Solar, Wind Renewable Energy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks... I knew it was a very expensive build... surprised that they got the money to build it...


.
The various transmission providers such as AEP, LCRA, ONCOR etc built segments of the project, and just add that cost to the transmission part of the cost the retailer pays for the energy at the distribution companies substations. In one sense it was much simpler, the PUC said do it, and that was that there were not multiple states arguing about the division of costs and benefits. Note most of the CREZ lines ran east west where the pre-existing lines ran from DFW to Houston and San Antonio/Austin.
 
Then there are the power outages: https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproj...eat-outage-20180707-story.html?outputType=amp

This is the expected result of shutting down (or not building) nuclear and fossil plants supplying a major city. So far, non-hydro renewable energy is nice on a small scale but totally insufficient for urban or industrial electricity supply.

Eventually we will get there, but starry-eyed optimism is no substitute for physics and engineering.
 
Then there are the power outages: https://www-latimes-com.cdn.ampproj...eat-outage-20180707-story.html?outputType=amp

This is the expected result of shutting down (or not building) nuclear and fossil plants supplying a major city. So far, non-hydro renewable energy is nice on a small scale but totally insufficient for urban or industrial electricity supply.

Eventually we will get there, but starry-eyed optimism is no substitute for physics and engineering.
Reading the article the issue was not overall levels of generation but issues in the distribution system since the outages were localized implying a local transformer failed, not an overall system failure. It may be that the transformers did not receive sufficient maintenance. Generation insufficiencies tend to lead to rolling blackouts, and neighborhoods are turned off for 45 mins to an hour at a time.
 
Then there are "wind droughts". https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-means-britains-turbines-are-at-a-standstill/

Or just droughts: https://www.independent.ie/irish-ne...-brakes-on-wind-and-hydro-power-37117302.html

I didn't intend to get involved in this thread but these articles popped up on my LinkedIn right after reading the thread... spooky!


Note that one way to make renewables work over a larger area, for example the high plans from the Mexican to the Canadian border, the chances for a wind drought across that entire stretch are low. Now in terms of solar and time of use the East Coast is ok because transmission can bring power from the plains for a couple of hours after the sun sets n the east, but being as there is nothing west of Ca they can't do this.
 
My take on RE is that it makes sense where rates are otherwise expensive. In our city, all new home construction must be supplemented with solar panels. We get a lot of sunshine here in Southern California. Residential rates are expensive. Plus with all the residential solar systems injecting into the grid during the day, we rarely have brown-outs and black-outs during the day due to excessive demand from A/C usage.

In 2012 when we installed our solar panels, the base Tier 1 rate was 7 cents / kWh and the top rate was 27 cents / kWh. It's now 18 cents kWh and 35 / KWh. We installed panels not for any environmental concerns, but in 2012 we were spending about $3700 per year for electricity, and it made financial sense for us. The fact that we are generating clean energy is an extra bonus. Our electricity bill would be much higher today without our power generation system. We now get about $120-200 refund annually.

We have a 5.38 kW grid tied photo-voltaic system with 22 Kyocera panels with 22 Enphase micro-inverters that generate just over 10 Megawatts annually which is slightly more than we consue. We also converted all our lighting to LED and replaced our pool pump motor with a more efficient variable speed motor. We also installed foil in our attic to keep it cooler. Break-even was just over 4 years.

As far as large scale RE plants, we are seeing them pop up all over the Mohave Desert. There is a pretty impressive plant on the I-15 to Las Vegas, the Ivanpah Solar Plant. It is the world’s largest solar thermal plant. It’s a 392 MW plant. It burns natural gas in the morning to start the turbines. Yes it has fried some birds in flight, but birds will adapt to these new plants (natural selection).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Solar_Power_Facility

The photovoltaic plants are even higher at 579 MW.

Large-Scale Photovoltaic Power Plants - Top 50

These plants require very few personnel to operate. Coal fire plants are going away. Many operators have already converted over to natural gas and will continue to do so in the future. I can’t see any power generation company investing in a new coal fire generation plant. It comes down to economics.
 
Last edited:
Regarding coal: China is scrapping hundreds of planned coal plants, mainly because it doesn't make economic sense anymore. Ten years back they were adding one coal plant a month.

In Belgium electricity from the meter costs about 23 cents a kwh, most of which actually is grid costs (~15 cents).

DM did a rooftop installation last year for an expected LCOE of about 20 cents a kwh, no subsidies. Not bad for a relatively small 3.7kw installation.
 
It's only cheap because they rely on the rest of the grid (and all its costs) for backup.

As you add more and more (intermittent) renewable energy on a grid, you run into problems. If you have enough to make a significant % on average, that usually means you have some big peaks at times it isn't needed. There is no economic, environmental storage solution on the horizon. So that energy will often be wasted. Which means you need to charge more on average for what you can sell, or your ROI on new installs keeps getting worse and worse.

