World Energy Use - There's No Tomorrow - Let's Fix This!

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Grid-Scale battery storage: Lower capital cost than peaking natural gas plants

EoS Energy's zinc-air batteries also projected to provide electricity at $0.12-$0.17 per kWh

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/18/barrier-breaking-batteries-going-gangbusters/

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/07/20/more-on-energy-storage-breakthrough-batteries/

EoS Energy articles from CleanTechnica:
http://cleantechnica.com/tag/eos/

EoS Energy Storage presentation:
http://www.eosenergystorage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Eos-Public-Presentation-2013-02-11.pdf
 
Just found this interesting tidbit, no wonder the coal & nuclear industry are worried:
"Higher wind generation in the Southwest Power Pool is reducing use of baseload capacity"
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=12831
demand.png
 
There's a good post on The Oil Drum on the effects of renewable energy development of the last decade or so:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/10227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting takeaway is that utilities in Germany are getting their profits killed on conventional generation because of all the solar on the grid which has drastically driven down peak electricity market prices.

The good news for renewables in the USA is that PV is expected to really take off in the USA in in the next couple years as the cost of PV electricity gets below grid parity in a wide range of states. Bad news for conventional power plants, which is why you see so many utilities fighting against distributed net-metering.
 
Thanks for the post, I'll give it a read. The interesting thing about my previous post, is that it's from EIA.gov, which is usually reports renewables in the least desirable light. And even in this case, one might conclude that they are saying something like "cutting into baseload with a variable resource is not a good idea."
 
drees said:
...which is why you see so many utilities fighting against distributed net-metering.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic.

Consider a case where the total load is entirely generated by solar. The utility company will get nothing. Will need to be paying for lines and storage of excess power during the day, and will be supplying power at night. All for free.
 
WetEV said:
drees said:
...which is why you see so many utilities fighting against distributed net-metering.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic.

Consider a case where the total load is entirely generated by solar. The utility company will get nothing. Will need to be paying for lines and storage of excess power during the day, and will be supplying power at night. All for free.
Click to expand...
Wet - the utility companies are still getting paid for the infrastructure - they pay a lower price for solar and sell at a profit. Not a chance in hell that the utility companies 'will get nothing' - they write the rules, after all, and they're not that inept.
 
AndyH said:
WetEV said:
drees said:
...which is why you see so many utilities fighting against distributed net-metering.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic.

Consider a case where the total load is entirely generated by solar. The utility company will get nothing. Will need to be paying for lines and storage of excess power during the day, and will be supplying power at night. All for free.
Click to expand...
Wet - the utility companies are still getting paid for the infrastructure - they pay a lower price for solar and sell at a profit. Not a chance in hell that the utility companies 'will get nothing' - they write the rules, after all, and they're not that inept.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that net-metering is doomed, long term?
 
WetEV said:
drees said:
...which is why you see so many utilities fighting against distributed net-metering.
Click to expand...

Too simplistic.

Consider a case where the total load is entirely generated by solar. The utility company will get nothing. Will need to be paying for lines and storage of excess power during the day, and will be supplying power at night. All for free.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked my utility bill, there was a base charge, which is the same year around, even though during summer, I produce a daily electricity net surplus. I assume that base charge is meant to cover lines etc?

I am not aware that utilities can store excess power, unless they have a big water reservoir somewhere that they can pump up. Not sure though if that maybe is the norm for US utilities?
 
klapauzius said:
I am not aware that utilities can store excess power, unless they have a big water reservoir somewhere that they can pump up. Not sure though if that maybe is the norm for US utilities?
Click to expand...

Hydro pumped storage locations are fairly expensive, and suitable sites are rare (and disputed) high mountain valleys. There is one above Georgetown Colorado, the Cabin Creek project. 39.661924,-105.706161

Yes, not the norm. But if solar was very cheap, and enough solar was installed to equal more than 100% of the daytime load, then the daytime wholesale price of electricity would fall to zero or below. The nighttime wholesale power rate would be determined by the cost of stored power. Hard to see how a utility can stay solvent buying power at retail and selling it at zero or less.

Net metering is doomed.
 
WetEV said:
Yes, not the norm. But if solar was very cheap, and enough solar was installed to equal more than 100% of the daytime load, then the daytime wholesale price of electricity would fall to zero or below. The nighttime wholesale power rate would be determined by the cost of stored power. Hard to see how a utility can stay solvent buying power at retail and selling it at zero or less.

Net metering is doomed.
Click to expand...
As long as you keep crafting bogus comparisons while missing the other 98% of the factbase, the only thing doomed is your understanding. ;)

This thread already contains details of a number plans that solve the problem differently - yet all provide the same 100% renewable result save one - Reinventing Fire, as they retain ~25% of today's natural gas use.

Only an idiot would build a national grid with 100% solar and nothing else. Nobody is suggesting that or recommending that - except for our resident nuke shill. In the real world, we have wind, solar thermal, PV, wave/tidal, pumped hydro, hydrogen, CSP/molten salt, big-honkin' batteries, wood/biomass, biomethane...and the list goes on.

Check this out for a bit of closed-loop thinking. Grow a local crop, make biogas, use effluent from digester to feed/water the crop.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uz3PYyrnp38[/youtube]
 
WetEV said:
Yes, not the norm. But if solar was very cheap, and enough solar was installed to equal more than 100% of the daytime load, then the daytime wholesale price of electricity would fall to zero or below. The nighttime wholesale power rate would be determined by the cost of stored power. Hard to see how a utility can stay solvent buying power at retail and selling it at zero or less.
Net metering is doomed.
Click to expand...

