"The solar energy business is booming" or not

[smkettner]

Came across this this morning:

Based on the falling costs of solar and rising electric prices, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), one of the largest utilities in the country that serves northern California, may not be able to compete with residential solar soon. That’s according to a recent piece at think tank, The Energy Collective by energy expert Douglas Short, President of Exas Consulting, LLC and a former Vice President at Constellation Energy.

=Smidge=

The real problem with investor owned utilities is the expected high rate of return on the infrastructure in purpetuity. As an end user we are like tenants with a monopoly landlord. Seems like municipal utilities by allowing the rate payers to buy the infrastructure the rates stay much lower. Those monopoly landlord utilities can cry all they want to the poor house IMO.

BTW solar is booming at my house today with 3kW being installed

 

[Smidge204]

The real problem with investor owned utilities is the expected high rate of return on the infrastructure in purpetuity.

Speaking of...

A Transition to a Securitized Market: Can Credit Enhancements Leverage Solar Investment?

=Smidge=

 

[QueenBee]

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Neat that out the door it's cheaper to install solar than build a coal plant.

 

[downeykp]

I do not know if it is booming or not but I have paid for and will have a 10.3kw system installed on June 29th on my home on the Big Island in Hawaii. The system includes 39 Suniva 265w panels with Enphase micro inverters and all of the accessories installed for $12000 or $1.17 per watt after $9000 in cash back from the state and $5300 from the Feds.
Buying power here from HELCO (power co.) is grossly expensive at $.45 a kw. This is a no brainier as it will pay for itself in a few years. The system will power the home and Leaf.
Aloha

 

[RegGuheert]

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Neat that out the door it's cheaper to install solar than build a coal plant.

The article seems to imply that, but what it actually says is that it is cheaper per Watt to purchase PV modules than to build a coal-fired power plant. It also says that if you actually install the PV modules it costs about 50% more than the coal-fired plant installed ($4.74/W versus $3.00). Of course, you also need more PV watts to provide the same energy as a coal-fired power plant (unless you can somehow exactly match all loads to PV production). OTOH, the coal-fired plant will require a steady stream of coal to keep it running, which is a gigantic cost, both financial and environmental.

 

[QueenBee]

http://www.economist.com/news/21566414-alternative-energy-will-no-longer-be-alternative-sunny-uplands

Neat that out the door it's cheaper to install solar than build a coal plant.

The article seems to imply that, but what it actually says is that it is cheaper per Watt to purchase PV modules than to build a coal-fired power plant. It also says that if you actually install the PV modules it costs about 50% more than the coal-fired plant installed ($4.74/W versus $3.00). Of course, you also need more PV watts to provide the same energy as a coal-fired power plant (unless you can somehow exactly match all loads to PV production). OTOH, the coal-fired plant will require a steady stream of coal to keep it running, which is a gigantic cost, both financial and environmental.

Actually reading this more close I'm really confused what it is trying to say. Thanks for reading more closely than I. If I understand correctly it's trying to compare the cost of 1 watt DC panel rating to 1 watt of peak capacity of a coal plant. Those numbers are irrelevant. The number you need to compare is annual production.

For example how much does it cost per KWH of production produced annually. Then compare that to the annual production of a coal power plant.

If I understand correctly their example the 1w of coal power plant could produce 8.76 kwh annually minus whatever percent it would be offline for maintenance, etc.

Whereas 1w of solar PV could produce at most say 1.5kwh annually.

So looking at just the installed cost including the additional power station cost they are far from being the same! The question that they didn't answer is how does the cost compare when you include the operating costs and fuel?

 

[RegGuheert]

Agreed completely, QueenBee!

On top of all that, there are immense externalities with coal-fire plants that come into play, as well. Whenever I see the destruction that goes on in West Virginia, I wish all of those plants would go away!

 

[smkettner]

My idea with solar is to allow the coal plant to be sized for the base load rather than the peak.
They compliment each other so use both. Although we probably have way too much coal if solar fully took the peak load.

 

[RegGuheert]

My idea with solar is to allow the coal plant to be sized for the base load rather than the peak.
They compliment each other so use both.

I think that's the approach which is being done in Germany. They have taken this farther than anyone else so far. But they are now at the point where renewables produce so much on peak days (around 50% of the load!) that they are starting to implement techniques to limit renewable production as needed to prevent it from taking the system down by swamping the base load. Unfortunately, this only gets PV to 3% of Germany's total electrical energy production.

Although we probably have way too much coal if solar fully took the peak load.

...and not enough PV or wind generation. Even though Germany has led the way with their paltry solar resources, it seems few here are paying attention to what can ve done.

In any case it seems the older coal-fired plants are be shut down as they become unviable from an economical standpoint. I say good riddance to these holdovers from the early 20th century.

 

[QueenBee]

My idea with solar is to allow the coal plant to be sized for the base load rather than the peak.
They compliment each other so use both.

I think that's the approach which is being done in Germany. They have taken this farther than anyone else so far. But they are now at the point where renewables produce so much on peak days (around 50% of the load!) that they are starting to implement techniques to limit renewable production as needed to prevent it from taking the system down by swamping the base load. Unfortunately, this only gets PV to 3% of Germany's total electrical energy production.

That's a little disappointing! 50% of the peak days is an insane amount of capacity but the fact that it ends up only being 3% of the total production is disappointing. That would imply that if they were producing 100% on their peak days it would only cover 6% of total production. I've never done or seen any math but I always assumed that we would be able to have total production be a pretty significant percent before energy storage would be required but sounds like that might be coming sooner rather than later. I guess one nice thing is I suspect the areas we have the best solar is likely more consistent over the year than in Germany to the 3%/50% ratio here might be a lot better.

