Cheaper Solar Power Coming Soon

[velusip]

Was. Or, to be less succint, it experienced a period of significant growth with many new market participants. Some of which implemented aggressive pricing to secure market share. Not withstanding that, when speaking of "cost," we need to be clear about what we are talking about. Cost to consumer? Cost to manufacture?

Fact is, I think without a serious change, the cost to manufacture is as low (or near enough) as it will get. The Germans are already folding because they cannot compete with the Chinese panels. The rules of economics are only tangentially relevent in China, mind you.

Cost to consumer is another deal. If one removes the federal and state subsidies, and any cross-subsidy between retail electric customer classes, solar power is insanely expensive.

Right. That moment of maximum tangential change in cost efficiency (to produce) was at it's maximum rate between 2015 to 2017. That was breaking point which divides the trailblazers and the VCs. It's also when most subsidy programs expired (with good reason). Most the installers I know are still charging German prices (for German equipment) and trying desperately to get rid of their new-old stock, but the newer startups are entering the market at about 2/3 of the competition. So insanely expensive just became "not bad", and this will drop further as more and more assemblers use the new stuff:

Just to clarify, I'm mostly talking about cost to produce raw cells only. The other half of the cost in panel construction materials is fluctuating with the new blood entering the field, but the trend is not exactly downward yet. (high amp diodes, DC to DC regulators, transformers, and MC4 connectors, UV stabilized surfacing) As the demand for cheap solar spikes in the next few years, I'm sure it will be difficult to stay on top of sourcing these parts. Batteries are a wildcard because every lab technician and their mom seems to have a breakthrough improvement in the pipe evey 6 months, and I don't really consider it part of the cost since I've been working with strictly on-demand systems lately (no storage, direct to grid) and it works very well and reduces overall grid losses, making every nearby power plant more efficient. Just no night time help.

I've been purchasing raw cells for a number of years, and the cost I can secure now is just over $2 per 156mm mono, but has been as low as $1.70 last year (lucky buy). Cost is MUCH lower for poly (varies due to custom sizing), but they are too delicate, and finicky (needs a thermal vane). The monos are actually worth the much higher cost. Consider that just a short 6-8 years ago these were about $6 per cell, I'd say things are looking really good.

 

[Joust]

Good God, someone says the word, "solar" and the discussion falls into politics. In particular, it falls into politics that are unsubstantiated by fact. Power generation versus cost versus risk versus pollution versus grid versus human considerations is an engineering problem, not a political problem. The fact that it has become a political problem indicates that someone is using politicians and shady public relations to protect their income stream. And that is a criminal problem, not a political or engineering problem.

Every time I try to trace an argument about energy generation back to factual reality it always comes down two factors: corporate money or the environment. I can understand and even respect environmental concerns, especially since I think that all environmental concerns are engineering problems waiting to be conquered. If you are against wind generated electricity because it's an eyesore I can understand that, too. However, if you support gas or coal generated electricity over renewable power sources but can't provide a valid reason why, and have no monetary stake in those systems (that is, you don't receive an income or have investments in coal or gas energy, and do not have family members with income or investments in coal or gas energy), then you should realize you don't have a good basis to defend them over newer, renewable ideas.

Why would you care? It's illogical. If you have an emotional reaction that compels you to support the coal industry I urge you to seek counseling. I think if you soul search enough you'll find it's rooted in political (or religious) reasons, and that also means that you're a sap. You're a sucker. You're a patsy. You're a fool. You believe in the biggest fairy tale of all. You actually allowed someone to convince you that a poisonous, dirty, outdated method of generating electricity is both righteous and proper and should be encouraged, probably because your hated enemy (in this case, Democrats) said they're against it. How energy generation became a democrat vs. republican issue is beyond me, but when the 'liberals' announced they wanted to lower CO2 levels, corporate money immediately started to flow to the 'conservatives', and all this bullshit came alive. And I'm saying this as a true Republican, not some teabagger or conservative. And it shows that 'Murica is the land of sheep where freedom means that we're allowed a choice about which side gets to sheer us.

You are a failure at critical thinking. Your logic license should be taken away. As long as affordable and dependable electricity comes to your house you shouldn't care if people have ethical reasons for preferring one source over the other, and you should be glad that we have new methods to stop the unnecessary outgassing of CO2. If you think CO2 isn't a real problem you need to be locked in a cage on an ice flow in the arctic.

