I thought US had a power grid...

[Herm]

See Herm, since deniers rely on belief over science, they are strongly biased against logic or fact. And that's a real problem for folks hoping to survive in an increasingly technical world...

Deniers are just as bad as believers, beliefs not based on facts but on feelings.

I am an AGW skeptic because I see too much doom and gloom hype from supposedly impartial scientists and bureocrats.. the impression I get is they just want to protect their jobs.

Temps are supposedly going up, where are sea level increases?.. I dont see it and records have been kept for a long time... then they say that landmass rebound since the last ice age is increasing the volume of the oceans.. please!

Dreams are good, I dream of a BEV future .. but Hitler also had dreams.

 

[DaveEV]

Temps are supposedly going up, where are sea level increases?.. I dont see it and records have been kept for a long time... then they say that landmass rebound since the last ice age is increasing the volume of the oceans.. please!.

I love Skeptical Science - they have all the rebuttals to common arguments done for me:

How much is sea level rising?

A common error in climate debate is drawing conclusions from narrow pieces of data while neglecting the whole picture. A good example is the recent claim that sea level rise is slowing. The data cited is satellite altimeter measurements of global mean sea level over the past 16 years (Figure 1). The 60 day smoothed average (blue line) seems to indicate sea level peaked around the start of 2006. So one might argue that sea levels haven't risen for 3 years. Could one conclude that the long term trend in sea level rise has ended?

 

[EricH]

Actually, you will find that PV today competes very well with gas during times of peak grid load today - at least in areas where the grid is pretty clean - like California.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/solar-pv-becoming-cheaper-than-gas-in-california

If SunShot even gets halfway to it's goal of $1/watt installed by 2010, it will compete in much larger areas without any subsidies.

If you are fine with your power dimming or going out on cloudy days (or, er... at night), then comparing new gas plants with new solar PV is perfectly fine with me. If you value reliability, then we need something (storage or on-demand plants) to balance out the solar farms.

Also, I've heard a goal of $1/watt for the panel cost of solar PV -- I've never heard anyone dream of $1/watt fully installed.

 

[EricH]

ok, until we can talk and accurately quantify the FULL cost of burning fossil fuels, then there is no way we can say one type of power is more or less cost effective than another.

problem with that is fossil fuels have tons of hidden costs, all of which is disputed vehemently by said industries to the point that brain-washing caused by deceptive advertising has clouded the issue beyond recognition.

i have yet to see a coal fired plant rated based on the pollution it creates, additional medical costs to treat the effects of burning coal irresponsibly or the cost of long term cleanup or the pathetic attempts of coal mining companies to clean up their act.

they are rated by cost of coal divided by the power that coal produces. same with cars.

so now we are at a standstill on this discussion. can anyone guess what side i am on?

I'm not opposed to a carbon tax, which would certainly help solar/wind compete against fossil fuels on an apples-to-apples basis.

To return to the point of this thread, most alternative resources are outside population centers; SCE is building a new transmission system to bring wind (and some solar) from Tehachapi down to the LA basin. This is the "grid" that, at present, often is inadequate to bring significant supplies of solar/wind from 'nowhere' to 'somewhere'. If we are going to count externalities for conventional plants (emissions), we should agree that the cost of the transmission upgrades should count as part of the cost of solar. The good news is that transmission lines are built once, while coal or gas plants keep 'giving' over there entire lives

 

[AndyH]

See Herm, since deniers rely on belief over science, they are strongly biased against logic or fact. And that's a real problem for folks hoping to survive in an increasingly technical world...

Deniers are just as bad as believers, beliefs not based on facts but on feelings.

Except beliefs are not science, are they? Here's a fact - warm water cannot hold as much oxygen or carbon dioxide as cold water. Here's another - water expands when it warms.

I am an AGW skeptic because I see too much doom and gloom hype from supposedly impartial scientists and bureocrats.. the impression I get is they just want to protect their jobs.

If you perceive doom and gloom from scientists, I'd consider very strongly that there's something (or a lot of somethings!) underpinning that position.

Temps are supposedly going up, where are sea level increases?.. I dont see it and records have been kept for a long time... then they say that landmass rebound since the last ice age is increasing the volume of the oceans.. please!

Dreams are good, I dream of a BEV future .. but Hitler also had dreams.