Costs start going up when reality hits. I saw some charts from some countries that were pushing RE big time, and they all cap out at fairly low average % of total power, and they stop installing more because they can't recoup much of the added marginal production. Too much of it hits when there isn't enough demand.

It's a good thing as far as it goes, but it only goes so far.

-ERD50

Exactly well said in a nut shell.
 
Question for you RE dreamers and electrical wizards:

Yesterday, in Texas, the power load state wide was 73,289 Megawatts which was about an all time high. Reliant Energy e-mailed its clients asking them to voluntarily cut back on power use in the afternoons to minimize power shortages.

My questions relate to this load: Is it an amount on a continual basis that RE is able to support in a state such as Texas?

If not feasible at the moment, how many windmills and solar panels would be required to cover this load?
 
It's only cheap because they rely on the rest of the grid (and all its costs) for backup.

As you add more and more (intermittent) renewable energy on a grid, you run into problems. If you have enough to make a significant % on average, that usually means you have some big peaks at times it isn't needed. There is no economic, environmental storage solution on the horizon. So that energy will often be wasted. Which means you need to charge more on average for what you can sell, or your ROI on new installs keeps getting worse and worse.

Costs start going up when reality hits. I saw some charts from some countries that were pushing RE big time, and they all cap out at fairly low average % of total power, and they stop installing more because they can't recoup much of the added marginal production. Too much of it hits when there isn't enough demand.

It's a good thing as far as it goes, but it only goes so far.

-ERD50

I'm sure Nords knows the full story on this, but in Hawaii, the local electric utility HECO limits the amount of solar that can be tied into the grid (within specific areas, as I recall - maybe 10% max?) In any case, if there is a place that solar should work, I'd think it would be the Islands. So far, I'd say it probably works (financially) for some early adopters, but not for the state as a whole.

We have "goals" of certain % renewable by such and such date - I think they are pipe dreams set by folks kicking the can on down the road, but what do I know? While I'm all for renewable(s), it isn't going to be easy to go from virtually all oil to even 20% or 30% renewables.

The only place I've ever seen truly FIRM figures on pay-back for RE (NOT counting on the grid to do the heavy lifting and cost smoothing) is with solar HOT WATER installations. IMHO anyone who builds a new house in the Islands (and much of the southern US) and does NOT install SHW is making a huge mistake. It's the perfect solar. It has its own built-in storage so it works at night. The few times there isn't enough sun, one can tap the grid for "boost." One could actually skip the occasional daily shower (or shower with a friend, heh, heh.) The only significant down side is initial cost which could be smoothed with the mortgage or eased with gummint rebates. My thinking on RE is to pick the low hanging fruit first. Solar hot water makes sense NOW in almost any place that gets decent sun for most of the year. As always, YMMV.
 
Question for you RE dreamers and electrical wizards:

Yesterday, in Texas, the power load state wide was 73,289 Megawatts which was about an all time high. Reliant Energy e-mailed its clients asking them to voluntarily cut back on power use in the afternoons to minimize power shortages.

My questions relate to this load: Is it an amount on a continual basis that RE is able to support in a state such as Texas?

If not feasible at the moment, how many windmills and solar panels would be required to cover this load?




Well, simple math... the question then becomes how much can a turbine make... a quick look says the avg wind turbine produces 2.5 to 3 megawatts... I would assume that is max so we have to assume all are working to max... I will use 2.5 to be a bit conservative...


73,289 / 2.5 = 29,316 rounded up....


Now, again a quick look so it could be old numbers... said a Texas windfarm with 413 windmills was the largest in the world... so we would need 71 of those farms...
 
or in solar: 150 watt per square meter roughly.

500 million m2 needed, is about 200 square miles if I converted right. That's about 0.10% of the Texas surface area. Something seems a bit off though, this link claims you need about 0.6%.

https://inovateus.com/2017/08/03/many-square-miles-solar-panels-take-power-u-s-smaller-think/

Fun fact: if the location is sunny and windy, one can actually combine wind & solar. So less land required.


As is very true of west Texas say around Midland where the metric is acres per cow for ranching. Note that the wind In tx blows strongest around midnight. (see the ercot site for plots). Wind effectivly uses about 5% of the land area as in addition to the diameter of the blades you want further spacing to make things most efficient. Around Snyder cotton grows quite nicely under turbines and around Sweetwater the cows graze ok under turbines.
 
Regarding coal: China is scrapping hundreds of planned coal plants, mainly because it doesn't make economic sense anymore.

There is no such thing as a solar or wind farm that economically outperforms an efficient coal plant. It's purely a political decision that can be reversed at any time.

