Why Solar & Wind won't be viable anytime soon?

[GregLee]

It seems to me that Hawaii, like Iceland, with all the volcanic activity would be a good place for geothermal energy. Is it being tried there?

Yes. A search on "Hawaii geothermal" turned up this:

Since Ormat Technologies, Inc. acquired Puna Geothermal Venture (PGV) in 2004, the facility has undergone a $32 million enhancement, returning the plant’s generating capacity to 30 megawatts (MW) and getting it ready for additional production. PGV saves the Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) more than 144,000 barrels of imported oil a year, providing electricity for about 30,000 Big Island residents and visitors.
Hawaii Renewable & Alternative Energy - Geothermal Hawaii

 

[Brat]

Some of us who live near the ocean are interested in seeing if tidal/wave energy can be utilized.. there are a couple demonstration projects proposed to see if it is viable. Personally I wonder about the corrosive effect of salt water, but...

 

[rockyj]

The central question was/is what do we do when wind and solar are NOT generating? I wasn't trying to say wind & solar can't augment power generation, but I don't see how they can ever come anywhere near eliminating conventional sources and it may be a very long time before they are at all competitive (more so with solar) with conventional sources. Batteries are at least generations away it seems...but technology may surprise us all.

I don't think that anyone is arguing for a wholesale replacement of conventional sources with either wind or solar, certainly not anytime soon. Most proponents call for an incremental approach to a more diversified energy portfolio that includes a higher percentage of renewables. Wind and solar represent a small position now, but their use *is* expanding, significantly in many places.

Re: the "when they are not generating" issue. Most of what I see discussed in this regard has to do with diversification of sources (both technology and geography), with load balancing via smart grid and variable capacity from conventional sources. Such diversification helps in ways like: 1) some places are fairly consistently windy or sunny or both, 2) for more intermittent places, when it is not sunny/windy in one location, it's likely to be sunny/windy in another location on the grid, 3) it does not have to be "sunny" for photovoltaic systems to produce electricity, they can produce usable, but reduced, levels of power during overcast periods, 4) places/times when it's rather predictably sunny (think Florida in summer) often correspond with peak demand periods (think air conditioning), 5) use your imagination.

Better grid/load balancing as more intermittent sources come on line may indeed require significant technology improvements, but so will advancing clean coal, next gen nuclear, etc. I believe today's engineers are up to the task.

Cost per unit of power still is problematic (more so for photovoltaics), though apparently not insurmountable, given the amount of new capacity that comes on line each year. For now it may indeed be "economically noncompetitive but still worthwhile thanks to transfer payments from other ratepayers/taxpayers" (as Samclem opined above). But teasing out the overall costs, subsidies (direct and indirect), tax incentives, costs to society, environment, etc., is exceedingly difficult and subjective for these things, as already noted by others. From my perspective, the long term benefits far outweigh the comparatively small cost to help foster these industries. Or perhaps we can save our subsidy bucks now and just buy it all from the Chinese in a few years. In any event unit costs *are* trending down and I think it's a reasonable assumption that they will continue to do so as economies of scale, new developments in materials, etc., come to fruition.

 

[Earworms]

I'm using both every day.

I didn't get a chance to read all the articles, so my comments may not be entirely germane.

Kyocera solar panels and an Airx generator supply most of the electrical power here. The wind generator is sweetly humming right now in fact. A battery bank seems to do ok. Diesel supplies the rest.

Granted, our electrical use is not the same as a traditional house. Most houses don't have R/O watermakers.

There are many houses around outlying island areas that use wind and solar. Sure, it's not perfect. But I wouldn't do without it.

 

[travelover]

I didn't get a chance to read all the articles, so my comments may not be entirely germane.

Kyocera solar panels and an Airx generator supply most of the electrical power here. The wind generator is sweetly humming right now in fact. A battery bank seems to do ok. Diesel supplies the rest.

Granted, our electrical use is not the same as a traditional house. Most houses don't have R/O watermakers.

There are many houses around outlying island areas that use wind and solar. Sure, it's not perfect. But I wouldn't do without it.

Welcome to the forum. Tell us more about "here".

 

[Earworms]

Thanks for the welcome.

"Here" is my sailboat, currently in the Bay Islands of Honduras. Many (or most?) cruising sailboats use solar and wind as primary power sources with diesel generators or their engine as back up. I did recently meet a very happy family with three kids on a thirty-something ft boat with no generator or even any battery bank at all.

It can be a bit of a pain to keep all the systems going, sure beats warm beer.

