Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

[AndyH]

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?

http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/us-lags-lowering-solar-pv-costs/2014-07-16

As a result of not implementing best practices for reducing solar photovoltaic (PV) system costs and accelerating residential and commercial customer adoption, the U.S. continues to lag behind global PV leaders Germany and Australia, according to a Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI)/Georgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) report.

In particular, Australia has emerged as a dominant player in the world residential solar market, with more than 10 percent of households possessing a rooftop solar system with costs of $2.56/W, closely rivaling Germany's $2.21/W (compared with $4.93/W in the U.S.), RMI reveals.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com...v-costs-through-installation-labor-efficiency
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/07/prweb12009598.htm

 

[woodgeek]

So, we are 'losing to the rest of the world' because our total install costs are somewhat higher than in other countries, and because we don't have a clearly articulated plan with a strong political mandate?

I guess I prefer metrics such as RE penetration as a fraction of all electrical energy, and the rate of growth of that number. On these metrics, I think the US is doing well on energy penetration (close to EU figures), and great at growth in penetration (currently higher than the EU for PV). The facts that our electricity usage per capita is higher (due partly to more AC and more electrified space heating than in the EU), the cost of our PV is higher, and the cost of conventional electricity is lower makes the above % penetration findings even more impressive.

Do you dispute the most recent RE penetration figures I posted upthread? :?:

The future is always be hard to predict....

Maybe there will be headlines out of CA describing grid crashes due to poorly thought out PV expansion, setting back the entire RE enterprise for years or more, with the naysayers coming out of the woodwork and saying 'See, we told you RE doesn't work'. Or maybe US grid operators will figure it out, and there will be headlines saying that CA is leaving Germany in the dust in terms of Solar Power.

Maybe there will be headlines out of Germany that the TIR plan is losing popularity due to cost overruns, govt budget concerns or needs to be delayed and re-engineered due to changes in technology (e.g. weeding out some more expensive components like off-shore wind, Hydrogen grid storage and FCVs, in favor of more industrial PV, battery or flow battery grid storage and BEV/PHEVs).

Maybe both will fail, maybe both will succeed, and converge on the same methods and tech in the next decade.

Personally, I'm optimistic that both places will succeed, inspire each other and their neighbors. I'll bring the popcorn.

 

[AndyH]

Of course - because in the real world people with a plan are always beaten by the clueless. :lol:

Enjoy your popcorn.

 

[TimLee]

Of course - because in the real world people with a plan are always beaten by the clueless. :lol:

Sometimes they are :shock: :? :shock: :?
Facebook :?:
Twitter :?:

It would be nice if Earth had a plan
Unfortunately, the dominant species works on an individual basis mostly.

There has been some improvement in the last five centuries. But not much.

But the dominant species does have some genetically built in "Follow the Group" mentality.
Human beings will queue up in a line that has three or four people in it with zero understanding of the reason or function for the queue.

Is there a place for politics?
Yes.
But it requires a level of knowledge, brialliance, and understanding that 99.99% of the dominant species don't seem to have :? :? :?

 

[AndyH]

Of course - because in the real world people with a plan are always beaten by the clueless. :lol:

Sometimes they are :shock: :? :shock: :?
Facebook :?:
Twitter :?:

Tim - Are you really suggesting that the folks behind Facebook and/or Twitter didn't have a plan? :shock:

It would be nice if Earth had a plan

She's got one and it's working well so far - when she is infected with a virus she gets a fever until the virus is either back under control or eliminated.

The US doesn't have a price on carbon, it doesn't have an energy plan, it doesn't have political support for renewables in all 50 states much less support for a rapid mobilization. What it does have is $billions in lobbying and advertising from pro-fossil fuel groups telling us that climate change is a lie, it has the Kochs and Heritage hosting 'education' events in universities saying renewables won't work or are too expensive, and it has electricity providers fighting grid intertie of renewables. It also has brilliant American engineers, planners, and support staff traveling to Europe, Africa, China, and India helping those countries/regions transition to renewables. Hmmm...ok, that's not doing much for the US's grid, really, but...

Pointing the camera on Germany again - They hit their 2020 renewable generation targets in 2012 and are heading for 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. They've got more than 1 million new or newly renovated buildings that are net positive and more in the pipeline, they're deploying a 2-way smart grid, they have 1 wind to hydrogen facility running and another 17 under construction, and they're deploying H2 fueling stations across the country. Nuclear and coal generation plants are shutting down on schedule and their centralized energy providers are transitioning their business models from selling electricity to managing the smart grid.

Can anyone show a transition even remotely close to this in the US?

Maybe the UN climate talks later this month in NY will jump-start progress in this country. Then again, we had high hopes for Copenhagen, too.

http://www.un.org/climatechange/climate-summit-2014/
http://peoplesclimate.org/

 

[TimLee]

Tim - Are you really suggesting that the folks behind Facebook and/or Twitter didn't have a plan? :shock:

Yes.
They had a short term strategy or plan.
But nothing that was even .01% of what they became at this point in time.

Not that plans are bad.
The Democrat plan to turn the other cheek and rebuild past enemies Germany and Japan into world power friends and allies was a pretty good plan that achieved great success.

But many things happen without much of a plan.

But Earth would be better off with a plan.
Just not very likely that will happen.

 

[woodgeek]

Pointing the camera on Germany again - They hit their 2020 renewable generation targets in 2012 and are heading for 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Putting the plan aside, Germany is at 6% PV (energy) and growing at a measly 1% per year. Is that according to plan? Will most of the 35% in 2020 be from wind, currently at 9%? Does the EU have a pan-EU energy plan in place, or are the individual 'states' making their own?

Can anyone show a transition even remotely close to this in the US?

CA is at 5% PV (energy) and growing >2% per year. Sounds pretty close to me. And I thought CA had a lot of plans.

 

[AndyH]

Pointing the camera on Germany again - They hit their 2020 renewable generation targets in 2012 and are heading for 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050.

Putting the plan aside, Germany is at 6% PV (energy) and growing at a measly 1% per year. Is that according to plan? Will most of the 35% in 2020 be from wind, currently at 9%? Does the EU have a pan-EU energy plan in place, or are the individual 'states' making their own?

Why in the world are you fixated on PV? Why are you so invested in a PV-only message? Do you remember my request that you learn about what THEY are doing before judging their progress? They are going to 100% renewable generation by 2050 for their entire economy - buildings, industry, and transportation. Nothing about either the Third Industrial Revolution or the EnergieWende is about 100% PV. Again - they met their 2020 goal of 25% of total energy from renewables in 2012 8 years ahead of schedule and revised their 2020/2025 goal to 35% renewable generation. They've got small- and large-scale PV, solar thermal, biogas, and on- and off-shore wind. They're part of the continental grid that is sharing and balancing renewable energy flow from Ireland's wind to Scotland's wave/tidal to Italy's PV and wind to generation to the Russian border. Europe's increasingly working together, while our fragmented and monopolistic grid operators are fighting each other.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Industrial-Revolution-Transforming/dp/0230341977
http://blogs.agu.org/terracentral/2...forward-with-the-third-industrial-revolution/
https://blogs.siemens.com/smartgridwatch/stories/2207/
http://www.foet.org/JeremyRifkin.htm

Mr. Rifkin is the principle architect of the European Union's Third Industrial Revolution long-term economic sustainability plan to address the triple challenge of the global economic crisis, energy security, and climate change. The Third Industrial Revolution was formally endorsed by the European Parliament in 2007 and is now being implemented by various agencies within the European Commission as well as in the 27 member-states.