Ten years back they were adding one coal plant a month.

Several sources state that it was up to 2 coal plants per week. Perhaps they built enough of them over the years and can now cut back?
 
There is no such thing as a solar or wind farm that economically outperforms an efficient coal plant. It's purely a political decision that can be reversed at any time.


The Lazard levelized cost of energy reports would disagree, they find coal more expensive than gas to start with (and gas emits 1/2 the CO2/kwh of coal or less) and also less than the cost of wind or solar in the right places.

The market seems to indicate this because fully depreciated plants are among the ones being shut down where there is no longer a capital cost element just O&M costs. (plus fixing wear and tear). the larger problem with a coal plant is that it is inflexible and that proves a problem for example today on ercot the system load swung from 44gw at 4 am to 72 gw at 5 pm. Such patterns exist every day, and the percentage size of the swing is up to 50% in fall and spring. Look for Lazard levelized cost of energy reports on the web for details. The demand swings have been a problem since the Pearl Street plant in Manhattan in 1882.

Of course in addition in the US overall electric demand is falling about 1% a year.
 
My spouse and I are very early adopters among those solar-energy freeloaders-- over 13 years of $18/month electric bills. Our costs (largely DIY second-hand gear but including tax subsidies) paid themselves back within six years and we’ve just been reaping the benefits since then. Depending on the information source, the median Oahu electric bill is $150-$200/month.
https://www.electricitylocal.com/states/hawaii/

Of course the “free” solar energy changes your conservation behavior. We have about 3KW of elderly panels on our roof, and we rarely use more than we generate because we have an insulated roof & attics, a mostly insulated house with energy-efficient windows, and tradewind cooling (with ceiling fans). Meanwhile our neighbor installed a 7KW system so that he could run his air conditioning 24/7 in an uninsulated house. He simply no longer has to care.

The only place I've ever seen truly FIRM figures on pay-back for RE (NOT counting on the grid to do the heavy lifting and cost smoothing) is with solar HOT WATER installations. IMHO anyone who builds a new house in the Islands (and much of the southern US) and does NOT install SHW is making a huge mistake. It's the perfect solar. It has its own built-in storage so it works at night. The few times there isn't enough sun, one can tap the grid for "boost." One could actually skip the occasional daily shower (or shower with a friend, heh, heh.) The only significant down side is initial cost which could be smoothed with the mortgage or eased with gummint rebates. My thinking on RE is to pick the low hanging fruit first. Solar hot water makes sense NOW in almost any place that gets decent sun for most of the year. As always, YMMV.
Absolutely. Solar water heating is now Hawaii state law for new-construction homes. Paybacks are about eight years, or around three years with the state subsidy.

I haven’t turned on the electricity to our solar tank’s backup heater in over a decade. But then I do most of my showering at the beach after a two-hour salt-water bath.

I'm sure Nords knows the full story on this, but in Hawaii, the local electric utility HECO limits the amount of solar that can be tied into the grid (within specific areas, as I recall - maybe 10% max?) In any case, if there is a place that solar should work, I'd think it would be the Islands. So far, I'd say it probably works (financially) for some early adopters, but not for the state as a whole.
Here’s where we photovoltaic grid-tied freeloaders are doing society a favor: we’ve disrupted the energy monopoly.

Public utilities have few reasons to modernize (let alone innovate) because they’re essentially heavily-regulated non-profits. From their perspective, the most efficient distribution grid would be filled with centralized coal and natural-gas plants-- the more and bigger the better. The only load balancing requirements would be simple demand regulators and predictable customer behavior heuristics. You’d have hundred-year-old electric poles and 1960s transformer cans filled with PCBs.

The only thing the electric company would want to do would be to build bigger plants whenever the demands supported the capital expense. Sure, they’d have to repair a few components, but they’d only upgrade if the new widgets were dramatically cheaper and much more reliable.

Now the governments have let people connect cheap (subsidized) roof-mounted energy generators to the grid. On intermittently cloudy days, these generators rev up & down to randomly dump power into the grid. This makes it challenging to keep the bus voltage at a rock-steady 240v AC, which is why the amount of generation per neighborhood is limited.

Oahu started out at 100% PV grid penetration, measured by use. Simplistically, if a neighborhood had 1 MW of power consumption (from their electric bills) then it could add 1 MW of peak-power solar panels. (And as much solar water heating as they wanted.) Any additional PV panels might dump so much power into the grid that HECO couldn’t transfer it out quickly enough.

Then people started agitating for more PV power per neighborhood. Under customer demand (and govt scrutiny), HECO started getting questions about grid durability (hurricanes) and reliability (voltage control). If HECO wanted a rate increase ever again, they’d have to hide it among the grid upgrades.