Sea level rise is well known and well documented. What's not as well known is what's going to happen tomorrow. One of the more significant info gaps in the IPCC predictions is that the physics of ice sheet loss/travel isn't well known - so the IPCC and other models IGNORE this sea level rise factor. So the future predictions ONLY account for rise due to thermal expansion.
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA11002

http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/index.html
http://www.climate.org/topics/sea-level/climate-change-sea-level-rise.html
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/
Climate refugees due to sea level rise:
http://www.globalislands.net/news/newsdeskitem.php?newstype=Special&newsid=4660&mfxsr=8
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffsux-ifKk[/youtube]
I hope you can see some of this, Herm. Because while we've warmed enough now that I'm 'enjoying' a significant drought in between fires, permafrost in Alaska, Canada, and Russia is melting - and that burst of methane - a much more significant greenhouse gas than CO2 - is going to be like adding another size 10 shoe to the accelerator on this Titanic of ours.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKyRHDFKEXQ[/youtube]
Methane in Alaska...
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec3QCVI2OlY[/youtube]


It's probably not the most intelligent decision to wait for the experiment to run full course - especially when one is in the test tube...

 

[AndyH]

... To return to the point of this thread, most alternative resources are outside population centers; SCE is building a new transmission system to bring wind (and some solar) from Tehachapi down to the LA basin. This is the "grid" that, at present, often is inadequate to bring significant supplies of solar/wind from 'nowhere' to 'somewhere'. If we are going to count externalities for conventional plants (emissions), we should agree that the cost of the transmission upgrades should count as part of the cost of solar. The good news is that transmission lines are built once, while coal or gas plants keep 'giving' over there entire lives

Eric - Even with evidence to other possibilities, you still seem 'stuck' in the "we have to move the energy long distances to make it work" paradigm. And that absolutely just is not necessary in many cases!

Here's a quick and dirty comparison. An approximately 6 year old building in San Antonio, single family, 1600 sq feet, two story, all electric, uses approximately 1270 kWh last month. So far this month the same building is at 1544 kWh. The main energy consumers are air conditioning and hot water. This building overheats due to direct solar gain - air conditioning is required to keep internal temperatures below 85 degrees F on a 104 degree ambient afternoon. This home cannot operate without its connection to the water grid, power grid, and sewer system.

Another 1600 sq ft single family house, using passive solar design, needs no furnace, no air conditioner, and uses no electricity to circulate air inside the building. Water is heated by the sun. The only electrical consumers inside are the owner's computers, lights, refrigerator, and the same stove and microwave used in the above house. This home is powered completely by 2000W of PV. In addition, this home collects its own water, processes it's own black- and grey-water, and provides about half the food necessary for the two occupants. This home requires no connections to any grid for power, water, or sewer.

We can not only fit each building with electrical generation equipment TODAY, but we can go beyond and start using the natural 'systems' of this planet by design instead of fighting them.

We can also use the new oil drilling techniques to tap the planet's endless supply of geothermal energy and get 'free' and local heat, hot water, and electricity. Sorry - no long-haul power grid upgrades necessary for these either.

Sometimes "inertia" is not our friend... (Or - "We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Herr Einstein)

 

[Nekota]

If you are fine with your power dimming or going out on cloudy days (or, er... at night), then comparing new gas plants with new solar PV is perfectly fine with me. If you value reliability, then we need something (storage or on-demand plants) to balance out the solar farms.

Also, I've heard a goal of $1/watt for the panel cost of solar PV -- I've never heard anyone dream of $1/watt fully installed.

I agree with your reliability concerns and solar is a great offset for peak power production to meet the surge in electrical demand for all those air conditioners on hot sunny days. Another issue for the power grid is frequency variation when those distributed power sources drop output and the makeup power comes from somewhere else. The result is the frequency 'slips' and those clocks that use the little synchronous motors are going to lose/gain time. I just replaced my 30 year old and noisy Micronta (RadioShack) timer with a newer electronic one in anticipation.

I was surprised to see the $1/watt too and when I looked it up it's for large scale solar thermal. The lowest PV residential installed cost is currently coming out of Germany and it's about $4/watt installed while in the US it's about $8. But when you factor in the capacity factor of 12% for Germany and about 25% for Calif the costs are about the same for watts produced. The surprising fact for me is finding that solar is at most 1% of our energy source. The real power house for renewable energy is hydroelectric which is only plentiful on the west coast. But I bet if I get an estimate for 4KWpeak of solar it will be much more that $8/watt since I live near San Jose.