 

[kovalb]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/I...r-power-kill-utility-companies-They-think-so.
It appears that the electric utilities are planning to go out of business. It's just a matter of time but paradigms do change.

 

[smkettner]

Rather than go out of business I believe the electric companies will need to focus on energy intensive business. Real rates will need to be charged to businesses instead of being subsidized by the homeowners. :shock: At least on the west coast where we have very high rates. When they charge 40 cents and rising what do they expect?

 

[GRA]

Rather than go out of business I believe the electric companies will need to focus on energy intensive business. Real rates will need to be charged to businesses instead of being subsidized by the homeowners. :shock: At least on the west coast where we have very high rates. When they charge 40 cents and rising what do they expect?

We have high rates on the west coast (south of Oregon/Washington), because we have high % RPS. It's a case of TANSTAAFL -we're getting what we asked for, but (it shouldn't be a surprise) it isn't free. If you're looking for someone to blame for PG&E/SCE/SDG&E's high kWh costs, it's us. If we wanted cheaper electricity we could let the utilities buy from the cheapest provider regardless of how dirty that power was. Would you prefer that they buy more coal or NG-fired power?

 

[smkettner]

I thought NG was putting coal out of business? Somehow not on the left coast. No free market here as they all got duped by Enron to lock in high rates. On top of that perpetual guaranteed return on all transmission assets. I would love to see the books on how that is calculated Not the BS marketing, the real calc.

Now SCE is converting the HB plant to some flywheel grid stabilizer system. Guess SCE does not earn enough on generation but any equipment has that guaranteed return... so that is where the money goes.

 

[DaveEV]

I thought NG was putting coal out of business?

NG prices have been creeping back up - as a result coal use has been creeping back up, too. Coal was down to nearly 30%, but now it's back up to 40%.

http://www.ohio.com/blogs/drilling/ohio-utica-shale-1.291290/coal-gains-as-natural-gas-prices-climb-u-s-doe-says-1.401328" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

That's a little disappointing! 50% of the peak days is an insane amount of capacity but the fact that it ends up only being 3% of the total production is disappointing.

First, let me correct my facts. I should know better than to post from memory. It seems that the peak day in 2012 was over 40%, but not quite 50% as was wide reported in the media and the total fraction of 2012 energy production from PV was 5.8%, not 3% (that was 2011's number). The data can all be found in this report from the Fraunhofer Institute (11 MB). So the ratio for 2012 for German was more like 5.8%/42%.

That would imply that if they were producing 100% on their peak days it would only cover 6% of total production. I've never done or seen any math but I always assumed that we would be able to have total production be a pretty significant percent before energy storage would be required but sounds like that might be coming sooner rather than later. I guess one nice thing is I suspect the areas we have the best solar is likely more consistent over the year than in Germany to the 3%/50% ratio here might be a lot better.

Agreed. The problem in Germany is that there are many cloudy days, so the ratios are not as good as they could be in a sunnier climate.

Also note that low energy consumption on a weekend day when it is particularly sunny make the peak solar fraction very high. Here is a nice plot of the two peak solar production days in Germany in 2012. Note that the solar production is about the same on both days, but the first day is a Friday while the second day is a Saturday. Since electricity consumption is so much higher on Saturday, the ratio of solar production is much higher. Once Germany adds the ability to curtail solar production at hours when it becomes too high, they will be able to greatly increase the total fraction of energy produced by solar.

 

[GRA]

I thought NG was putting coal out of business? Somehow not on the left coast. No free market here as they all got duped by Enron to lock in high rates. On top of that perpetual guaranteed return on all transmission assets. I would love to see the books on how that is calculated Not the BS marketing, the real calc.

Now SCE is converting the HB plant to some flywheel grid stabilizer system. Guess SCE does not earn enough on generation but any equipment has that guaranteed return... so that is where the money goes.

Actually, Ca. isn't that high compared to some states. Three of six New England states are higher, as are New York and Alaska. Maybe you should be glad you don't live in Hawaii

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_06_a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[downeykp]

I wish electricity rates were only $.37 a kw in Hawaii. We pay well north of $.45.

I thought NG was putting coal out of business? Somehow not on the left coast. No free market here as they all got duped by Enron to lock in high rates. On top of that perpetual guaranteed return on all transmission assets. I would love to see the books on how that is calculated Not the BS marketing, the real calc.

Now SCE is converting the HB plant to some flywheel grid stabilizer system. Guess SCE does not earn enough on generation but any equipment has that guaranteed return... so that is where the money goes.

Actually, Ca. isn't that high compared to some states. Three of six New England states are higher, as are New York and Alaska. Maybe you should be glad you don't live in Hawaii

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_06_a" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[dgpcolorado]

A bump in the road for solar is an increasingly high rate of defective panels:
NY Times: "Solar Industry Anxious Over Defective Panels"
It appears that cost-cutting by Chinese manufacturers is leading to substandard materials and that these defective components are used by panel makers in the US and other countries. But the problems may not become apparent for several years after installation.

 

[RegGuheert]

A bump in the road for solar is an increasingly high rate of defective panels:
NY Times: "Solar Industry Anxious Over Defective Panels"
It appears that cost-cutting by Chinese manufacturers is leading to substandard materials and that these defective components are used by panel makers in the US and other countries. But the problems may not become apparent for several years after installation.

That stinks. They generally come with great warranties, but who knows how good some of these companies are about honoring them.