1. Don't tell me about subsidies to renewable energy. Both gas and coal get comparable or greater subsidies. Google it, and then weed out the PR fairy tales from the gas and coal industry.

2. Don't tell me that electric cars powered by coal power plants create as much pollution as ICE cars. Firstly, one of the goals of people making electric cars is to get rid of coal power plants, so the statement has a roundabout silliness to it, and secondly, the pollution created by extracting, shipping, refining, and shipping again creates as much as 40% of the pollution of actually burning the gasoline in an ICE engine, which, btw, still makes an equivalent pollution to an electric car running on power from a coal plant.

3. Don't tell me about the reliability of coal-fired plants, they're dirty, grossly mechanical and they require lots of maintenance. Caveat: The most dependable source of electricity is gas-fired steam plants.

Do I think wind and solar are the solution? No. And fusion isn't happening any time soon, and nuclear is risky and the waste is difficult to store. For myself, after sitting down and thinking and reading about it, it is my personal OPINION (just an opinion) that we should end all power subsidies, convert all coal plants to natural gas, and redirect the subsidy money into a doable five-year Apollo-style project - an automated, underground (below water table) thorium salt reactor. This would be simpler and more cost-effective than nuclear, it would be magnitudes safer, and the technology could be used on our nuclear vessels and for future space programs. Is it perfect? NO, but it's a good, manageable solution that solves a lot of problems, and we could do right now.

But that's just my opinion. And my opinion is based on the knowledge that I have collected, not on a bunch of windy bullshit from politicians, priests and big money PR agents.

P.S. I'm not an environmentalist. My hobby is restoring old cars, and I prefer both horsepower and old-school nasty paints. After I finish the '67 International Scout I'm working on now, I'm gonna do a 600HP '68 Coronet 500.

Even though I like muscle cars I'm still logical. I don't always admit it, but I recycle. I don't pour oil or paint down the drain. When I don't have to drive my parents around I use a small four-cylinder S-10 pickup. I'm not an environmentalist, but I'm not stupid, and I try to do what is logical and sensible.

I am agnostic as to generation source, and I do think there are environmental benefits - and there are some system benefits due to fuel source diversity. That is, a diverse mix of generation portfolio is healthy.

I am not political.

However, you seem very confident in some of your positions that, upon further investigation, you would find to be mistaken.

I do not have a stake in any energy company, but I am very interested in the most safe, reliable, and economic power system. As a society, we can decide that certain benefits or causes are worth the additional cost. For example, environmental regulation. I like my air to be clean. Water, too. I drink it on occasion. Does that make compliance costs go up? Yes. Is it worth it? To me, at the current level, yes.

Now, while you were clear about not wanting to hear things, let me suggest points of research.

1. Subsidies to solar power, $dollars per MWH generated is the appropriate metric. It is greater than any traditional generation type.

2. Check the lifecycle pollution of electric vehicles manufactured across the Pacific. Especially the mining process for rare earth minerals and sulphur from marine transportation. The transportation environmental cost is obviously applicable to all vehicles transported in this manner.

3. Check availability factors of any type of traditional power generation vs intermittent generators. Even a dirty coal plant, you would find, is available and generating far more on average than a solar plant. I'm not a fan of coal, but I do favor a diversity of fuel in the generation mix. It's far more robust that way.

4. Why people care about expensive system generation - ratemaking principles are at issue here. Everyone (probably) picks up additional cost. I can clarify if you want, but it is a detailed discussion.

I'm merely suggesting these to you if you care to learn more on the matter. Do with it what you will.

 

[86 5.0L]

7 cents per kwh? That makes no sense unless you're either a) leasing, or b) they count the entire life of the solar cell in which case 7 cents per kwh isn't really anything to write home about, you can easily find solar panels for $1/watt which means after about 14 years or so the net cost ends up being 7c per kwh. So ummm what's new again?

Labor to install is what absolutely kills solar power in most cases, if you are handy enough to do all the work yourself then it's great, if not, multiply your materials cost by 3

it is when certain PUCs charge $0.51/kwh

 

[Joust]

it is when certain PUCs charge $0.51/kwh

Hawaii, if you're in the US. Must be.

 

[86 5.0L]

Hawaii, if you're in the US. Must be.

oops, my bad, $0.55361/kwh

https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/1-1-18 Schedule DR Total Rates Table.pdf

 

[Joust]

oops, my bad, $0.55361/kwh

https://www.sdge.com/sites/default/files/regulatory/1-1-18 Schedule DR Total Rates Table.pdf

What's baseline? 1000 kwh? That's a very healthy graduated rate.

