementary to PV. After cheap storage is fielded, it may go beyond 20% energy penetration in some markets (with good wind resources and/or solar that is poor for 1 or more seasons). Hydro as is exists will also continue. All other RE tech? I wouldn't invest in it. Offshore wind is not getting as cheap as hoped. Costs of tidal power are all best guesses. Geothermal is cheap and dispatchable, but not really scalable or sustainable.

Nukes will get built if they can compete on cost with future PV+storage. It does not look currently like they will.

I think the ecotopia can get here and be 'boring'....we can get there without the majority of folks even thinking about it. Just a lot of businesspeople fielding massive PV systems, and innovators and new companies fielding grid storage (that does not currently exist).

 

[TimLee]

... Our future economy will not be designed by the RMI. It will be built by individuals and businesspeople interacting in a RE marketplace, with little pushes and pulls from public policy (hopefully in the right direction).
...
I think the ecotopia can get here and be 'boring'....we can get there without the majority of folks even thinking about it. Just a lot of businesspeople fielding massive PV systems, and innovators and new companies fielding grid storage (that does not currently exist).

A well stated summary woodgeek.
The main point you kind of make reading between the lines, is that getting to 100% renewables, or to a carbon neutral Earth, will happen or not happen based on economics.
There are many concepts that show it is technically feasible.
But often they depend on future improvements in technology or substantial public policy decisions to go 100% renewable or carbon neutral no matter what it costs.
The reality is that 100% renewable or carbon neutral will only happen if it is the lowest total life cycle cost.

 

[woodgeek]

Thanks for reading.

Indeed. The US and Germany have very different approaches. In Germany and the rest of the EU, they guarantee a (high) buying price for rooftop solar power for a decent time period, and largely pass that cost onto consumers. The question they have to ask is, 'if we grow PV to a certain size, can we as a people still afford to pay for the resulting electricity in the future?' The tariffs are locked in, even if the PV gets cheaper. Its a setup to make a political battle later, and to force a major day of reckoning in the future. In the US, we give a %rebate on installed cost, up front. No future liability. If PV gets cheaper, the feds are on the hook for less per kW in the incentive. The utilities and rate charge do not participate in the incentive....just net-meter. Its pay as you go, building new systems. And realize that the cost of delivered PV across the US is much lower due to the much higher resource (2-3x).

Until recently, the well-paid RE 'naysayers' have been simply saying 'it doesn't work', or 'its just too expensive' or even 'let's pay for more **research**' (as opposed to building anything). Our side has been consumed with engaging this strategy from RE foes, with study after study that says its possible, affordable and can be done entirely with existing tech (i.e. without mass storage). More power to the RMI and similar folks for fighting the good fight.

But that was yesterday's battle. In 2014 we all know wind 'works' and PV 'works', and both pay well with a (modest, US-style) subsidy. We expect them to work better and be cheaper in the future, even with reduced or zero subsidy. RE foes are starting to change their message and tactics because the RE horse is clearly out of the barn, and their messages look increasingly ridiculous.

Both onshore wind and PV solar have plenty of room to grow, and are cheap enough to do so, without grid storage.

But the fact is that there IS a missing piece of the puzzle to get to 100%....grid storage. Admitting it was the wrong thing politically to do over the last decade, but it is clear that cheap grid storage would allow PV and wind to grow handily to 100% RE electricity, without a massive amount of grid control and cross-continental super-grids and appliance and industrial retooling (for demand response) , etc. Every utility simply has its own storage, or buys it as a service from a local company, either centrally, or distributed. Easy Peasy.

Of all people, the folks on this board should be believers.....most of us own (or lease) enough storage to carry our daily electricity load. I'm not saying the future will be all V2G (fixed storage will certainly be cheaper), but that we are an 'existence proof' for the feasibility of storing electrical energy in large amounts, economically (even if our Leaf batteries prob cost $0.25/kWh delivered, over their lifecycle).

So yes, its about economics. If RE cost a lot more than fossil energy, even if rich countries like the US and Germany could afford it and decided (politically) that they would pay for it, then the developing world would still be off the table. Instead, we need to get wind and PV and grid storage cheap enough to compete with fossil energy, or at least be 'close' enough (for ancillary benefits like lower pollution and CO2 to be persuasive) to get to a global ecotopic energy system.

 

[AndyH]

We appear to be disagreeing about at what penetration level storage is needed and how much. Seems kinda silly to argue about it, since it depends on the location/country/island, the RE source portfolio and the amount of demand response allowed by the population, the amount of long-distance (e.g. DCHV) transmission invested in, etc.

@AndyH seems to be a fan of the RMI and similar studies that describe (in varying levels of detail) a 100% RE 'Ecotopic' future for the US, Germany, NY, etc. I have read these too, and I think the purpose is never to be an actual PLAN. In reality, these studies are trying to show that such a future is possible with existing technology. The 'style' they come up with largely avoids storage by using a diversity of RE sources, spread over geographical areas, with demand response and some source curtailment. They do this because currently no one has a low-cost turnkey storage solution (off-grid AGM systems run $0.25-50/kWh delivered). To discuss solutions that have storage is contra their goal....convincing skeptics that the RE ecotopia is feasible with existing tech.

Our future economy will not be designed by the RMI. It will be built by individuals and businesspeople interacting in a RE marketplace, with little pushes and pulls from public policy (hopefully in the right direction).

Some of the background you missed, woodgeek, is that this topic was started after a number of other ...enthusastic... conversations where Wet made clear that he thinks renewables are too expensive and that anyone that doesn't push for expansion of nuclear power is killing people.

While I am a fan of RMI and Reinventing Fire, I don't think it goes far enough. This is not a 'study' or just a 'plan' however as it is being implemented today. I agree that the studies are studies. The TIR or the process happening in Germany is not just a study or plan either as it's in the advanced stages of implementation.

Economics is not the pseudoscience that's driving these studies and revolutions, however - it's a combination of the physical limits that include peak oil, peak materials, and climate change. If we as a species don't get completely off fossil fuel no later than 2050, there's little chance that we'll be happy with the environment in which we'll be battling ebola and finding a place for climate refugees to live. In other words, it doesn't matter what a bank of lead-acid batteries costs - we have to face reality - the sooner the better.

 

[woodgeek]

With respect, my opinions differ from both yours and @WetEV.

I am on board with global warming (AGW), and think carbon emissions need to be significantly curtailed by 2050 or before. I do NOT believe that the inevitable geologic 'peaks' in oil, gas or coal production will arrive in time to make that happen for us, we will have to decide to leave much of all three in the ground. The only other big issues I worry about are habitat destruction and species extinction (driven by AGW, agriculture and overfishing, in that order) and (maybe) topsoil depletion (since we don't know how to make dirt, or have viable substitutes in hand at this time).

The challenge is to find a plan/path to a low carbon emission (negative net atmospheric carbon) future by 2050 or before. Specifically one in which most of the folks currently alive are still alive (no 'die offs') AND a larger proportion of people live something that would be recognizable (to us today) as happy, healthy, fulfilling lives where their needs (and some wants) for energy services are readily met.

Starting nearly 10 years ago, I drank from the waters at the Oil Drum, and became aware of the many challenges. In the end, I found the analysis there to be weak, biased (toward collapse) and repetitive. It was a one-sided echo chamber where dissenting (positive) voices were banished.

Over the last several years, I have read the same reports and white papers you cite, that lay out a diversified RE technology portfolio, enabled with minimal storage by using a variety of sources, demand shedding and/or continental super-grids. I believed they were a rough description of a path to a low-carbon ecotopic future that was both technically possible and not so costly to be impossible, at least in the developed world. I share your optimism regarding the potential for RE technology and a robust public policy to affect the change that is needed by 2050. I also get that our friends in Denmark and Germany are currently realizing just such a 'vision'. And we in the US are definitely not.

But cheap solar is changing everything in this space. Every calculation and plan that assumed PV was expensive needs to be redone, and the conclusions drawn before are being upended. The big story now is the ongoing development of cheap grid storage...a much easier engineering problem than cheap PV.

There are many paths to a low-carbon ecotopia. We in the US are taking a different path from Germany (solar+wind), Denmark (wind) and France (nukes). California is only slightly smaller than Germany in terms of GDP and population, and it looks like they are rapidly catching up with Germany's PV power penetration. I expect CA to blow past Germany's RE efforts in the next couple years, at a fraction of the per capita costs, and much of the rest of the US will follow CA's path over the next 10-15 years. Will Germany stay on its perfectly viable, but expensive path?