 

[Brat]

"High cost of solar"... I remember the same assessment of the cost of personal computers in the 70s.

The sailing community is resourceful (some call them cheap) if they can accomplish power generation via wind and solar primarilly for personal use so can we. The peak need is usually during the day.

 

[ERD50]

"High cost of solar"... I remember the same assessment of the cost of personal computers in the 70s.

If you read through some of the old threads, you'll see why that comparison is invalid.

clifp even mentioned that he heard Andy Grove say it was not a good comparison also.

edit - here's the link:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27/bloom-box-48867.html#post912038

further edit: I just noticed that old post was right after a post by you! It's still true, no matter how much you don't care to believe it!



-ERD50

 

[Midpack]

"High cost of solar"... I remember the same assessment of the cost of personal computers in the 70s.

PV solar has been around for 30 or 40 years and the economics are still orders of magnitude more costly. You and I can find data/charts that are better or worse, but I sure can't find one that shows PV solar as remotely competitive with conventional or even wind...hence my statement.

We may be forced (actually I support same) to add alternative energy sources, but they will only add cost unless wind, solar, or any other source can be driven down to less than the cost/kwh of conventional fuels (not total capital, just fuel alone).

And rockyj there are indeed posters here in many threads over the years who toss around solar and wind as the solution to our energy issues, with no qualifying statements whatsover or acknowledgement of the capital or unit costs...

 

[FUEGO]

The sailing community is resourceful (some call them cheap) if they can accomplish power generation via wind and solar primarilly for personal use so can we. The peak need is usually during the day.

I think if we all agreed to live in 150-200 sf of living space and go without some accommodations like air conditioning, then we could probably solve our energy needs today with some combination of existing green tech. Oh yeah, and get rid of all those cars and just ride bikes everywhere. Demand side management, not supply.

In the meantime, people like nice stuff, big houses, cars, etc. They are convenient and comfortable.

 

[ziggy29]

In the meantime, people like nice stuff, big houses, cars, etc. They are convenient and comfortable.

True. The problem (IMO) is that we too often price essential, limited commodities on a "linear" scale where you charge the same amount per unit for everyone no matter how many units they use (or overuse). A gallon of gas may cost someone $4 whether it's the first gallon they've bought all month or it's the 100th gallon.

Every extra gallon of gas someone else chooses to use, for example, doesn't *only* raise their own gasoline cost in the terms of buying more gallons; it also raises the cost for everyone else by increasing the demand without increasing the corresponding supply. Even if I make "low footprint" choices, I still am paying more because of those who don't. So people who make these "resource guzzling" choices aren't doing so in a vacuum.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Earworm, welcome! Lots of us "armchair boating types" would love to see a "Hi I am" post whenever you get a chance. We didn't use any solar or wind on our small sailboat, and yes, the warm beer sucked. Sold it a few years ago and bought a slightly larger Marine Trader.

What I'm surprised by is how few trawler type boats use these sorts of power sources, which seem exclusively (at least in our area) to be used by the sailboaters.

Wind and solar are very viable for powering the stingy power requirements of boats.

 

[GregLee]

We may be forced (actually I support same) to add alternative energy sources, but they will only add cost unless wind, solar, or any other source can be driven down to less than the cost/kwh of conventional fuels (not total capital, just fuel alone).

I guess you mean the present cost of conventional fuel and not the cost at the time of adding the alternative sources?

 

[Nords]

True. The problem (IMO) is that we too often price essential, limited commodities on a "linear" scale where you charge the same amount per unit for everyone no matter how many units they use (or overuse). A gallon of gas may cost someone $4 whether it's the first gallon they've bought all month or it's the 100th gallon.
Every extra gallon of gas someone else chooses to use, for example, doesn't *only* raise their own gasoline cost in the terms of buying more gallons; it also raises the cost for everyone else by increasing the demand without increasing the corresponding supply. Even if I make "low footprint" choices, I still am paying more because of those who don't. So people who make these "resource guzzling" choices aren't doing so in a vacuum.

Whatever happened to "I lose a little on each gallon but I make it up on volume"?

 

[Gone4Good]

You and I can find data/charts that are better or worse, but I sure can't find one that shows PV solar as remotely competitive with conventional or even wind...hence my statement.

Did the chart on the right also come from EIA? Because EIA is a good source, but those numbers look funny to me. The construction cost for nuclear looks way too low, as does the same for coal (unless they're talking about amortization on fully depleated existing plant, but that doesn't say anything about the economics of new-build facilities, which is what we're talking about here). Fuel costs for gas look really high at current gas prices as does construction costs (at least relative to coal & nuclear). And I don't really understand the large production cost for wind. The marginal production cost is pretty close to zero.