Oahu is now moving toward 200% PV grid penetration, with plans to grow even more.

HECO is finally modernizing a grid which still has components older than me. Better yet, they’re not wasting their time planning (and funding) new coal or natural gas power plants. One day our grid will be much more able to handle power fluctuations, and it’ll be harder to take down the entire island with just one hurricane (or from a tiny earthquake under the generating plant).

HECO could've gotten away with an old grid, too, if it wasn’t for those durn meddling freeloader kids.

You’re welcome.

Now while we’re at it, let's think about buying electric vehicles and charging them from our PV panels for cheap local commuter cars. Maybe Hawaii could stop importing so much gasoline at >$3/gallon, too.
 
Last edited:
There is no such thing as a solar or wind farm that economically outperforms an efficient coal plant. It's purely a political decision that can be reversed at any time.

You have a link for that?

Utility scale solar has dropped below 5 cents per kwh in alot of places. Some exceptional locations even go below 2 cents (recent bid in [-]Dubai[/-] Saudi Arabia).

Coal is above that even in marginal costs (so fuel inputs and maintenance only).
 
Last edited:
You have a link for that?

Utility scale solar has dropped below 5 cents per kwh in alot of places. Some exceptional locations even go below 2 cents (recent bid in [-]Dubai[/-] Saudi Arabia).

Coal is above that even in marginal costs (so fuel inputs and maintenance only).

Anything can be cheap with enough subsidies. Provide the same subsidies, financing, and incentives to coal and see how cheap it can get:

https://electrek.co/2017/10/08/how-...g-records-a-financial-and-technical-analysis/

And, as always, both solar and wind are only sustainable when there is a reliable source like coal, gas, or hydro to provide power when the sun doesn't shine or when the wind stops, and when those sources are forced to buy excess power when the supply outstrips demand.

Solar and wind can contribute a small percentage with help, but the real world logistics prevent them from becoming major players.
 
Where does it show subsidies are a factor? All I read is speculation.

Toss out that project, you still end up at 3 cents or so as mentioned in the article, with prices that keep on dropping as time goes by. Unsubsidized.

Coal is much higher, not to mention also subsidized and excluding externalities (e.g. CO2 emitted, environmental damage).

Five years ago you were right, not anymore.
 
In spite of the many false claims and outright lies by the Warming Industry, increased CO2 is a proven net benefit to the planet...the increased plant growth has led to trillions of tons of increased plant and crop growth and there has been negligible impact on the temperature.

Perhaps solar has come down in price, but it still remains a fact that it can only supply a certain percent of power and it requires a reliable backup source when it's not available...unless people are willing to have intermittent and unreliable power.
 
In spite of the many false claims and outright lies by the Warming Industry, increased CO2 is a proven net benefit to the planet.............
:LOL: Thanks. My grandkids will be so proud of me.
 
Note that the cost for energy storage is declining less than $400/kwh today resulting in a cost per kwh of about $.13 (based upon 4000 charge discharge cycles). It is both utility scale and individual units that are following a cost curve similar to what solar and wind have followed. If you can get the cost down below the cost of storage in a Tesla (150/kwh) then it becomes economic. (In fact one opportunity is to take electric car batteries and repurpose them for home use after they no longer have the range for a car) A home environment is far easier on a battery than a car considering for example a Tesla 3 has a 192 kw motor, meaning the battery pack has to deliver that much power if you mash the accelerator. Consider that modern home service entrances have 200 amp service entrances, which is about 50 kw so it is clear the electric car is harder on batteries.

Plus a bit of time shifting can help. My dishwasher for example allows one to set a delay of up to 8 hours before running, make it 14 and you could have the dishwasher kick on the next morning for example. Or in the summer invert the logic of the timed thermostat a bit, cool the house from 9 to 12 (when the ac is most efficient in heat moved per kwh of power, hold it steady until 4:30 or so then turn it off as solar power wanes. (note that .13 per kwh is already economic in Ca)

Yes it will involve thinking differently about how things are done, but for example plant design was greatly altered once the line shaft big engine system went to individual motors. (Plants used to be multi story so that the distance between the machine and power source was lessened, with electricity a plant can be one one level. )


Another example on renewables in Tx they discovered that they need to have meteorologists on staff to forecast the wind in detail so as to estimate the generation, solar will take the same sort of meteorological resources at the power control center.
 
Commercial growers add CO2 in their greenhouses for a reason. It's a good bet that your grandkids won't be taught why they buy CO2 generators in school... ;)
If sea level rise does not drown the greenhouses. The link between CO2 content and temperature is well substantiated in the geological record, the higher the CO2 the warmer the climate. And it should be noted that only some plants respond as well plants that evolved later adapted to the lower Co2 levels in the last 60 million years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom