Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[CyclingInvestor]

Well, 50 years ago we just didn't have the technology available. It wasn't for lack of trying, these things take time.

Solar cells that could produce usable power levels at the time were crazy expensive - the only place they were used was where there was no better alternative: spacecraft.

-ERD50

This graph only covers 2014 on, but gives a good overview of the relative cost of new power plants

 

[ERD50]

This graph only covers 2014 on, but gives a good overview of the relative cost of new power plants

Yes, they keep trotting out these numbers that solar/wind is now as cheap/cheaper than natural gas, and while it is true in one sense, it is totally misleading because it lacks context.

It's great that solar/wind cost is coming down, but how in the world can we compare it to natural gas as if it is apples-to-apples, because it just isn't. Natural gas can provide energy 24/7/365. Solar wind can't and don't. So the comparison is bogus.

To make it apples-apples, you need to add in the cost of storage, or the cost of the natural gas plants to back them up. We don't have storage at that scale, so it just isn't possible for solar/wind to be cheaper than natural gas, since you need natural gas in addition to solar/wind (or at least you need probably 90% of the natural gas).

Let's say you had to take your new car in for warranty repairs. Your car dealer said that rather than fix it, they will replace your car with a brand new one of the same model, but with some better options, at no cost to you. Sounds good, until you find out you can't count on this car to start, and sometimes the top speed will be limited to 10 mph for who knows how long. But hey, it's cheaper!

You'd call the dealer out for being a crook, and these people who push the LCOE of solar/wind w/o addressing the total costs of reliable production should be called out as crooks as well.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Here in the Southwest, there may be only a few days in a year where a PV does not produce much power. It is one of the few places where it is most feasible to generate all the electricity from solar panels.

Even then, the few days where solar power falls off can cause a problem. We would still need power plants for backup, or there will be brownouts or power outage.

A guy living off-grid can limp by for a day with $50K worth of lithium battery, but would still need a generator for backup, if the solar outage stretches to the 2nd day.

And then, most of the year, he would have power out the wazoo with no place to put it.

If we multiply this up to look at the public utility scale, the total cost is very high. RE is indeed cheap, but we still need all the old hardware to back it up for the few days of the year where there's no solar and no wind. If we do not mind being out of power for a few days each year and to throw out all of our food from the fridge, things will get a bit simpler.

And then, there are places where they get no solar, nor wind worth a dime. People will just have to revert to the old living standard of the pioneers. They burned wood to cook and to keep warm. Wood from trees is a renewable resource, if we replant new ones after clear cutting.

 

[CardsFan]

And then, there are places where they get no solar, nor wind worth a dime. People will just have to revert to the old living standard of the pioneers. They burned wood to cook and to keep warm. Wood from trees is a renewable resource, if we replant new ones after clear cutting.

No can do. Big carbon footprint. So, I guess the Pioneers should just go to the back of the cave and die.

 

[HFWR]

In areas where lots of woodstoves and fireplaces are used, the air can be pretty noxious...

 

[Chuckanut]

In areas where lots of woodstoves and fireplaces are used, the air can be pretty noxious...

+1

It makes sense if you live on 10+ acres with at least 1000 feel between you and the next guy.

A few years ago a huge windstorm knocked out power in my area during the Winter for days. We all used our fireplaces to keep warm. Starting on day 2 the air outside was just awful. Give me natural gas and/or electricity any time over burning wood in the city.

 

[NW-Bound]

Y'all complain too much. I would have thought someone would say "but, but, but I can't run my TV and computer on wood". When you have no other fuel, and there's no solar or wind, what more do you want? Recall the chart above showing Germany is down to a mere 4% for wind and solar power on some cloudy and calm days.

I was about to say there would be a revival of steam engines to drive a generator to make electricity. That's how you make use of man-planted wood to surf the Web and to watch Netflix.

Or better yet, a small diesel engine which will run off biofuel, such as vegetable oil. Skip to 7:30 on the following video to see such an engine working like a charm on the 1st pull.

 

[ncbill]

The old Lister-style diesel generators were very fuel efficient...but not designed with controlling emissions in mind.

One early (well before solar was affordable) off-grid guy I read used one of the above for about an hour/day (consuming ~1 liter of diesel)

During that time his family had to do whatever tasks required 120VAC electricity (vacuuming, running the washing machine, etc.) for that day.

 

[pj.mask]

There are a number of comments here that I have just caught up with

1) the technology didn’t exist or is currently too expensive: if we invested money in it, it will likely reduce cost and become available at a reasonable cost. I believe it started with whale oil lamps and horses. When engines started they were quite expensive. So was electricity. But because we used/researched it - through improvements it became available for the masses. We advanced quickly because there was no equivalent alternative - so I feel we will need to push for RE to advance it [as] quickly.

2) Storage - I see advances in research papers about battery performance and life. If we commit to this I wonder how many years it will take until we get some great products? It isn’t $50k/battery requirements as some purport but $6-10k battery currently can easily last 24 hours. Tesla has lots of industrial battery storage clients and I hope that improves.

3) Credits - I’m not understanding all the hate on credits. If there is demand for RE and people are willing to pay for that capitalism suggests it will help generate more supply.

4) wood isn’t a big carbon generator as when you grow it for burning, it sucks the carbon out of the air to grow.

I’m all for the advances in RE but I am not blind to reality. If we don’t push we will never get there and it seems this is something we are already late on based on science.

The best thing we can all do is use less. Less food, energy, water, stuff. This will help the environment, preserve resources for future generations, and (from observations on obesity) ourselves. The next thing is to consume items that are better for the environment.

It is unfortunate that some people just don’t care. Even if you think global warming is a hoax, reduced consumption will help with affordability for those in need.

 

[ERD50]

There are a number of comments here that I have just caught up with

1) the technology didn’t exist or is currently too expensive: if we invested money in it, it will likely reduce cost and become available at a reasonable cost. I believe it started with whale oil lamps and horses. When engines started they were quite expensive. So was electricity. But because we used/researched it - through improvements it became available for the masses. We advanced quickly because there was no equivalent alternative - so I feel we will need to push for RE to advance it [as] quickly.

2) Storage - I see advances in research papers about battery performance and life. If we commit to this I wonder how many years it will take until we get some great products? It isn’t $50k/battery requirements as some purport but $6-10k battery currently can easily last 24 hours. Tesla has lots of industrial battery storage clients and I hope that improves.
.... .

The first two in particular have been discussed at length here. If you go back and read and absorb those posts and do some of your own research if you don't believe it, you'll see that it just isn't possible to improve the present systems to the degree that those old systems you mention have done. It's just not a valid comparison.

If you can find a way to make a 20% efficient solar panel 6 times more efficient, I suggest you take it up with the laws of physics.

Storage? Let's see your numbers. Just what do you think it would take for a scenario like was mentioned with Germany, where (I'll round up) we have some days of 100% RE for our electricity, and then some days around 10%, which may have several 15% and 20% days before and after?

A battery that "can easily last 24 hours"? What does that mean? Twenty four hours of what?

Oh and don't forget that all storage has losses. Even a nice 80% round-trip efficiency means you will need to produce 25% more electricity to put in, for what you get out.

-ERD50

 

[Music Lover]

1) the technology didn’t exist or is currently too expensive: if we invested money in it, it will likely reduce cost and become available at a reasonable cost. I believe it started with whale oil lamps and horses. When engines started they were quite expensive. So was electricity. But because we used/researched it - through improvements it became available for the masses. We advanced quickly because there was no equivalent alternative - so I feel we will need to push for RE to advance it [as] quickly.

...

I’m all for the advances in RE but I am not blind to reality. If we don’t push we will never get there and it seems this is something we are already late on based on science.

Solar, wind, and batteries have been around for several decades and untold billions have been invested and are still being invested so it's not like this is new unproven technology.

We see all the wonderful technological advances coming at us on a daily basis and it's easy to think that cheap and reliable RE is just around the corner if only we push a little harder or if only a little more money is thrown at it. Unfortunately, it's not that easy.

 

[NW-Bound]

The huge batteries that Tesla has installed so far are only sufficient to provide additional power for short periods to alleviate peak demand. They don't last very long as the main source of power. It's more like a UPS that people use to keep their PC alive long enough to do an orderly shutdown. They are useful, yes, but nowhere as powerful as people think.


In July 2019, there was this announcement:

Tesla announced a new massive battery today called Megapack that could replace so-called “peaker” power plants, which provide energy when a local electrical grid gets overloaded. Tesla says that Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) will deploy several Megapacks at Moss Landing on Monterrey Bay in California, which is one of four locations where the California utility plans to install more cost-effective energy storage solutions.

Each Megapack can store up to 3 megawatt hours (MWh) of energy at a time, and it’s possible to string enough Megapacks together to create a battery with more than 1 GWh of energy storage, Tesla says. The company says this would be enough energy to power “every home in San Francisco for six hours.”

So, 333 Megapacks will provide 1 GWh, and that can power SF for 6 hours?

I decided to double check, and here's what I found:

According to PG&E spokesman Joe Molica, the city of San Francisco consumes about 18,000 megawatt hours of electricity each day. One megawatt hour powers about 750 homes in California (Jan 2011)

That's 18 GWh in 24 hours. Tesla is way off when it claims 1 GWh keeps SF going for 6 hours. Maybe by turning everything off, and just keep the lights on.

PS. I believe there's an error in the above quote, regarding 1MWh powering 750 homes. It should read 1MW, meaning a home usage averages out to 1.33 kW. Laymen and reporters often confuse watt-hour and watt.

 

[NW-Bound]

Something about the two above quotes bothered me. They are so far apart that there's something missing, and I need to look further.

About 333 Tesla Megapacks which store a total of 1 GWh that can power every home in SF for 6 hours, I verified that indeed Tesla claims that on its Web site:

... We took everything we know about battery technology to enable the world's largest energy projects. A 1 Gigawatt hour (GWh) project provides record energy capacity—enough to power every home in San Francisco for 6 hours.

How to reconcile with the number from PG&E that SF used 18 GWh/day in 2011?

Ah, pay attention, and you see that Tesla says "every home". Tesla does not include non-residential usage!

OK, back to the Web I go for some numbers. And here they are:

In 2014, residential usage: 1,187 GWh
In 2014, non-residential usage: 2,904 GWh.

When added together, the total usage is 4,091 GWh. It is far less than the 18,000 GWh cited from another quote by PG&E. I suspect that the 18,000 GWh number includes some additional adjacent cities, such as Daly City, South San Francisco, Oakland, etc...

The source that provides the number of 1,187 GWh even breaks that down to the ZIP codes, and looks more trustworthy.

So, let's take the residential number of 1,187 GWh, and divide that into 365 days and we have 3.25 GWh/day for "residential usage" inside the San Francisco city proper.

Now, the 1 GWh capacity can certainly last 6 hours, but for San Francisco city homes alone. No businesses, and certainly no adjacent cities.

Tesla does not lie. However, one must read every claim very carefully to know what it means. Do not jump to conclusions, or make extrapolations.

Sources:
https://www.tesla.com/megapack
https://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/2

 

[pj.mask]

I didn’t say anything about solar power improvements - even at 100% efficient panels, I still don’t feel that still will generate enough energy to make it worthwhile to put on a car. I did read the posts, that’s why it took me so long to post.

From a quick search, battery energy storage density doubled in the last 30 years. That is simply with lithium ion. A breakthrough with a new material or matrix (talk of carbon nano tubes) could give a similar increase over current technology that Li has at time of release (of ~35%). I am sure there is funding, but I haven’t seen funding/research in amounts that would be appropriate for a global emergency.

Not only that but the number of charge cycles before degradation has improved massively. While we have researched batteries for a long time, there were competing technologies (why have a battery when you can fire up a generator?) that push use towards the cheaper/easier option.

I totally agree that what we currently have can’t get us to 100% renewable. A (2x) power wall (2016 name brand product) for about $12k installed (before tax credits of up to 30%) provided 27kWh, considering our house of 5 uses 700-2,000 kWh per month (occupied 24/7) that is 10-27h of electricity.

If storage is worked out, an excess capacity of generation can refill stored energy used when production is low and be used to run intermittent processes. I doubt we will stop using carbon based energy - putting excess electricity into intermittent CO2 removal could be a solution.

I’m optimistic about our scientific capabilities 20 years from now. Less optimistic about the emotional decisions we will make along that path focused on ourselves vs society as a whole.

 

[ERD50]

I didn’t say anything about solar power improvements - even at 100% efficient panels, I still don’t feel that still will generate enough energy to make it worthwhile to put on a car. I did read the posts, that’s why it took me so long to post. ...

That was just an example of why we can't expect improvements like we saw from the early airplanes, autos, computers, etc. First, there are laws of physics involved, and second, most of these technologies are actually pretty far along in their development. We can make some small incremental improvements, but we can't make order of magnitude improvements, like the subjects you used for comparison. There just isn't that much to be had.

.... From a quick search, battery energy storage density doubled in the last 30 years. That is simply with lithium ion. A breakthrough with a new material or matrix (talk of carbon nano tubes) could give a similar increase over current technology that Li has at time of release (of ~35%). I am sure there is funding, but I haven’t seen funding/research in amounts that would be appropriate for a global emergency.

Not only that but the number of charge cycles before degradation has improved massively. While we have researched batteries for a long time, there were competing technologies (why have a battery when you can fire up a generator?) that push use towards the cheaper/easier option. ...

Hopefully something like carbon nano tubes will bring some big improvements. I doubt that lack of funding is a big issue. There is plenty of motivation for better batteries, everything from cell phones and laptops and EVs to very short term grid storage (seconds, minutes), to military uses. There's a lot of money in making portable devices smaller, lighter, cheaper, with longer life on a charge.

.... I’m optimistic about our scientific capabilities 20 years from now.. ...

I'm optimistic too, but some people in this thread expect the scientists to just will their way past the laws of physics. And it's easy to get intoxicated on all these breathless articles about "breakthrough" technologies, but they seldom get out of the lab. Some will, and we will continue to see improvements. Hopefully even some breakthroughs, but those are few and far between.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what breakthroughs have we had in energy in the last 50 years? Nuclear was one, but there were commercial nuclear plants in operation more than 50 years ago. And they never did meet the "too cheap to meter" predictions. I'd call LEDs a breakthrough, solid state, long life, little heat, but those went commercial over 50 years ago too. Maybe we could call the Ni-Cad, NIMH and Lion battery technologies as breakthrough - these materials were not in use, and are much better in some ways. But it took a long time for them to mature, and over that time, maybe one order of magnitude better than what they replaced? Solar PV? OK, but that's also been a long slog.

Did I miss anything big? My point is, 50 years is a long time, yet, we should not expect big changes in such fundamental areas.

We have a pretty good understanding of where current tech can go. I've even seen some analysis of the theoretical limits of batteries - I'm no good at chemistry, but there is something about the size/density of a molecule and how much energy it could store, and as I recall, the theoretical limit was high, but not ground-shaking. And then you need to add in the realities of actually packaging it in something, adding heavy conductors to get that power out, heat management, etc... and that takes up space/weight.


If scientists come up with some previously unknown technology, we can re-evaluate at that time. But don't hold your breath.

.... Less optimistic about the emotional decisions we will make along that path focused on ourselves vs society as a whole. .

I'm afraid that the emotional decisions we will make along that path will be counterproductive. Like the emotional people who fought nukes back in the 70s and 80s. And the emotional people who want to waste our time and resources to support ideas that simply can't bear fruit, but make them feel better because they ar "doing something". But that something is distracting from real progress. Look at the money that has been dumped into "Solar Roadways", when any cursory analysis shows there is no merit to it, and there are far better uses for that money. A real waste, and an opportunity cost. A real shame.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I talked about San Francisco residential electricity usage earlier, and that a 1 GWh battery storage can keep the homes, not the businesses there, going for 6 hours.

But how is SF compared to other places? As usual, the Web has the answer. Following are some other California places for comparison.

For July 2017, here is the average household consumption for 1 month:

San Francisco: 278 kWh (9 kWh/day)
San Diego: 564 kWh (19 kWh/day)
Fresno: 1226 kWh (41 kWh/day)

Source: https://sites.energycenter.org/equinox/dashboard/residential-electricity-consumption

Obviously, the need for air conditioning drives the high electricity usage in many cities, while SF is in cool climate and most homes there have no AC anyway.

Here in Phoenix where the high temperature reaches 120F and above, and the low temperature is in the 90F in the early morning, the AC runs constantly and I burned 2550 kWh in August 2018. And my utility company says that I use about 80% of the average for a home of the same size.

Thank goodness, this year in August I used only 1330 kWh due to the DIY solar+storage system, which allowed me to run a 1.5-ton minisplit for free (the main AC ran much less frequently). The 5.5kW solar array produced only about 700 kWh in that month, and the savings of 1220 kWh also comes from the efficiency of the minisplit, plus it only cools the downstairs living space (we are empty nesters, and the 5 rooms upstairs are unoccupied).

... I totally agree that what we currently have can’t get us to 100% renewable. A (2x) power wall (2016 name brand product) for about $12k installed (before tax credits of up to 30%) provided 27kWh, considering our house of 5 uses 700-2,000 kWh per month (occupied 24/7) that is 10-27h of electricity...

From what I read, the installed cost adds quite a bit to what they quote for just the battery.

For the Tesla Powerwall, this is what I found on the Web (for just one Powerwall storing 13.5 kWh).

The list price for a new Tesla Powerwall 2.0 battery, which offers twice the storage capacity of the original Powerwall, is $6,700. Supporting hardware adds another $1,100 to the equipment costs, bringing the total to $7,800. Installation can add anywhere from $2,000 to $8,000 to the final bill...

I would need 4 of these Powerwalls to make it through a summer night. My DIY battery is 22 kWh, and ran out of juice some time in the night.

And I need 3x to 4x the number of solar panels I currently have (20 panels), in order to generate enough to use during the day and to have extra to charge the battery for night use. I don't have enough roof area for so many panels.

As mentioned earlier, living totally off solar power is feasible in the Southwest. It takes a bit of money, plus some land area for a personal solar farm, but is completely doable with the current technology. If I want to get an EV and to charge it too, I think it is still doable if I have a 1-acre lot.

 

[pj.mask]

I don’t know if individual generation is where we should be going but if I look 50 years ago we didn’t have solar or windmill farms. If we can generate large amounts of electricity from these nearby facilities and store excess in an efficient way (don’t want to get into complications of hydrogen blisters, but I know fuel cells were touted in the past) - certainly there are better uses for money than ethanol production using diesel tractors.

I don’t disagree with any of your comments but I think we can get there. I think time is a critical factor in development, not just money and brain power. Time for new/old minds to contemplate different angles.

Lots of the posts seem focused on how can we make new technology so that with current utilization we will have our energy needs met. I don’t see a reason why we shouldn’t maximize use of current technology (more wind/solar/etc) now to reduce carbon consumption.

I’m sure we spend a lot of money on battery research but I would guess it pails in comparison to how much we spend on other things for political posturing.

 

[NW-Bound]

I am doing a home system for fun. It saves about 1/2 of my electricity cost. It will take 10 years to pay back, using a very simple calculation that does not take into account opportunity cost of the money, nor the unknown maintenance and wear-and-tear during those 10 years.

I do not believe individual generation is the solution, although it may help in places like California or Hawaii because the price of electricity is high. Massive solar farms and windmills are the way to go, as they are installed and managed by experts, and can keep the cost lower than piecemeal home installations.

What I and some others worry about is the drumbeat of removing existing power plants, without showing there is yet anything to replace them in order to have power 24/7/365.

It would be another matter if green energy proponents could convince the populace to cooperate, and to reduce their power consumption when demand exceeds supply. Are people willing to turn off their AC in the peak of summer where there's not enough electricity, or to shiver in their cold and dark apartments on days when solar and wind power generation drops to a fraction of their normal outputs?

Until we find a way to store energy cheaply, we have to keep the existing power plants, even if they are kept idle most of the time, while we build more RE plants. That means a higher cost of electricity, but people falsely claim that it will be cheaper. That is an outrageous lie.

 

[Totoro]

That was just an example of why we can't expect improvements like we saw from the early airplanes, autos, computers, etc. First, there are laws of physics involved, and second, most of these technologies are actually pretty far along in their development. We can make some small incremental improvements, but we can't make order of magnitude improvements, like the subjects you used for comparison. There just isn't that much to be had. ERD50

We are making order of magnitude improvements in economics, which I believe is on par with early airplanes and cars. Solar panels keep dropping at ~7% per year in cost, batteries are dropping in price currently at nearly 15%. That's halving every 5 years.

Maybe I'm missing something, but what breakthroughs have we had in energy in the last 50 years? Nuclear was one, but there were commercial nuclear plants in operation more than 50 years ago. -ERD50

I think your definition of breakthrough is a bit off. We had steam engines in the 1700s. That doesn't diminish the breakthrough that cars had in early 1900s. The difference was ubiquity because we figured out how to do it cheap and reliable with gasoline.

The big breakthrough is making solar and wind power is now cheaper than using existing oil, coal and gas. It's now your first option when available.

The next breakthrough is getting battery costs low enough so ICE cars will no longer be able to compete. This will happen in the next 10 years. After that it is to function for bridging up to 24 hours.

Reducing large amounts of demand of oil, coal and gas because it is no longer economical is a breakthrough in my book.