 

[DaveEV]

If you are fine with your power dimming or going out on cloudy days (or, er... at night), then comparing new gas plants with new solar PV is perfectly fine with me. If you value reliability, then we need something (storage or on-demand plants) to balance out the solar farms.

Ah, the good ol reliability/intermittency issue - aka Red Herring argument. Who said anything about replacing ALL generation capacity with solar? After all - we don't currently use 100% coal, gas, nuclear, or hydro...

Never mind that we have the technology today to solve these issues - and solar thermal plants are being built today that have enough storage on-site to run around the clock if needed!

Also, I've heard a goal of $1/watt for the panel cost of solar PV -- I've never heard anyone dream of $1/watt fully installed.

PV panels can already be had at the retail level for as low as $1.35/watt and I've occasionally seen blowouts at $1/watt. Manufactured price for the market leader is down well below $1 / watt already (First Solar) and has been there for some time now.

And yes - the goal is to get the cost of large solar PV down to $1/watt installed by 2017 (5 years).

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/04/industry-leaders-sunshots-1-per-watt-goal-feasible

Residential PV will still cost more because of economies of scale, but I expect it to be possible to get down to $2-3/watt install for residential installations in that time period. Residential installs can already be had for as low as $5/watt. There is a LOT of streamlining and standardization that can be done to further reduce costs.

But I bet if I get an estimate for 4KWpeak of solar it will be much more that $8/watt since I live near San Jose.

$8/watt is too much to pay these days for a residential install unless you have special requirements. $6/watt isn't hard to find (installed) and in some cases you can get it down to $5/watt (even in the Bay Area where 1bog.org had a $5.49/watt deal).

 

[AndyH]

Why 'just' an upgraded power grid is not enough.

A warming planet means warmer oceans which means less dissolved oxygen (and CO2) in the water, which means fewer fish. But it creates a wonderful habitat for the 'cockroaches of the sea' - jellyfish.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jellyfish/index.jsp
http://www.care2.com/causes/jellyfish-shut-down-nuclear-power-plant.html
http://news.yahoo.com/jellyfish-halt-british-nuclear-power-station-172407932.html
http://na.oceana.org/en/blog/2008/12/the-cockroaches-of-the-sea

June 30th 2011:

A nuclear power station in eastern Scotland had to shut down its reactors after "high volumes" of jellyfish were found on its seawater filter screens, the operating company said Thursday.

Dubbed the "cockroaches of the sea," jellyfish are some of the only creatures that can survive in the world's 400 oxygen-starved Dead Zones. They're admirable, in my opinion, and can be quite beautiful. The only problem is, they are also a bellwether for the decline of the sea.

"The reactors will be restarted once the jellyfish situation subsides," the energy company said.

That'll be shortly after we bring atmospheric CO2 levels down and the oceans are able to regain their former composure. Until that happens, power plants around the world better hire a few more people with nets. Otherwise, we will see more of this - note the part about the rumors:

In the Philippines in 1999, jellyfish clogged the intake pipes of a power plant, sending 40 million people into darkness and sparking rumors of a coup d'etat.

 

[EricH]

What about building a power plant that can burn jellyfish?

 

[AndyH]

What about building a power plant that can burn jellyfish?

Hmmm...have they been drinking the "BP Special" oil/dispersant mix in the Gulf? I wonder if we have to dry the jellies first? :lol:

 

[AndyH]

Efficiency helps a great deal. What if all the solar our houses needed was fourteen 75W panels?

http://homepower.com/view/?file=HP85_pg22_Lefevre

(Sorry...no grid here either... )

The only outside energy necessary is propane
for the kitchen range, backup water heater, and
generator. That brought our first year’s total utility bill to
US$62.

 

[smkettner]

I would like to see enough solar power to flatten the peak daytime load. Although this might take away the TOU incentive or even reverse it where we had excess power mid day. I wonder what wattage each home would need to make that happen? 1000w? 5000w? way way more?

Could we mandate every new home or major remodel come with 1w of integrated solar for every sq ft of house built?

 

[DaveEV]

I would like to see enough solar power to flatten the peak daytime load. Although this might take away the TOU incentive or even reverse it where we had excess power mid day. I wonder what wattage each home would need to make that happen? 1000w? 5000w? way way more?

Well, if you look at the difference between night/day on a day like today, it's about 12 GW. ~24 GW between 3-6am and ~ 36 GW between 3-6pm.

http://caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

However, solar tends to peak around solar noon - which is around 1 pm. By 6 pm my PV system is only generating about 30% of the daily peak so realistically unless people aiming their panels west, PV has a tough job to meet this load. Solar thermal, on the other hand will be able to help significantly here since they typically have at least enough storage to shift demand a few hours - some plants are even being designed to run 24/7.

But let's say we just want 12 GW of solar. I think there's about 4 GW of BIG solar thermal/PV plants under way in various desert locations around the state - so we need another 8 GW. There's about 12 million households in CA - about 5 million of them are detached homes in 2000. So let's just say there are 10 million residential roofs in CA now to make the math easy. So we would only need about 1.2 kW of PV to produce 12 GW of power. That's probably a bit optimistic, so let's estimate 2 kW DC. 1 W / sqft would probably do the trick - good guess!

 

[LEAFfan]

Also, I've heard a goal of $1/watt for the panel cost of solar PV -- I've never heard anyone dream of $1/watt fully installed.

Well Eric, you have now! And my DREAM has been fulfilled. My 4800W PV system cost me only $ .91/Watt fully installed. :mrgreen:

 

[LEAFfan]

And yes - the goal is to get the cost of large solar PV down to $1/watt installed by 2017 (5 years). Residential PV will still cost more because of economies of scale, but I expect it to be possible to get down to $2-3/watt install for residential installations in that time period. Residential installs can already be had for as low as $5/watt.

Hmmm, then I guess I reached that goal in 2010...7 years early. Even with our utilitiy's present rebate ($1.25/W), someone right now could have my system installed for only about $2/W.

 

[EricH]

And yes - the goal is to get the cost of large solar PV down to $1/watt installed by 2017 (5 years). Residential PV will still cost more because of economies of scale, but I expect it to be possible to get down to $2-3/watt install for residential installations in that time period. Residential installs can already be had for as low as $5/watt.

Hmmm, then I guess I reached that goal in 2010...7 years early. Even with our utilitiy's present rebate ($1.25/W), someone right now could have my system installed for only about $2/W.

Let's see.... $2 + $1.25 = $3.25, no? $3.25/watt > $1/watt, at least for now.
Arbitrary utility/govt rebates could bring the cost to $1/watt or $0/watt (even -$1/watt), but that isn't a measure of PV cost-effectiveness, at least not from a societal perspective.

 

[LEAFfan]

And yes - the goal is to get the cost of large solar PV down to $1/watt installed by 2017 (5 years). Residential PV will still cost more because of economies of scale, but I expect it to be possible to get down to $2-3/watt install for residential installations in that time period. Residential installs can already be had for as low as $5/watt.

Hmmm, then I guess I reached that goal in 2010...7 years early. Even with our utilitiy's present rebate ($1.25/W), someone right now could have my system installed for only about $2/W.

Let's see.... $2 + $1.25 = $3.25, no? $3.25/watt > $1/watt, at least for now.
Arbitrary utility/govt rebates could bring the cost to $1/watt or $0/watt (even -$1/watt), but that isn't a measure of PV cost-effectiveness, at least not from a societal perspective.

You didn't say without any rebates/tax credits. The bottom line is: I paid $.91/W.

 

[AndyH]

Let's see.... $2 + $1.25 = $3.25, no? $3.25/watt > $1/watt, at least for now.
Arbitrary utility/govt rebates could bring the cost to $1/watt or $0/watt (even -$1/watt), but that isn't a measure of PV cost-effectiveness, at least not from a societal perspective.

I'd be interested in hearing your definition of "PV cost-effectiveness, at least ... from a societal perspective."

 

[DaveEV]

You didn't say without any rebates/tax credits. The bottom line is: I paid $.91/W.

EricH, didn't, but it's pretty clear that SunShot is aiming to get the price of larger scale PV down to $1/watt or less without further subsidies.

At < $1/watt after rebates/incentives - why isn't everyone installing PV in AZ?

My after-incentive cost was 2.5x your cost - and I installed my system myself and got wholesale prices all the PV system parts!