http://www.thethirdindustrialrevolution.com/masterPlan.cfm

In his speech, Vice President Tajani said, "Today is a good day for all of us, because today is the beginning of the Third Industrial Revolution. Now the European conversation will go beyond austerity, straight to creating growth and jobs in Europe. My slogan is: 'Without a new industrial policy, no growth, no jobs.'" 2 He continued by saying that "the first industrial revolution was the revolution of coal and steam, the second was the oil one. This Third Industrial Revolution is the internet of energy and is not only about energy. It involves many key sectors, from raw materials, to manufacturing, services, construction, transport, Information Technologies and even chemistry." 3 Finally he went on to say, "Because its energy sources are distributed and not centralized, and therefore scale laterally and not centrally, [The Third Industrial Revolution] is the ideal playground for SMEs.... our 2020 strategy puts us on the right path but we must now accelerate and put more resources on growth, and this must be based on sustainability, testing the edge of our technological frontiers." 4

Can anyone show a transition even remotely close to this in the US?

CA is at 5% PV (energy) and growing >2% per year. Sounds pretty close to me. And I thought CA had a lot of plans.

Feel free to quote their integrated plan for electricity and transportation and grid revolution while being 100% fossil fuel free by 2050. Or any other plan that get the state to 50% renewable generation from any source in any time period. Thanks in advance.

 

[woodgeek]

Fair enough @AndyH, I'm really done beating up the Germans for not doing enough PV under their cloudy skies. They are clearly doing many different things (as part of a complex plan) to get to a sustainable ecotopia. And they have an admirable dedication to the task, no matter how hard it will be.

Different countries (and US states) will get to 100% RE in different ways, and with different degrees of difficulty...

Let's leave storage aside for a moment, and just talk about energy sources.

I think David MacCay has done a great job describing possible scenarios for the cloudy UK, and settled on a highly diversified RE portfolio including a lot of tidal and offshore wind, in addition to onshore wind (in the north) and some PV.

Edit: it is David MacKay....see downthread.

I expect that the Germans, trying to solve similar challenges, also will likely need to rely heavily on wind (onshore and offshore) RE sources to get to 100%.

Given the challenges of siting enough onshore wind in both countries, and the cost of off-shore wind, buying bulk PV power from sunnier neighbors, even over a long-distance, seems like a plausible addition/alternative. How it shakes out will depend on the relative cost of (future) off-shore wind versus PV + long-distance transmission.

My thesis in this thread is that the best path for the US, to us in 2014, looks a LOT different, due simply to the massive and undeniable difference in solar resource. (Everything I would say here would apply to southern Europe as well). It is unfair of me to beat up the Germans on PV, but I think it equally unfair for you to beat up on CA for not implementing a plan that resembles that developed for the German 'RE climate'.

Simply put, I think the RE ecotopia in the US will be a lot **cheaper** and **simpler** to implement than the German TIR plan, or even David MacCay's sketches for the UK, and thus could be implemented far more quickly here than is commonly assumed. Simply stated, I think the US path is going to be PV dominated, with distributed battery-based grid storage. Onshore wind can be built very quickly, compared to central generation plants, but PV can be built even quicker. Under favorable financial conditions, both grow exponentially, but PV has always grown faster (had a shorter doubling time), because the scale can be smaller, construction is easier, the permitting is easier, fewer nimby concerns, etc.

I think PV will easily cover the lions share of RE source energy in the West coast, Mountain states and Southeast. IN the upper midwest, and mid-atlantic/northeast US, the solar resource is still formidable, but lousy for 2-4 mos of winter. THose regions will need some onshore wind and/or long-distance transmission of PV from elsewhere to augment. The prairie states might have so much wind that PV always plays a second fiddle.

As for storage, I am no fan of Hydrogen stationary storage or FCVs. I just don't see it being competitive from a cost POV. AS I've said before I'm betting on batteries or flow batteries. I am a Musk fan (but not a Musk fan-boy) and I think he has it right that stationary battery technology (prob not Li-ion in the long term) will be the 'winner' in this space. Of course, I am talking about EV and diurnal (not seasonal) storage systems, specifically. I think distributed diurnal grid storage and BEVs will suffice for a highly electrified US economy, and a very high RE penetration in total energy.

I think it is reasonable to say that in a complex, evolving technology atmosphere, there will be winners and losers, and it is impossible to predict which is which in the beginning, you have to try a lot of stuff, and see what wins. The Germans are smart, and will adopt the best technology when it emerges. We (absent a real plan) will not build a solution until it is clear that it will work. I just think our task is a lot easier.

----------------------------------------------

I assume you saw this report by the UBS bank: http://www.qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/articolo-doc/ues45625.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Written up here: http://insideevs.com/subsidy-free-evs-solar-battery-storage-2020/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I think it captures my current thinking re the RE revolution we both think needs to happen to avert the worst of AGW.

 

[GRA]

Minor correction, it's David MacKay, and several of us are fans of "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". I know it's been linked in various threads, and I have it on my 'EV Bibliography' page in the Newbie section, but for those who may have missed it, here it is, free for the reading:

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[WetEV]

As for storage, I am no fan of Hydrogen stationary storage or FCVs. I just don't see it being competitive from a cost POV. AS I've said before I'm betting on batteries or flow batteries. I am a Musk fan (but not a Musk fan-boy) and I think he has it right that stationary battery technology (prob not Li-ion in the long term) will be the 'winner' in this space. Of course, I am talking about EV and diurnal (not seasonal) storage systems, specifically. I think distributed diurnal grid storage and BEVs will suffice for a highly electrified US economy, and a very high RE penetration in total energy.

I agree that diunanal battery storage may become cost effective, but the seasonal problem remains. If "very high RE penetration" means around 80%, then no solution to seasonal problems is needed.

Also, if the peak grid demand is as shown in this diagram:

Then early morning is when the price will be highest. Sure, that is when the electric rates are minimum now, but not after adding lots of PV. With a PV heavy electric supply, daytime is when you want to charge your BEV, when the rates are cheap.

 

[woodgeek]

Aah. Now I get your math that started the thread. I thought you were talking about a storage-free world getting to 100%, and didn't get it.

If we are worried about seasonal storage, but diurnal storage is practical and reasonable in price, then we need to size our RE source to provide 100% of (diurnal average) needs in the poorest season, and then curtail that source in the good season. This effectively increases the cost of the RE by the ratio of the maximum and minimum seasonal capacity factor. For PV in New England, you would need to overbuild capacity 5x to get the same energy in the winter as in the summer (you might also need more storage to cover a week rather than just a day or two, further adding to cost). IF loads (e.g. space heating) were higher in the winter, you would need to overbuild even more, say 10x, and then curtail 90% in the other seasons (and not use all that spendy storage). Ugh.

In practice, I think these regional/seasonal problems (assuming lack of practical seasonal storage) can be addressed, as in the German plan, with source diversification, and inter-regional transmission of energy. E.g. Boston in winter gets on shore wind power locally and buys solar PV from points south. Rather than shutting down the on shore wind the other three seasons, its presence (due to winter needs) will lead to the lowest cost RE mix in that region being less reliant on PV.

SO, we have come full circle, @WetEV. I think some regions have marginal RE resources for their loads, or have inadequate RE resources during some seasons. This does affect the cost of RE in those regions, and the costs become worse as you try to get closer to 100% energy penetration (versus Boston falling back to natgas power during the winter).

In this language, onshore wind is cheap, but inadequate in most regions to meet local 100% energy demand (exceptions including Scotland and the US prairie states, presumably there are others). In contrast, PV is adequate to provide 100% local energy demand on an annual basis in most places, but costs an amount inversely proportional to their annual hours of sunshine (so it is much more costly in the UK and northern Europe than in most areas of the US). And there are places (like New England) that have a great PV resource on an annual basis, but with seasonal problems that will limit energy penetration to well below 100% in that region, without importation of some RE from neighboring area.

So, I don't know if New England will get easily/cheaply to 80% RE energy for this reason. But other regions in the US should have a much easier/cheaper time of it, based just upon their ample solar resource, and its being fairly spread out over the entire calendar.

 

[woodgeek]

Minor correction, it's David MacKay, and several of us are fans of "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air. I know it's been linked in various threads, and I have it on my 'EV Bibliography' page in the Newbie section, but for those who may have missed it, here it is, free for the reading:

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks GRA, it didn't look right.

IMO without hot air is one of the best resources out there for anyone wanting to understand the RE challenge.

 

[RegGuheert]

If we are worried about seasonal storage, but diurnal storage is practical and reasonable in price, then we need to size our RE source to provide 100% of (diurnal average) needs in the poorest season, and then curtail that source in the good season. This effectively increases the cost of the RE by the ratio of the maximum and minimum seasonal capacity factor. For PV in New England, you would need to overbuild capacity 5x to get the same energy in the winter as in the summer (you might also need more storage to cover a week rather than just a day or two, further adding to cost). IF loads (e.g. space heating) were higher in the winter, you would need to overbuild even more, say 10x, and then curtail 90% in the other seasons (and not use all that spendy storage). Ugh.

+1

Handling non-space-heating electrical loads is somewhat straightforward even in the wintertime. Simply mount the PV at a very steep angle (like 50 degrees) and production is maximized for the wintertime suitable for summertime and lower for spring and summer.

But space heating is another beast altogether. When we get a severe nor'easter (blizzard), we can have ~three days of storm and a very thick blanket of 2+ feet of snow over much of the East coast. Winds are also very high, which increases heat loss. It can also be above the rated wind speed for wind turbines. The result is that the largest demand for energy tends to occur exactly when there is the lowest amount of RE generation. As such PV and wind are likely to be insufficient in the northeast.

Solar thermal with evacuated tubes (again, at a steep angle) can be a decent solution, but building reliable solar thermal solutions has always been a challenge. Ironically, the high efficiency of these systems makes them very vulnerable to overheating during even brief electrical or mechanical failures.

Hydrogen might be interesting here, but storing such a massive amount of compressed gas does not seem reasonable.

What might be interesting for seasonal storage is some sort of liquid fuel generation during the warmer, sunnier months. Unfortunately, I am not current on any near-term solutions in this area that could address the need.

But, frankly, I expect cold fusion will become the heat source of the future for industry and for those areas which need heat in the presence of little RE resources. It has the potential to provide extremely cost-effective heat sources with high-to-very-high EROEI performance.

And if you think cold fusion has somehow been debunked, then you have not followed the scientific literature, but rather have listened to the media. The reasons why some (not all) early attempts to reproduce Fleischman and Pons' experiments failed is now quite well understood. I strongly recommend the book Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. Also available here for free, supposedly with the now-deceased author's permission, but who knows. If you don't want to read a book, then watch a 13-minute YouTube video:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTvaX3vRtRA[/youtube]

More recently, MIT provided a 15-hour short course on cold fusion. Here is a brief introduction:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMx1mpcokBk[/youtube]

Unlike hot fusion research (outside of bombs), cold fusion research has produced excess heat in countless experiments for more than a quarter century. Recent commercialization efforts promise to produce cold-fusion heat sources based on nickel/light-water solutions with modest EROEI values.

Here is a plot of where the eCat lives in the world of energy sources, modified based upon this paper referenced in this article:

There is a long-term independent test of this device currently on-going in a lab in Europe.

We can no longer ignore the most promising heat source available to us.

 

[woodgeek]

Thanks Reg. I think you reject wind too readily for winter loads in these regions....wind often peaks seasonally in the winter.

I'll throw my hat in with @AndyH ....in regions with weak winter PV and high winter heating loads, e.g Northern Europe, UK and in the US New England and the Upper Midwest, wind (on and off shore) and super-insulation are presumably key components of getting to high RE penetration.

I looked at the eCAT experiments in detail a while back, and concluded that the 'pass through' calorimetry blowing steam was badly done. The conventional method (e.g. in any undergraduate ChemE lab) is to completely condense any multiphase cooling stream, and compute the power from the cooling water duty. The fact that this obvious methodology was not employed, and that they demonstrated it only for selected senior physicists, rather than experienced engineers that work with cooling systems for a living, makes it too clear that the whole thing is an intentional sham.

 

[RegGuheert]

Thanks Reg. I think you reject wind too readily for winter loads in these regions....wind often peaks seasonally in the winter.

I heat with electricity here, but up in Boston and further north, they typically do not heat with electricity since heat pumps become quite inefficient at low temperatures. As such, it is not clear that an electric-only path does not get us to an RE-only future in that region.

I looked at the eCAT experiments in detail a while back, and concluded that the 'pass through' calorimetry blowing steam was badly done. The conventional method (e.g. in any undergraduate ChemE lab) is to completely condense any multiphase cooling stream, and compute the power from the cooling water duty. The fact that this obvious methodology was not employed, and that they demonstrated it only for selected senior physicists, rather than experienced engineers that work with cooling systems for a living, makes it too clear that the whole thing is an intentional sham.

I'm not an expert on eCat, so I won't hang my hat on it. It may be a scam.

That doesn't change the fact that cold fusion is not a scam and has been demonstrated many times. Have a look at the 60 minutes video and the Excess Heat book. They are quite the eye-openers.

 

[WetEV]

And if you think cold fusion has somehow been debunked,

No, I don't see any convincing evidence for cold fusion at any rate that would be useful.

I do see a lot of scammers and people that want to believe.

I see lots of reasons why cold fusion is unlikely.

Anyways, this is a topic about economics of renewable power. Not cold fusion. Mods, please move to a new topic.

 

[hill]

Can anyone show a transition even remotely close to this in the US?

CA is at 5% PV (energy) and growing >2% per year. Sounds pretty close to me. And I thought CA had a lot of plans.

The utility company is feeling the threat from cheapening PV and is already planning (via their lobby) to take solar out - if they can. Their dinosaur antiquated/regulated system won't go down easy.

http://host.madison.com/business/wisconsin-utility-companies-take-aim-against-solar-power/article_cd1fb31a-c1ad-56a4-a71b-375830d5b6e1.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-solar-will-destroy-the-power-companies-2014-6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And since carbon fuel runs most electric generators - the coal/natural gas industry has a large dog in the fight. Keep other energy sources out of your business, then you'll use more fossil fuel. Use more fossil fuel, and it keeps the inventory low - and keeps your prices high. Too much PV? That means natural gas glut. They can't have that now, can they.
.

 

[RegGuheert]

No, I don't see any convincing evidence for cold fusion at any rate that would be useful.

Because you haven't looked at the evidence. The links I provided are quite clear.

I see lots of reasons why cold fusion is unlikely.

:?: Unlikely? Everything is "unlikely". Cold fusion has been proven in scientific experiments many, many times over.

Anyways, this is a topic about economics of renewable power. Not cold fusion. Mods, please move to a new topic.

Cold fusion is renewable power and it is likely to be the most economic solution to heat energy in the future. The solution with the highest EROEI is likely to be the winner, and nothing comes close to cold fusion in this area. The economics follow the physics.

 

[WetEV]

No, I don't see any convincing evidence for cold fusion at any rate that would be useful.

Because you haven't looked at the evidence. The links I provided are quite clear.

The links you provided are not convincing.

Convincing is a machine I can put into a room, put cold water into this machine and get steam out of this machine for long enough to convince me that the machine isn't chemical.

I see lots of reasons why cold fusion is unlikely.

:?: Unlikely? Everything is "unlikely". Cold fusion has been proven in scientific experiments many, many times over.

Unlikely for at least the following reasons:
1) if useful amounts of power could come from hydrogen (abundant) and any interaction with solid matter, the Earth in it's current form couldn't exist.
2) fusing hydrogen has a huge energy to activate compared with chemical and thermal energies, and releases even more energy. The first requires very high temperatures and pressures, or high velocities, the second means that very high energy photons at minimum will be produced. Lots of X-rays.

Anyways, this is a topic about economics of renewable power. Not cold fusion. Mods, please move to a new topic.

Cold fusion is renewable power

Cold fusion doesn't exist so the economics of it are undefined. Put this into a new topic.