 

[ERD50]

We are making order of magnitude improvements in economics, which I believe is on par with early airplanes and cars. Solar panels keep dropping at ~7% per year in cost, batteries are dropping in price currently at nearly 15%. That's halving every 5 years. ...

This source shows that even the most optimistic estimates of battery storage costs don't meet your projection of halving every 5 years. They are not at 0.25x cost in 10 years. The most optimistic are close, but then flatten out, in the best case, another 20 years to halve again, in the median case, looks more like a 25% reduction in 20 years, a halving isn't even on their chart. I won't even bother with the high estimates (and BTW, "order of magnitude" is a 10x change, not halving).

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73222.pdf

But I'll be generous, let's take their optimistic case where storage batteries have reached a $124/kWh cost in 2030. Show us what it would take to provide stable power if we were in a position that would be similar to the reports from Germany. They had days of 77% RE, and days of only 4% RE on other days. For easy math, and being generous, let's round up to 100% days, and 10% days.

Please show your work.

It's great that solar PV is coming down in price. I didn't find a reliable source for a similar projection as easily, so I'll leave that to you. Regardless, as we try to approach 100% RE, the subject of this thread, then you have to add the cost of long-term back-up (100% overnight, maybe 90% for days, weeks?) to the price of solar.

... I think your definition of breakthrough is a bit off. We had steam engines in the 1700s. That doesn't diminish the breakthrough that cars had in early 1900s. The difference was ubiquity because we figured out how to do it cheap and reliable with gasoline.

The big breakthrough is making solar and wind power is now cheaper than using existing oil, coal and gas. It's now your first option when available. ... .

I don't follow your steam to gasoline comment.

But as I just mentioned, solar and wind power is not cheaper when you have to take into account backup for it. It's misleading and dangerous to remove that context.

... The next breakthrough is getting battery costs low enough so ICE cars will no longer be able to compete. This will happen in the next 10 years. After that it is to function for bridging up to 24 hours.

Reducing large amounts of demand of oil, coal and gas because it is no longer economical is a breakthrough in my book.

So if BEV are competitive to ICE/hybrid in 10 years, where will we get all this electricity from? We are not even close to having a plan for 100% RE for our electrical grid, adding the demand of a fleet of EVs makes it that much harder.

And it stands to reason, if we create all this demand for electricity, that kWh prices will increase, and the lack of demand for gasoline will drive gasoline prices down. That will make it increasingly difficult for BEV to compete on $. Beware the static model!

-ERD50

 

[Totoro]

But I'll be generous, let's take their optimistic case where storage batteries have reached a $124/kWh cost in 2030. -ERD50

Let's take reality instead: storage batteries are already at that price level for grid level applications, or soon will be. Page 19 of this report for example:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf

Page 22 has some cost decrease outlooks for various battery types.On solar panels, good stats and overview here:

At minute 34 you have a few stats and outlook for 2030. For batteries it's -70% by then. Not quite a halving every 5 years there, but every 8 to 10.

Show us what it would take to provide stable power if we were in a position that would be similar to the reports from Germany. They had days of 77% RE, and days of only 4% RE on other days. For easy math, and being generous, let's round up to 100% days, and 10% days

Germany is part of the European supergrid, it makes no sense to evaluate it stand-alone. There's hydro, biomass and (yes) nuclear there.

It's great that solar PV is coming down in price. I didn't find a reliable source for a similar projection as easily, so I'll leave that to you.

Here's one. It's a bit outdated.
https://www.irena.org/publications/...lar-and-Wind-Cost-Reduction-Potential-to-2025

Lately costs forecasts for PV have been disappearing, I think because the focus has shifted to batteries. PV and renewables in general has become so cheap it is no longer a debate which one to build first.

So if BEV are competitive to ICE/hybrid in 10 years, where will we get all this electricity from? We are not even close to having a plan for 100% RE for our electrical grid, adding the demand of a fleet of EVs makes it that much harder.

Estimates I've seen vary, but the total electricity demand from going full electric in cars only push demand up by about 5%. This report is an example: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...of-electric-vehicles-on-global-energy-systems

Adding EVs actually can make it easier, depending on how the charging infrastructure is set up.

 

[ERD50]

Let's take reality instead: storage batteries are already at that price level for grid level applications, or soon will be. Page 19 of this report for example:
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf .. .

Thanks for the sources. I'll get to the rest of them later, but I need to point out on the first one that I looked at, those are not the same numbers being compared. Their numbers are lifetime costs for MWh produced over their lifetimes, the numbers I posted are purchase price per kWh capacity (not lifetime production). They might still be informative, but they can't be compared, they are different measures. (I'm also assuming you mean the 19th page of the pdf, not the page numbers on the pages of the pdf).

... Germany is part of the European supergrid, it makes no sense to evaluate it stand-alone. ...

OK, but then it also makes no sense to say Germany managed 77% RE for a day, because they are part of a larger grid (and I do think that is the way it should be viewed, but it doesn't make a good headline). So what % of the larger grid was RE on that day?

It doesn't change the overall discussion though, if we look at the US, it's not better for one state to be 100% RE if it can't do it w/o the extended grid of other states - it's the average of the entire connected grids that matters.

... Lately costs forecasts for PV have been disappearing, I think because the focus has shifted to batteries. PV and renewables in general has become so cheap it is no longer a debate which one to build first. ....

Or is it because the curves for PV are flattening and are down far enough that the cost of labor and materials for installation, inverters, inspections, permitting, etc are now a large part of the total, flat, rising, or maybe just not dropping much? Again, I don't think RE is so cheap when you factor in storage and/or fossil/nuke backup.

... Estimates I've seen vary, but the total electricity demand from going full electric in cars only push demand up by about 5%. This report is an example: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries...of-electric-vehicles-on-global-energy-systems

Adding EVs actually can make it easier, depending on how the charging infrastructure is set up.

Well, 5% is another 5% that needs to be supplied. That a lot of GWhrs per year. And fi we aren't at 105% RE on the grid, and available when those cars need to charge, it needs to come from fossil/nukes. EVs don't help getting to a 100% RE grid, they hurt.

I think the idea that EVs will provide storage for the grid is largely a pipe dream. Auto batteries will always be the most expensive form, they need to be light, safe in a crash, etc. The extra cycles will degrade those expensive batteries. People don't want to buy extra to stabilize the grid. There is some opportunity there with smart predictive algorithms, I just don't think it amounts to much.

I'll look more deeply into your other sources a bit later, but I wanted to comment on what I could for now.

-ERD50

 

[morriss003]

The draw on the grid is actually less than it was 10 years ago, making upgrades to the grid less urgent. We are in the infancy of energy storage, comparable to the IBM XT in the infancy of computing. Just as the microprocessor changed the world of communications, energy storage will change the need for a wide spread grid. My guess is that several technologies, including wind, solar, and fuel cells will significantly replace fossil fuels but not completely eliminate them. There is no technological reason why coal cannot be made clean, but the cost of mining will outweigh the profits that can be made compared to profits that can be earned using other techs. So while coal can still be clean and profitable, it cannot be clean and competitive with newer energy producing tech. The profits from coal will not be enough to encourage investment.

 

[ERD50]

Actually, looking closer, my source was far more favorable than yours. My source, figure ES-2 of https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/73222.pdf gives ~ $380/kWh at present for batteries.

Your source, going to their $/kWh on p 21 of the pdf ( their labeled page 13) shows ~ $1500/kWh. Maybe this includes installation and support equipment?

https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/lazards-levelized-cost-of-storage-version-40-vfinal.pdf

Either way, I'd still like to see your cost estimates for supporting several consecutive days of 10% RE on a grid that can supply 100% RE on other days.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

.... We are in the infancy of energy storage, comparable to the IBM XT in the infancy of computing. Just as the microprocessor changed the world of communications, energy storage will change the need for a wide spread grid. .. .

This is getting old. No, it doesn't work that way. We've covered it several times in this thread.

So if you think that's possible, show me the numbers. Show me some measure, like $/MFLOP or something. Now show me anyone who has any feasible plan for those sorts of improvements in energy storage (not just wishes)

Let's not forget, Moore (of Moore's law) understood and observed the doubling of transistor per area every 18 months. No one of credibility is predicting storage improvements of a doubling every 18 months. Not even close. And we are much closer to the physical limits and laws of physics limits of storage today, then we were to the limits of computers back in the XT days. Moore himself pointed out the fallacy of this comparison.

And the IBM XT came out 40 years ago. We had batteries, and pumped storage. and compressed air, and thermal, and flywheels back then. Why haven't they improved at the same level as computers in the past 40 years? See above.

-ERD50