I think they get close to that situation in Germany during summer but not quite there yet.
But yes, if there is no storage available, net-metering in the sense that you use the utility as "virtual" storage device (which is our current deal, but at the same time, at very cheap rates...so the few kWhs the utilities "stores" are worth pennies, literally).

But it will be a long way to reach 100% day time generation and when we reach that goal, energy storage technology will hopefully have caught up.

I cannot possibly see 100% net generation for the average homeowner in the PNW at current efficiencies and panel prices, so this problem is not imminent here. Particularly through the winter, there is no way you could ever reach 100% with solar.

The Southwest might be a different situation, so I am curious if that are actually the places where net-metering is put in question?
 
smkettner said:
AndyH said:
The federal government is the largest owner of electricity generating capacity and owns significant transmission assets in the United States.
Click to expand...
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/feder...city_markets_and_infrastructure/issue_summary
Click to expand...
This is one area where I think a federal acquisition or take over would be good for the economy.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. On a small scale, San Antonio's been my first experience with municipally owned utilities (we own electricity, gas, and water) and prices are lower here than anywhere else in the state, and we can actually attend meetings and not only be heard but actually help steer the ship.

I'd like to see the power grid, gas, oil, and water be nationalized at this point. For profit business is proving to be incapable of managing these tasks.
 
klapauzius said:
I think they get close to that situation in Germany during summer but not quite there yet.
But yes, if there is no storage available, net-metering in the sense that you use the utility as "virtual" storage device (which is our current deal, but at the same time, at very cheap rates...so the few kWhs the utilities "stores" are worth pennies, literally).

But it will be a long way to reach 100% day time generation and when we reach that goal, energy storage technology will hopefully have caught up.

I cannot possibly see 100% net generation for the average homeowner in the PNW at current efficiencies and panel prices, so this problem is not imminent here. Particularly through the winter, there is no way you could ever reach 100% with solar.

The Southwest might be a different situation, so I am curious if that are actually the places where net-metering is put in question?
Click to expand...
Why just PV, Klap? Solar is more than just PV. The problem with 'the average homeowner' isn't solar efficiency - it's that they live in an inefficient house and waste too much energy. Fix the efficiency problem and generation becomes almost trivial.

As for Germany, they seem to have two different pushes happening. The energy transition is bottom-up. It's building efficiency (the spread of PassivHaus primarily) but it's also generation efficiency - district hot water, farmers generating biomathane for heat, hot water, and electricity, plus PV plus wind. In areas taking a holistic approach, they are providing 100% of their electricity, heat, and hot water from renewable sources and exporting electricity to the rest of the country. The Third industrial revoltuion plan is more top-down. It's also a holistic view - wind, solar, biogas, electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and hydrogen production. Hydrogen stores wind and solar, feeds into the natural gas system to reduce fossil carbon use, and feeds transportation. The storage problem is solved!
 
AndyH said:
Why just PV, Klap? Solar is more than just PV. The problem with 'the average homeowner' isn't solar efficiency - it's that they live in an inefficient house and waste too much energy. Fix the efficiency problem and generation becomes almost trivial.
Click to expand...

Only PV, because the issue at hand, i.e. what happens to net-metering, at the moment is acute for private PV home owners. Wind is typically in a more commercial setting?

Anyway, while net-metering might not play a big role in Seattle, because electricity prices are dirt cheap here, it is a substantial incentive in other places to go solar (PV that is), so its fate is really important.

Believe me, I have made my house quite efficient, but in Seattle, I would need triple the solar production capacity I currently have to generate a net zero electricity consumption. The LEAF doubled our consumption, before we were at least 66% self sufficient (net over the year).
 
klapauzius said:
AndyH said:
Why just PV, Klap? Solar is more than just PV. The problem with 'the average homeowner' isn't solar efficiency - it's that they live in an inefficient house and waste too much energy. Fix the efficiency problem and generation becomes almost trivial.
Click to expand...

Only PV, because the issue at hand, i.e. what happens to net-metering, at the moment is acute for private PV home owners. Wind is typically in a more commercial setting?

Anyway, while net-metering might not play a big role in Seattle, because electricity prices are dirt cheap here, it is a substantial incentive in other places to go solar (PV that is), so its fate is really important.

Believe me, I have made my house quite efficient, but in Seattle, I would need triple the solar production capacity I currently have to generate a net zero electricity consumption. The LEAF doubled our consumption, before we were at least 66% self sufficient (net over the year).
Click to expand...
This thread is not about PV alone - it's about solutions across the entire energy spectrum.

You're educated enough to realize that 'quite efficient' is meaningless without a reference or standard with which to compare it. Here's the scale - are you as efficient as a typical German in 1990?

houseenergy.jpg
 
Yes, for heating/warm water which is by far the biggest portion of our energy consumption, we are at about 80 kWh per sq m per year.
And that is with basically a 20 year old gas furnace and a tankless heater.

The dilemma is this:
New windows and a hybrid heatpump/gas heating system would probably cut the energy use down by 50%, to the tune of (hold your breath) ~400$ savings annually.
The cost to implement these savings is ~ $ 20000-25000.

The good new is:
Without spending a lot of money you can get pretty efficient already.

I suspect in colder parts of the US the cost/benefit ratio will much better, especially when you factor in incentives as well.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top