So, I think the advent of cheap PV, and the impending arrival of cheap grid storage will allow the US to realize the current RE dreams of the Germans (and AGW concerned global citizens everywhere), at much lower costs than the Germans are planning for. The US energy transition will be mostly PV, some onshore wind and battery (or flow battery) grid storage, coupled to the large-scale electrification of the US economy. 40% of US homes are already heated by electricity, well ahead of Germany or the UK, and the proportion is rapidly rising. We (let's say CA) are adopting EVs at a much greater rate than Germany. Why are we pulling ahead? Cost. We have 3x the solar resource (hours/year), and electricity that costs less than half as much. And if you want people to buy in, you need to make it cheap.

 

[WetEV]

There are many paths to a low-carbon ecotopia. We in the US are taking a different path from Germany (solar+wind), Denmark (wind) and France (nukes).

Or Norway (hydro 98%), Sweden(hydro, nuclear, wind). Of course, hydro is site limited, and most of the good sites are developed.

I'm not as sure that grid storage will be as cheap as you seem to think it will be, however we agree far more than we disagree.

 

[AndyH]

With respect, my opinions differ from both yours and @WetEV.

And that's a good thing - don't hold back!

I am on board with global warming (AGW), and think carbon emissions need to be significantly curtailed by 2050 or before. I do NOT believe that the inevitable geologic 'peaks' in oil, gas or coal production will arrive in time to make that happen for us, we will have to decide to leave much of all three in the ground.

My understanding of peak oil is that it's about extraction rate not empty reservoirs, so think that we're in agreement with both peak (world per-capita peak was in the decade of the 1970s - and we haven't stopped making people. ) I'm not seeing a 'doom and gloom' future, but I think it's very clear that we're already in an energy descent.

The only other big issues I worry about are habitat destruction and species extinction (driven by AGW, agriculture and overfishing, in that order) and (maybe) topsoil depletion (since we don't know how to make dirt, or have viable substitutes in hand at this time).

I agree with your assessment here, though we're also at peaks for many metals and for chemical/rock fertilizers. Soil depletion is a real problem as well - the USDA estimates that if we keep using our industrial farming practices we'll be out of farmable land in 40-60 years. The good news is that we actually do know how to make soil and can help it along much faster than nature's 1 inch per century. But since it's not profitable for the industrial farming system... We can talk about soil and farming off-line or in another thread if you'd like - there's actually exciting progress here.

Over the last several years, I have read the same reports and white papers you cite, that lay out a diversified RE technology portfolio, enabled with minimal storage by using a variety of sources, demand shedding and/or continental super-grids. I believed they were a rough description of a path to a low-carbon ecotopic future that was both technically possible and not so costly to be impossible, at least in the developed world. I share your optimism regarding the potential for RE technology and a robust public policy to affect the change that is needed by 2050. I also get that our friends in Denmark and Germany are currently realizing just such a 'vision'. And we in the US are definitely not.

Agree overall though will quibble a bit with the different plans. The Solutions Project/Jacobson/Stanford modeling/plan doesn't use a lot of storage. Maybe there's a component of V2G for BEVs but I don't recall if it's a significant factor. I might have to update my understanding of this as it's been a few years. RMI's Reinventing Fire keeps some natural gas on-line. I don't recall that this uses a lot of storage, either. This plan was built with industry and was designed to be done by industry for profit with zero need for any input from any politician. I think it's the current 'path of least resistance' in the US and understand that parts of the plan are being implemented, though at a more 'evolutionary' pace.

There are many paths to a low-carbon ecotopia. We in the US are taking a different path from Germany (solar+wind), Denmark (wind) and France (nukes). California is only slightly smaller than Germany in terms of GDP and population, and it looks like they are rapidly catching up with Germany's PV power penetration. I expect CA to blow past Germany's RE efforts in the next couple years, at a fraction of the per capita costs, and much of the rest of the US will follow CA's path over the next 10-15 years. Will Germany stay on its perfectly viable, but expensive path?

Lots here. Don't rush to label European generation as the entire EU has adopted and mandated Rifkin's Third Industrial Revolution plan. France is shutting down nuclear generating plants as they're not flexible enough and are not dependable enough in a water- and temperature-stressed world. The TIR process has five pillars that make a general purpose construction set - none of the pillars can stand alone - it's all or none. Renewable generation, efficient buildings that are energy positive, enough storage to use winter winds in the summer (primarily hydrogen though inclusive of all other available storage tech), an 'energy internet' instead of a traditional top-down power grid, and BEV/FCEV transportation. Yes, they'll stay on their TIR path as climate change is hitting us harder and faster than even the most pessimistic estimates, and because not only has the EU adopted TIR (and triggered all the industry/manufacturing/IT infrastructure) but China has adopted TIR and the UN has adopted the plan for developing countries.

So, I think the advent of cheap PV, and the impending arrival of cheap grid storage will allow the US to realize the current RE dreams of the Germans (and AGW concerned global citizens everywhere), at much lower costs than the Germans are planning for. The US energy transition will be mostly PV, some onshore wind and battery (or flow battery) grid storage, coupled to the large-scale electrification of the US economy. 40% of US homes are already heated by electricity, well ahead of Germany or the UK, and the proportion is rapidly rising. We (let's say CA) are adopting EVs at a much greater rate than Germany. Why are we pulling ahead? Cost. We have 3x the solar resource (hours/year), and electricity that costs less than half as much. And if you want people to buy in, you need to make it cheap.

Hmmm....I see FCEV overtaking BEV in Europe. Germany's PV is less expensive than US currently because they've been working to reduce balance of system and installation costs. Last year, China installed more PV than than the US has installed to date. I don't see us pulling ahead - I see the USA falling behind faster. Please help me see what you're seeing?

 

[woodgeek]

Germany has lower install costs than SoCal, but SoCal has close to 3x the solar production per year per watt. Since cell prices are still higher than the install costs you list, I would think SoCal can deliver PV kWh for less $$/kWh than Germany can today.

SoCal can and should get its install costs down to German levels. Even so, PV in SoCal (CAISO) is approaching German levels of PV power penetration (with a much smaller installed capacity and higher hours/year) and is still doubling in capacity every 18 mos, while IIRC German PV growth has slowed down a bit. CAISO should pass Germany for PV power penetration within 18-24 mos.

 

[AndyH]

Germany has lower install costs than SoCal, but SoCal has close to 3x the solar production per year per watt. Since cell prices are still higher than the install costs you list, I would think SoCal can deliver PV kWh for less $$/kWh than Germany can today.

SoCal can and should get its install costs down to German levels. Even so, PV in SoCal (CAISO) is approaching German levels of PV power penetration (with a much smaller installed capacity and higher hours/year) and is still doubling in capacity every 18 mos, while IIRC German PV growth has slowed down a bit. CAISO should pass Germany for PV power penetration within 18-24 mos.

Sure, we have better sun, but we also use a TON more energy per capita than Germany. Yes, PV and I believe wind growth in Germany has slowed a bit, but that's because they are concentrating on letting the other legs of the TIR catch up.** They hit their 2020 target last year and are still on for 35% renewables by 2020 or 2025.

The US via the DoE has a project underway to reduce balance of system costs - but that RMI chart from (last year or early this?) is for the US, not just California, and is for installation - not the cost of panels. The US solar industry lobbied to enact import tariffs on Chinese PV and that's driving our panel cost up, not down. We're severely politically impaired as power utilities continue to push back against net metering and fight to reduce incentives. Those three pieces are a significant reason why the rest of the world if beating us - even India.

And so what if Southern California can get close to Germany's percentages - that still leaves the rest of that state and the other 49...


** Some support/background - the first is a 'state of the transition' summary for Germany from the architect, Jeremy Rifkin. It explains exactly why PV's slowing and what's happening in the mean time.
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=333790#p333790
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?p=332980#p332980

 

[woodgeek]

Those three pieces are a significant reason why the rest of the world if beating us - even India.

And so what if Southern California can get close to Germany's percentages - that still leaves the rest of that state and the other 49...

Germany knows a few thing about import duties too. Do you have any recent numbers regarding German versus US TOTAL PV rooftop costs, $/W, including cells?

What do you mean exactly when you say 'the rest of the world is beating us'?

As for why California matters....its a real model for the rest of the US. Its clear that the US is not going to adopt the German approach anytime soon. When (not if) the largest state in the US, home to the 2nd biggest city in the US, with enormous electricity needs (for AC), gets to higher PV penetration than Germany, under existing US laws, incentives and electrical prices, THAT will be a wake-up call for US customers and utilities that is much bigger than anything happening over the pond.

 

[woodgeek]

Looked up some numbers on renewable electricity in the US, EU, California and Germany.

Specifically, % electrical energy (not capacity).

Wind:
Germany: 9% (2013)
EU: 5% (2012), estimate based on per capita wind capacity EU versus Germany.
US: 5% (2013)
all are growing in a noisy linear fashion.

Solar:
Germany: 5.3% (2013), growing linearly about 1% per year for the last few years.
California: 1.9% (2013), 5.0% (1H2014) !! still exponential?
-------------------
EU: ~1.7%, based on PV per capita EU versus per capita Germany.
US: ~0.4% (2013), presumably closer to 1% in 2014 with the increase in CA.

Hydro:
Germany: 3.5% (2013)
US: 6% (2013)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
etc.

 

[AndyH]

Looked up some numbers on renewable electricity in the US, California and Germany.

Specifically, % electrical energy (not capacity).

Wind:
Germany: 9% (2013)
US: 5% (2013)
both are growing in a noisy linear fashion.

Solar:
Germany: 5.3% (2013), growing linearly about 1% per year for the last few years.
California: 1.9% (2013), 5.0% (1H2014) !!
-------------------
EU: ~1.7%, based on PV per capita EU versus per capita Germany.
US: ~0.4% (2013), presumably closer to 1% in 2014 with the increase in CA.

Hydro:
Germany: 3.5% (2013)
US: 6% (2013)

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_California" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
etc.

Comparing/contrasting Germany and California is not useful. One has a plan, the other does not. One is installing a complete system to replace 100% of non-renewable generation and one is not. One is rabidly working building efficiency and one is not.

Adding more PV to a 19th century grid leads to destabilization or curtailment unless the rest of the system is simultaneously deployed. If one wants to understand Germany's energy transition, they must understand TIR. When California's renewable generation hits peaks where it supplies more than 70% of the state's energy demand as Germany is then we can talk again.

 

[woodgeek]

Comparing/contrasting Germany and California is not useful. One has a plan, the other does not. One is installing a complete system to replace 100% of non-renewable generation and one is not. One is rabidly working building efficiency and one is not.

Adding more PV to a 19th century grid leads to destabilization or curtailment unless the rest of the system is simultaneously deployed. If one wants to understand Germany's energy transition, they must understand TIR. When California's renewable generation hits peaks where it supplies more than 70% of the state's energy demand as Germany is then we can talk again.

I think there are a lot of similarities between California, the largest state in the US, and Germany, the largest 'state' in the EU. CA has a aggressive RPS plan that leads in the US, Germany has an aggressive RE plan that leads in the EU. Germany is a leader in efficiency in buildings and appliances, CA is a similar leader in the US adopting aggressive building codes, appliance eff mandates and car mileage standards (and has much lower per capita energy usage compared to the rest of the US). Both Germany and CA have been at the forefront of RE development. Etc.

And there are differences....the German plan is driven by a robust political mandate, and is quite costly on a per capita basis. IMHO, that makes it vulnerable to a change in public opinion, e.g. if costs rise more than expected, there is a severe recession, etc. CA has plans too, mostly in the form of unfunded mandates and standards, like the RPS, and zero emission vehicle standards that have lead, among other things to mass produced EVs. As you claim, progress is less predictable and orderly, but being cheaper and driven by economics and profit may be more robust than expensive German-style plans. Time will tell. As for grid stability, CA is fielding grid storage now, in anticipation of needing it soon at higher PV penetration.

Bottom line, Germany and CA currently have very similar solar energy penetration, ~6%, CA solar is still growing rapidly (exponentially) while Germany's is growing slowly (and linearly). The instantaneous 74% renewable power fraction in Germany is true enough, but not a common weather occurance. With 1/3rd the number of sun hours per year, Germany needs (proportionally) 3X more PV capacity to achieve the same energy penetration (which is the relevant figure for CO2 abatement), so when the sun does rarely break out, peak PV power is 3X higher (proportional to grid loads), but whatevs....you think the German grid will be more stable despite this! When CA is at 75% peak power penetration (after it grows 3X from today), it will have 3x the energy penetration, >15%, than Germany has today. At current grow rates that should be in 2-3 years.

 

[AndyH]

Comparing/contrasting Germany and California is not useful. One has a plan, the other does not. One is installing a complete system to replace 100% of non-renewable generation and one is not. One is rabidly working building efficiency and one is not.

Adding more PV to a 19th century grid leads to destabilization or curtailment unless the rest of the system is simultaneously deployed. If one wants to understand Germany's energy transition, they must understand TIR. When California's renewable generation hits peaks where it supplies more than 70% of the state's energy demand as Germany is then we can talk again.

I think there are a lot of similarities between California, the largest state in the US, and Germany, the largest 'state' in the EU. CA has a aggressive RPS plan that leads in the US, Germany has an aggressive RE plan that leads in the EU. Germany is a leader in efficiency in buildings and appliances, CA is a similar leader in the US adopting aggressive building codes, appliance eff mandates and car mileage standards (and has much lower per capita energy usage compared to the rest of the US). Both Germany and CA have been at the forefront of RE development. Etc.

And there are differences....the German plan is driven by a robust political mandate, and is quite costly on a per capita basis. IMHO, that makes it vulnerable to a change in public opinion, e.g. if costs rise more than expected, there is a severe recession, etc. CA has plans too, mostly in the form of unfunded mandates and standards, like the RPS, and zero emission vehicle standards that have lead, among other things to mass produced EVs. As you claim, progress is less predictable and orderly, but being cheaper and driven by economics and profit may be more robust than expensive German-style plans. Time will tell. As for grid stability, CA is fielding grid storage now, in anticipation of needing it soon at higher PV penetration.

Bottom line, Germany and CA currently have very similar solar energy penetration, ~6%, CA solar is still growing rapidly (exponentially) while Germany's is growing slowly (and linearly). The instantaneous 74% renewable power fraction in Germany is true enough, but not a common weather occurance. With 1/3rd the number of sun hours per year, Germany needs (proportionally) 3X more PV capacity to achieve the same energy penetration (which is the relevant figure for CO2 abatement), so when the sun does rarely break out, peak PV power is 3X higher (proportional to grid loads), but whatevs....you think the German grid will be more stable despite this! When CA is at 75% peak power penetration (after it grows 3X from today), it will have 3x the energy penetration, >15%, that Germany has today. At current grow rates that should be in 2-3 years.

You're not listening here. Yes, Germany will be more stable because they are in the midst of an energy revolution - not much of their 19th century grid will remain when they're done. The business models for the Germany power companies is changing.

You're looking at two humans - one that just started training for a marathon and one on the operating table getting their bionic legs attached and deciding that the runner's gonna win the race...

Again - you MUST MUST understand the Third Industrial Revolution that they're implementing.

You should also remember that Germany is not in the midst of "just" a top-down process - the bottom-up EnergieWende has been in process since about 1990 - and that's still in play as it's producing parts of the 'top down' TIR.

You are trying to compare a snapshot of a business as usual CA grid with no plan and a snapshot of Germany in the midst of a two-pronged revolution, then extrapolate from their without understanding the significance of what Germany's doing. That's a recipe for failure.

 

[woodgeek]

Plan Schplan. Its not rocket science. Late comers have it easier than early adopters due to more advanced and cheaper technology. Japan tried a big switch to PV before Germany, and petered out at a lower level. Germany got farther than Japan, but is now slowing in making further progress (as have Italy and Spain). Now CA is going PV with much cheaper cells....so its easier.

CA having both 3x the sun hours, and a 3x higher capacity factor than Germany makes it even cheaper, and helps with grid planning and stability at the same energy penetration.

So, I will bet on cheaper cells and higher capacity factor anyday, over a better plan, even if it was begun in 1990.

 

[AndyH]

Plan Schplan. Its not rocket science. Late comers have it easier than early adopters due to more advanced and cheaper technology. Japan tried a big switch to PV before Germany, and petered out at a lower level. Germany got farther than Japan, but is now slowing in making further progress (as have Italy and Spain). Now CA is going PV with much cheaper cells....so its easier.

CA having both 3x the sun hours, and a 3x higher capacity factor than Germany makes it even cheaper, and helps with grid planning and stability at the same energy penetration.

So, I will bet on cheaper cells and higher capacity factor anyday, over a better plan, even if it was begun in 1990.

And with that, you're on your own. Best of luck.