 

[86 5.0L]

What's baseline? 1000 kwh? That's a very healthy graduated rate.

thats in summer

Winter is 288kwh baseline

 

[Joust]

Well. Good thing you cats make that mad money. That's like 5x the national average.

...

I'd work remotely. From somewhere cheap(er). Like Manhattan.

 

[Nafensoriel]

and nuclear is risky and the waste is difficult to store.

Just wanted to state this is utterly and completely false. No political or religious leanings here either. I'm simply a scientist.
This has been the second biggest lie ever told to the world and the fact that it continues to exist is mindboggling. The total lack of understanding in how radiation and radioactivity works by the average person is the main reason followed by intentional governmental skewing of nuclear knowledge back when it was in a states best interest to muddy all knowledge about nuclear to protect their bomb projects.
Standing in a field outside is more dangerous statistically than a nuclear plant. Citing disasters is moot. I could cite every tornado and flood in the USA but that doesn't mean living above ground in tornado alley or on the Mississippi is relatively dangerous. Faults happen with anything.
Even when you have a meltdown the long-term risks are far less dangerous than people think. I've personally walked, without any shielding, around the chernobyl area to collect samples. There are hot spots sure. Usually, places where the dust(the dangerous part) could concentrate. A serious cleanup effort could render the area safe for humans. The only reason we don't clean it up is we don't need that space. It is easier and cheaper to move elsewhere.
Hell even nuclear waste stopped being an issue about.. oh 9 years ago. We can process most of it now. We just don't because it's cheaper to store in water baths(which incidentally pretty much end radiation issues).


I want to stress that solar and wind are important parts of a future energy strategy. So are coal and gas. Even when transitioning you have to consider the fact that there are just some places that don't have the capacity demands for nuclear, don't have the sun or wind for renewables, but have abundant access to coal. A plant or two isn't going to "wreck the planet" worldwide. All forms of power are viable when used properly and after all other considerations are calculated over political expediance.

Don't assume renewables are a magic pill either. Public engineers, for the most part, are not stupid. If there was a cheap and quick way to convert to renewables and they were viable for their cities and counties they'd be tendering projects as soon as they had the money. Regardless of where you stand in the environmental politics the engineering and scientific side understands that if it took 100 years to cause... it's not going to be fixed in 1 year. Physics do not work that way on a planetary scale. Making sacrifices and tightening a belt is all fine and good... but if you kill yourself in the process the end result is the same.

 

[seanreisk]

I am agnostic as to generation source, and I do think there are environmental benefits - and there are some system benefits due to fuel source diversity. That is, a diverse mix of generation portfolio is healthy. I am not political.

I doubt my rant was directed at you. And it was a rant - I do not stand on soapboxes, I throw them.

However, you seem very confident in some of your positions that, upon further investigation, you would find to be mistaken.

I should clarify another of my positions, because my rant is somewhat misleading - I don't really support solar energy. I think it's fine for household use and I don't mind people making room for it, but no one is projecting solar to be more than 20% of our power generation before 2040. No matter how much environmentalists love it, it doesn't have grunt.

1. Subsidies to solar power, $dollars per MWH generated is the appropriate metric. It is greater than any traditional generation type.

You'll still be correct, but let me make a few counterpoints:

1. A big chunk of solar subsidies are used for 'PV' Solar (Photo Voltaic, or solar panels), and that includes private homes or businesses. Since most of the electricity generated is consumed at the home/business it isn't counted as wattage generated. Apple's fancy new industrial center has a large solar presence, but it is not considered a power generator. The Apple ... Flying Saucer Of Glass, or whatever it is called, is merely noted for using less electricity from the grid. The DoE refuses to estimate locally held energy production as national production, although they do count local production as energy saving efforts.

2. Tax breaks that coal and oil receive are not subsidies, but they're real and they go back to the 70's during the first oil crisis. A hamburger bun isn't called a loaf of bread, but it still is bread.

3. The DoE paid at least 16% of the cost of manufacturing all those coal powered generators back in the 1990's. That's not a subsidy, though.

2. Check the lifecycle pollution of electric vehicles manufactured across the Pacific. Especially the mining process for rare earth minerals and sulphur from marine transportation. The transportation environmental cost is obviously applicable to all vehicles transported in this manner.

Careful, careful, careful! People love to use the 'pollutions caused by mining of rare earths for use in EV batteries' argument. This is a trap! ALL MINING for refined elements generates waste and slag, the steel in your car will cause more pollution than the batteries will. Ford makes a new pickup every 27 seconds, and the pollution from all metals used in the construction of that pickup will be greater than the pollution from building a Chevy Bolt or a Tesla Model S. Silver is actually one of the worst metals, it is always packed with lead and sulfur (see Bunker Hill). The real problem is a lack of Chinese regulatory control.

People may use the argument that an ICE car will pollute less than an EV car powered by a coal-fired generator. This is false. When you force that down their throat they may want to toss out the argument that making batteries is poisonous for the environment. Well, it is. But batteries are made to last 5+ years. They can be recycled, and although it doesn't make economic sense to do that yet, they can be stored until it does make economic sense. Finally, your ICE engine also uses oil for lubrication, which isn't part of the power cycle but it's still a heavy pollutant, and waste lubricant is either burned, poured onto the ground, used for tar solids, or just dumped into the sewer. Over the same 5 years it is a significant pollutant, which sort of offsets the pollution created by making the batteries. Like I said earlier, I like muscle cars, and years ago I didn't want EV cars to succeed, but I've learned to stop arguing against EV vehicles because it's pointless, their big negative is range anxiety.

3. Check availability factors of any type of traditional power generation vs intermittent generators. Even a dirty coal plant, you would find, is available and generating far more on average than a solar plant. I'm not a fan of coal, but I do favor a diversity of fuel in the generation mix. It's far more robust that way.

Agreed. But if you look at this chart, the rise of petroleum and natural gas vs the drop in coal generation is strictly from converting coal plants to petroleum or natural gas. Some of these plants even retain their ability to burn coal if needed.


P.S. My rant above wasn't really about energy generation, it was about people who argue topics for vague emotional reasons, like Christians arguing against evolution, or gun owners arguing against background checks, or fucking Fox News arguing against climate change, or people saying that it's improper to say "Merry Christmas". It doesn't pass muster with logical thought.

 

[Master_shake_]

Well, except the planet. But who cares about that, amirite? After all, Earth Day is over...

Hahahahahaha you serious?

The planet has withstood more damage than we can throw at it and you're worried about it?

My sides

 

[seanreisk]

Just wanted to state this is utterly and completely false. No political or religious leanings here either. I'm simply a scientist.

I would have been with you if you had added one caveat: "If the government would just allow us to modernize the nuclear infrastructure the same way we modernize our cars, we could have replaced all the older versions of nuclear power plants with newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants." I'm not against nuclear power per se - the small pocket nuclear plants they use on carriers and submarines are safe and pretty darned dependable. But don't bullshit me, the Romans thought Pompeii was safe until it wasn't, the hazard is real. Ask Japan. I'd really like it if they'd put in some new shit and tore some old shit down.

 

[sfsuphysics]

View attachment 69990

thats in summer

Winter is 288kwh baseline

Ouch... here in SF our baseline is about 210 kWh per month. But then the need for cooling is almost non-existent, although if you're living in Hawaii long term you need to not act like a spoiled mainlander or tourist and put ceiling fans in, not air conditioning, of course if you live in an apartment complex that likely is not as effective.

 

[sfsuphysics]

Hahahahahaha you serious?

The planet has withstood more damage than we can throw at it and you're worried about it?

My sides

Yes... over geological lifetimes the planet has done just fine. 65Myrs ago when a big asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs and created a massive climate change ? Yeah Earth don't give a fuck! Meanwhile the creatures existing during that cataclysm time don't live geological periods of time, so they are highly effected. Personally I'd like to not wait until we create a mass extinction of humanity and then the planet fixes itself when maybe 0.001% survived.

 

[Master_shake_]

Yes... over geological lifetimes the planet has done just fine. 65Myrs ago when a big asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs and created a massive climate change ? Yeah Earth don't give a fuck! Meanwhile the creatures existing during that cataclysm time don't live geological periods of time, so they are highly effected. Personally I'd like to not wait until we create a mass extinction of humanity and then the planet fixes itself when maybe 0.001% survived.

oh no save the fleas!

 

[86 5.0L]

Ouch... here in SF our baseline is about 210 kWh per month. But then the need for cooling is almost non-existent, although if you're living in Hawaii long term you need to not act like a spoiled mainlander or tourist and put ceiling fans in, not air conditioning, of course if you live in an apartment complex that likely is not as effective.

I live in southern Cali, and definitely have to use the AC in the summer months

 

[Nafensoriel]

I would have been with you if you had added one caveat: "If the government would just allow us to modernize the nuclear infrastructure the same way we modernize our cars, we could have replaced all the older versions of nuclear power plants with newer, safer, more efficient nuclear power plants." I'm not against nuclear power per se - the small pocket nuclear plants they use on carriers and submarines are safe and pretty darned dependable. But don't bullshit me, the Romans thought Pompeii was safe until it wasn't, the hazard is real. Ask Japan. I'd really like it if they'd put in some new shit and tore some old shit down.

This is, unfortunately, part of the problem I mentioned with people simply not understanding nuclear power. An old reactor is only "unsafe" and "inefficient" because newer models have made improvements. The average person hears this and suddenly thinks this means we should decommission every older power plant and rebuild them because technology has improved.

Trouble is that's not how it works in real life. In reality, every single reactor built is a prototype. There is no standardized design because lack of public interest has crippled our ability to transition to mass produced nuclear power. To build a reactor that can be proven to be safe, effective, cheap as dirt, and capable of handling current and future demands without expensive upgrades or loss of efficiencies we have to deal with a public which demonizes what is bluntly one of the safeist industries on the entire planet. A landscaper has more risk than a nuclear power plant. Yet we still have to fight to build them and deal with mountains of propaganda so absurd it cant even be considered funny.

Because of this, the perception of an older reactor as somehow bad or incapable of a retrofit to better technology is a current sticking point. America is a great example for this. The old 1970s era reactors are terrible next to candu6/9+ or other comparable reactors... but they are still more efficient and safer than coal or oil. Even compared to solar they actually often match real-world cost efficiencies. Wind is always the outlier because when it works it's more predictable and scalable. Even the waste products are not a concern due to the simple fact that it is disgustingly tiny. The entire worlds nuclear waste for even the old reactors over a thousand years would fit safely in a 1 cubic mile area. Good news is we don't really need to store it... If we actually had public support to build and fund reactors that actually consume waste products(and gain efficiency doing so).



Side note. Saying a nuclear submarines power plant is safe is a bad idea. It's safe in the way a buried bomb is safe. They won't explode typically but radioactive material release and limited detonations are considered acceptable. Military technology, in general, pushes performance boundaries but they are not designed for unmonitored safety. A grid level modern nuclear power plant left unattended will most likely self-scram before a meltdown. I've had friends refer to them as "barely controlled nuclear explosions in a can" for a reason.

 

[sfsuphysics]

I live in southern Cali, and definitely have to use the AC in the summer months

Ah, I thought you were referring to living in Hawaii... yeah in So Cal you're pretty much fucked without AC, unless you lived coastal like San Diego.

 

[Ranulfo]

Power generation versus cost versus risk versus pollution versus grid versus human considerations is an engineering problem, not a political problem. The fact that it has become a political problem indicates that someone is using politicians and shady public relations to protect their income stream.

Indeed and yet you would call me a nut job or emotional person for fighting back against politicians and so called scientists (paid off by various interests) who yell and scream about the environment or global warming/cooling/climate change as they tax me into oblivion to maintain their financial and political power.

P.S. My rant above wasn't really about energy generation, it was about people who argue topics for vague emotional reasons, like Christians arguing against evolution, or gun owners arguing against background checks, or fucking Fox News arguing against climate change, or people saying that it's improper to say "Merry Christmas". It doesn't pass muster with logical thought.

The fact that you cannot see the logic in your first two examples of so called vague emotional reasons proves your own lack of perspective and reliance on feelings, nothing more than feelings. What about the emotion surrounding gay marriage? Where is the evolutionary justification for that equivalency? Oh, no... lets just blame that bigotry on religion. Background checks on guns you say, do we get background checks on booze purchases or even better, voting registration?

 

[KarsusTG]

I don't think solar is ready yet. If you live in a city with no yard and just a time roof space you are not going to generate enough power to remove yourself from the grid... You just aren't. Even if I wanted to put a building on some land here in Texas and support a small building with an ac and a few servers folding for the [H]ord 24/7 it would take 10's of thousands of dollars to get there. And the first 2-3 day stretch of cloudy or rainy weather and you are toast.

To support an entire modern home, they just are not efficient enough to do it. Lets not even talk about batteries.

 

[Joust]

Trouble is that's not how it works in real life. In reality, every single reactor built is a prototype. There is no standardized design because lack of public interest has crippled our ability to transition to mass produced nuclear power.

...

A landscaper has more risk than a nuclear power plant.
...

Because of this, the perception of an older reactor as somehow bad or incapable of a retrofit to better technology is a current sticking point. America is a great example for this. The old 1970s era reactors are terrible next to candu6/9+ or other comparable reactors... but they are still more efficient and safer than coal or oil. Even compared to solar they actually often match real-world cost efficiencies.
....

Operating from my phone. Please excuse the shorthand quote. On the first point, to the extent that each reactor is unique, I agree. To the extent that there isn't a standardized design, I generally disagree. Westinghouse AP1000, for example.

Secondly, I agree your landscaper has a higher likelihood of an incident, but disagree as to the magnitude of potential harm. Fortunately, I also think modern reactors are very safe.

Third, most (maybe all) domestic commercial nukes that can be uprated economically have been.

Fourth. Cost.

I strongly support nuclear power, but as with all things, we must be candid about both its benefits, as well as difficulties.

 

[seanreisk]

Indeed and yet you would call me a nut job or emotional person for fighting back against politicians and so called scientists (paid off by various interests) who yell and scream about the environment or global warming/cooling/climate change as they tax me into oblivion to maintain their financial and political power.
The fact that you cannot see the logic in your first two examples of so called vague emotional reasons proves your own lack of perspective and reliance on feelings, nothing more than feelings. What about the emotion surrounding gay marriage? Where is the evolutionary justification for that equivalency? Oh, no... lets just blame that bigotry on religion. Background checks on guns you say, do we get background checks on booze purchases or even better, voting registration?

Thank you for being so elucidate.

P.S. And thank you for the, "I know you are, but what am I?" argument.

 

[travisty]

Okay, I'll try to help. Quoting your video: "This is an exponential technology that has seen an incredible plunge in prices." The context is exponential pricing, not exponential technology. He's just being a salesman and paraphrasing out of order. The tech is not the exponential factor. Wind turbines and PV cells yield linear returns relative to scale and have not improved in relative performance in many decades. However, the cost _is_ dropping at an exponential rate. That's what my wall of text was about. The distinction is important. It's also why your comparison to computing tech is not the appropirate comparison, which I also explained in my wall of text.

Battery tech still has lots of development potential, and demonstrates exponential performance gains over time. So that I can agree with.

"Basically."

It goes both ways. Moore's Law: "The number of transistors in a given area will double in 12/18/24 months at the same cost."
Another way to say it: "The price per transistor will be halved every 12/18/24 months."

So any technology in which the price halves for the same performance can be considered an exponential technology.

 

[Ranulfo]

Thank you for being so elucidate.

P.S. And thank you for the, "I know you are, but what am I?" argument.

You're quite welcome. One good turn deserves another.

 

[LZ_Xray]

Frequency regulation achieved by conventional generation is a drop in the bucket. Yes, you have to have spinning reserves for frequency regulation and extremely short term load changes, but that's usually what? A few CT's?

Heh, no. What conventional resources are required for frequency regulation depends on system inertia and forecast upreg, which is dependent largely on renewable commitment. As renewables penetrate, system inertia is dropping across the board. At this very second in my interconnection upreg commit is nearly 15,000 MW.

I've read the rest of your posts and you're pretty spot on though. I hope folks can eventually realize how their bulk power system actually works in order to even have the ability to make reasonable remarks regarding renewables. Ignorance is a mile deep here.

 

[sfsuphysics]

I don't think solar is ready yet. If you live in a city with no yard and just a time roof space you are not going to generate enough power to remove yourself from the grid... You just aren't.

It's not always about going off grid, in some areas that don't have super cheap electricity it absolutely can be worth it, like the guy above who lives in SoCal where price for electricity is 55cents per kWh if you hit 4 times the baseline, or even 1.3x baseline where it's 47cents per kWh and on hot days with AC and your baseline is 321kWh per month that absolutely is possible. Well in those cases solar is knocking off that higher tiered stuff, so if you do use a lot of power you're making 47-55c/kWh electricity which has a much quick RoI than someone who's paying 9c/kWh with no tiers limits.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

A little out of date. But should provide some context for $.07 kWh

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/10/27/141766341/the-price-of-electricity-in-your-state

Solar is already huge in Hawaii but really in south west states particularly and in countries like Australia, I don't see how it cannot be the primary source of electrical generation.

Politics be damned.

Because the economics for the grid-runners doesn't make sense.

Also, the power cycle for solar systems doesn't match demand cycles.

Yes, if you tack several thousand into a battery storage system, it helps even that out.

But, in the end, the grid running still has to make money SOMEHOW. They have all the physical plant to pay for.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

$0.11/kwh here in Northern VA. There aren't many state-level subsidies or tax breaks either. Dominion and Pepco lobbyists have the politicians in their pockets. I think it's slowly changing but not there yet for Virginia.

Would love to get solar but the break even point in this area is like 15-20 years. At this point it's more of just a "feel good" thing to do than a cost-savings. That and supposedly the by-products of solar panel production is some pretty toxic stuff - haven't actually read too much into it. It's like driving a hybrid/electric car. That electricity is most likely generated burning some dirty ass coal. And the battery production isn't exactly clean either. Out of sight, out of mind - in someone else's backyard.

Tesla was supposed to revolutionize it with their solar shingles that are affordable. Fast forward to now, it's like double the price of regular solar panels.

Unless you're rich, you're better off taking that $30-50k solar panel installation and investing in something.

Additionally, people keep acting like solar panels are a completely "clean" technology.

1: They're not clean to make.
2: At EOL for the panels, there's nothing in place to handle a recycling effort. Hence, all that shit goes into a landfill on a 30-40 year cycle.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I work for a federal oversight organization performing grid reliability and event analysis studies, and while this is speaking to distribution rather than transmission, it's the first post that showed any inkling of how the bulk power system actually works on any level. Renewables of any stripe are great and no sane person will dispute that, but they are not self sustaining generation. They do not have the ability to power the grid by themselves and rely on conventional generation resources to maintain grid frequency.

For residential rather than utility scale applications they can be run off-grid, however the prices you see assume a grid-attached deployment. The cost for a truly off-grid deployment with grid-equivalent availability is astronomically higher.

They are not a replacement for baseline or "brown" power.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

I'll just wait for cold fusion.

Fuck it.

Fission FOR NOW. Preferably newer, liquid-fueled reactors that can be built in a modular fashion.

Fusion when/if it arrives.

Vacuum Energy whenever.

 

[Derfnofred]

Additionally, people keep acting like solar panels are a completely "clean" technology.

1: They're not clean to make.
2: At EOL for the panels, there's nothing in place to handle a recycling effort. Hence, all that shit goes into a landfill on a 30-40 year cycle.

They're still (and that does require they make their lifetime) far lower lifetime environmental cost than any form of fossil fuel based system. Agree on nukes, but good luck in our social climate. Vacuum energy doesn't even make sense. The Casimir effect is TINY.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

3. Don't tell me about the reliability of coal-fired plants, they're dirty, grossly mechanical and they require lots of maintenance. Caveat: The most dependable source of electricity is gas-fired steam plants.

Possibly. I'm not a power industry expert. However, a coal plant has several times the energy density of a gas-fired plant.

Do I think wind and solar are the solution? No. And fusion isn't happening any time soon, and nuclear is risky and the waste is difficult to store. For myself, after sitting down and thinking and reading about it, it is my personal OPINION (just an opinion) that we should end all power subsidies, convert all coal plants to natural gas, and redirect the subsidy money into a doable five-year Apollo-style project - an automated, underground (below water table) thorium salt reactor. This would be simpler and more cost-effective than nuclear, it would be magnitudes safer, and the technology could be used on our nuclear vessels and for future space programs. Is it perfect? NO, but it's a good, manageable solution that solves a lot of problems, and we could do right now.

I could get on board with this.

Use old mines.
Build a double concrete box with a lead and epoxy liner in between.
Divide the box into individual pits.
Drop LFTR-style reactors in vertically in a modular fashion.
Cap the facility in a concrete building

 

[Deleted member 126051]

They're still (and that does require they make their lifetime) far lower lifetime environmental cost than any form of fossil fuel based system. Agree on nukes, but good luck in our social climate. Vacuum energy doesn't even make sense. The Casimir effect is TINY.

The Casimir Effect is effectively just an indicator such energy exists.

Actually harnessing it in any meaningful way is, at this point, an unsolved problem (as in mathematical problem).

 

[Joust]

Heh, no. What conventional resources are required for frequency regulation depends on system inertia and forecast upreg, which is dependent largely on renewable commitment. As renewables penetrate, system inertia is dropping across the board. At this very second in my interconnection upreg commit is nearly 15,000 MW.

I've read the rest of your posts and you're pretty spot on though. I hope folks can eventually realize how their bulk power system actually works in order to even have the ability to make reasonable remarks regarding renewables. Ignorance is a mile deep here.

That's a lot. My view is smaller. That's like MISO-sized or something. In the south, we don't have RTO's or ISO's that operate like that. The regional utilities formed an organization, upon requirement by FERC, but I think all the transactions between systems (which are all vertically integrated here) are pretty much bilateral. I suppose a longer distance agreement might involve more than two entities. As a result, I think about these things on a utility-system scale.

It was in that scale, per system, that I was thinking. Ancillary services, man.

 

[Joust]

Heh, no. What conventional resources are required for frequency regulation depends on system inertia and forecast upreg, which is dependent largely on renewable commitment. As renewables penetrate, system inertia is dropping across the board. At this very second in my interconnection upreg commit is nearly 15,000 MW.

I've read the rest of your posts and you're pretty spot on though. I hope folks can eventually realize how their bulk power system actually works in order to even have the ability to make reasonable remarks regarding renewables. Ignorance is a mile deep here.

I should add: I did not *literally* mean a few CT's, even at the scale I was thinking, there's ramping of some larger (but not usually the largest) gas, which are obviously combined cycle units, and some - though far less - ramping of coal. The largest gas, coal, and nukes are all baseload here. Also, there is far, far less penetration of solar and wind here.

 

[clockdogg]

The Casimir Effect is effectively just an indicator such energy exists.

Actually harnessing it in any meaningful way is, at this point, an unsolved problem (as in mathematical problem).

Oh man...this is going to make pitching my new diffusion-coin mining rig powered by Brownian Motion cells even tougher. Might have to throw in a complimentary pedal-a-watt with every farm. Dang!

 

[Nafensoriel]

Possibly. I'm not a power industry expert. However, a coal plant has several times the energy density of a gas-fired plant.



I could get on board with this.

Use old mines.
Build a double concrete box with a lead and epoxy liner in between.
Divide the box into individual pits.
Drop LFTR-style reactors in vertically in a modular fashion.
Cap the facility in a concrete building

Water. 1 foot of water blocks most radiation. The bigger problem is ensuring the container isn't degraded by bombardment in a way that is unpredictable. No need for mines or so much concrete. KISS solutions always win.

 

[Deleted member 126051]

Water. 1 foot of water blocks most radiation. The bigger problem is ensuring the container isn't degraded by bombardment in a way that is unpredictable. No need for mines or so much concrete. KISS solutions always win.

It's my preference to physically isolate reactor cores. Hence, why a factory floor setup, with the factory floor doubling as a containment vessel is something I'd consider desirable.

It's also a NIMBY shutter-upper. Physically isolate a plant as much as possible/reasonable.


Also, the problem with water is: It's water. There are problems with it essentially being a solvent. There are problems with it being a liquid. There are problems with the fact that it evaporates.
Sure, it's not like it's a tritium leak or anything. But still.

Granted, most of these problems should NEVER arise in an LFTR environment, as the reactor should cool off the second it dumps fuel.
That and the core module would also be shielded and encaseable for transport/refurbishment.

 

[LZ_Xray]

That's a lot. My view is smaller. That's like MISO-sized or something. In the south, we don't have RTO's or ISO's that operate like that. The regional utilities formed an organization, upon requirement by FERC, but I think all the transactions between systems (which are all vertically integrated here) are pretty much bilateral. I suppose a longer distance agreement might involve more than two entities. As a result, I think about these things on a utility-system scale.

It was in that scale, per system, that I was thinking. Ancillary services, man.

I originally came from vertical integration land, used to work for FPL and Southern Company. That number was for the Eastern Interconnection in it's entirety. And yeah, FERC 888 hurt more than it helped...

Interesting story about how 888 didn't take hold in the south. I was talking to a VP at CenterPoint in ERCOT, which was part of TXU before 888, and mentioned that I used to work for SOCO. She said "Oh they're our heroes! We call them 'Just Say No SOCO'"