Not a big deal, I agree with your point - solar is very expensive.

But something to consider about your larger question: Wind and solar are counter-cyclical with each other. Wind produces the most at night and solar produces the most during the day. Even though each is 'intermittent' they can work together to generate more reliable power. The big challenge (aside from cost) is moving power from the remote areas where wind and solar resources are greatest to load centers which tend not to be in the middle of the desert or windy plains. Upgraded transmission would go a long way, but that too is expensive and difficult to build.

 

[M Paquette]

And I don't really understand the large production cost for wind. The marginal production cost is pretty close to zero.

Lots of turbines. Lots and lots of turbines. All running under varying wind loading, in fancy gearbox assemblies that need to be steered into the wind, with more gearing to adjust blade pitch with wind speed. Then figure on around 1% of the blades breaking each year. Then there are the new roads, and buried cabling and control systems.

It's more labor-intensive to maintain than a big coal plant with a relatively few huge generators just sitting on the ground.

The Shiloh II development near me has 75 of the REpower MM92 turbines. That's a 92 meter rotor diameter, just over 300 feet across. They put in 40 miles of trenches for the underground wiring, and 21 miles of road. That all has to be maintained.

 

[samclem]

The big challenge (aside from cost) is moving power from the remote areas where wind and solar resources are greatest to load centers which tend not to be in the middle of the desert or windy plains.

I see a cartel coming. Once OWEC (Organization of Windpower Exporting Counties) is operational, the coasts will beg America's heartland for a few more watts. And the price will be high!! Bwa-ha-ha! The map below tells the tale--remember that available wind power is a function of the square of the wind speed: A turbine in those purple 9 m/s areas will crank out 4 times the energy of an identical turbine in the puny green 4.5 m/s areas. Add this to the lower (for now!) land costs in the wind belt and likely greater acceptance of the presence of turbines by the locals and we can see how things are gonna be. The flyover states will have the last laugh while the pitiful denizens of the right and left coasts are forced to whip their lattes by hand.

(I think if you zoom in you can see a very localized windy spot over DC)

 

[Gone4Good]

It's more labor-intensive to maintain than a big coal plant

Understood. But $30 / Mwh (eyeballed from the chart) is an enormous amount of money for that.

 

[Gone4Good]

I see a cartel coming. Once OWEC (Organization of Windpower Exporting Counties) is operational, the coasts will beg America's heartland for a few more watts. And the price will be high!! Bwa-ha-ha! The map below tells the tale--remember that available wind power is a function of the square of the wind speed: A turbine in those purple 9 m/s areas will crank out 4 times the energy of an identical turbine in the puny green 4.5 m/s areas. Add this to the lower (for now!) land costs in the wind belt and likely greater acceptance of the presence of turbines by the locals and we can see how things are gonna be. The flyover states will have the last laugh while the pitiful denizens of the right and left coasts are forced to whip their lattes by hand.

 

[Nords]

I see a cartel coming.

I was actually toying with the idea of a vertical-axis turbine until a local high-school student's science project used that chart and a data recorder to show that it'd be a waste of time. Oh, it'd work, but the money would produce more power if spent on photovoltaics.

But you can only grow so much in South Dakota. I bet more than one Native American tribal council has debated roofing their casinos with turbines.

 

[rockyj]

And rockyj there are indeed posters here in many threads over the years who toss around solar and wind as the solution to our energy issues, with no qualifying statements whatsover or acknowledgement of the capital or unit costs...

Shame on them.

 

[Nodak]

I see a cartel coming. Once OWEC (Organization of Windpower Exporting Counties) is operational, the coasts will beg America's heartland for a few more watts. And the price will be high!! Bwa-ha-ha! The map below tells the tale--remember that available wind power is a function of the square of the wind speed: A turbine in those purple 9 m/s areas will crank out 4 times the energy of an identical turbine in the puny green 4.5 m/s areas. Add this to the lower (for now!) land costs in the wind belt and likely greater acceptance of the presence of turbines by the locals and we can see how things are gonna be. The flyover states will have the last laugh while the pitiful denizens of the right and left coasts are forced to whip their lattes by hand.


(I think if you zoom in you can see a very localized windy spot over DC)

This map explains why a wind farm was put up about 35 miles west of my home. There is a tiny red area at that point. It required construction of about 50 miles of new power lines and supporting towers along with the roads and other things. There are about 120 generators in the farm.

 

[rockyj]

The big challenge (aside from cost) is moving power from the remote areas where wind and solar resources are greatest to load centers which tend not to be in the middle of the desert or windy plains. Upgraded transmission would go a long way, but that too is expensive and difficult to build.

Rooftop solar (either photovoltaic or thermal (e.g. hot water)) don't suffer from the new transmission lines problem, and can put any excess capacity back into the grid. I have no idea how well that approach scales compared with large arrays n the desert, for example. But my intuition tells me distributed rooftop sources may be more practical in the long run than large plant solutions.

Solar thermal home sources are different beasts in that the power only gets used at the source (as far as I know, you can't contribute excess thermal to provide community power on the grid). But it seems that collectively such units could put a significant dent in household energy demand in some areas. I remember standing on a hotel roof in Athens a couple of years ago. The area was densely built with five or six story apartment and hotel buildings as far as you could see. Virtually every building in sight had one or more rooftop solar hot water systems in place. From the feel of the sun on my head, I suspect that hot water wasn't a big problem in that neighborhood.

http://www.cpsolarthermal.com/applications/commercial-applications/

 

[Nords]

Rooftop solar (either photovoltaic or thermal (e.g. hot water)) don't suffer from the new transmission lines problem, and can put any excess capacity back into the grid. I have no idea how well that approach scales compared with large arrays n the desert, for example. But my intuition tells me distributed rooftop sources may be more practical in the long run than large plant solutions.

The U.S. finished building out a hard-wired telecom infrastructure before cell phones took off. Third-world countries had the luxury of skipping right over the hard-wiring phase and going straight to cell phones. That seems to be working well.

However the same hasn't happened for third-world electrical infrastructure, unless you count the number of "rich" homeowners with backyard fossil-fuel generators. It'll be interesting to see if photovoltaic tech does for electrical power what cell phones have done for telecom, but it may take another 20 years.

Until we invent a better battery (lead-acid's been the standard for over a century, don't hold your breath) then I think the problem with distributed power generation is sharing power by controlling grid voltage. It's technologically feasible but it's a whole 'nother type of infrastructure which has yet to be designed, let alone built. And nobody wants to pay for it.

But it seems that collectively such units could put a significant dent in household energy demand in some areas. I remember standing on a hotel roof in Athens a couple of years ago. The area was densely built with five or six story apartment and hotel buildings as far as you could see. Virtually every building in sight had one or more rooftop solar hot water systems in place. From the feel of the sun on my head, I suspect that hot water wasn't a big problem in that neighborhood.

Hawaii generates over one-third of its hot water from rooftop solar water collectors. It's finally been mandated for new construction. Homeowners retrofitting their existing homes get an immediate $750 rebate from HECO (which may soon rise again to $1500) and retrieve roughly another $4000 in state/federal tax credits. Payback is 3-8 years. Yet the reason people hold back is they claim to not have the money for the capex.

Solar thermal home sources are different beasts in that the power only gets used at the source (as far as I know, you can't contribute excess thermal to provide community power on the grid).

Sopogy sells a commercial parabolic reflective solar concentrator to heat oil for hot water, process steam, or even air conditioning. (M_Paquette and Gumby are smirking with pleasure at our rosy memories of the submarine force's steam-fed lithium-bromide air-conditioning technology.) In a demonstration plant on the Big Island, they cycle the hot oil through an insulated tank of salt to liquefy it, and then use that stored heat to run a CO2 version of a Stirling engine to generate electricity. By the end of the morning the tank has usually stored enough BTUs to run the electrical generator for an hour at full capacity. The generator is tied into HELCO's grid, who apparently really appreciate having the standby capacity immediately available-- just like a coal-fired or gas-turbine utility generator. Unlike all the photovoltaic panels scattered around the Big Island, Keahole can produce that standby power even after sundown.

Sopogy's pushing hard to shrink the Keahole plant down into a rooftop version for independent commercial or even residential air conditioning. The sunnier it gets, the more cooling it generates...

 

[GregLee]

Until we invent a better battery (lead-acid's been the standard for over a century, don't hold your breath) then I think the problem with distributed power generation is sharing power by controlling grid voltage.

In the MacKay book referred to by ERD50, it's proposed to put the batteries of electric cars on the grid, once we've converted away from gas. The batteries won't necessarily be that cheap, but we'll need lots of them, anyway.

Edit: The MacKay discussion begins here: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_194.shtml