Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
PhilipT: The wind here is fair-to-midland once you get over the trees (middle of the Boreal Forest here). One consumer model 2kw turbine on a 30ft mast is certainly enough to supplement a 3kw system (which is really all we need), more or taller or bigger would probably meet full demand most days. PV in the harshest of winter does actually produce a fairly decent amount (~20%) from just moonlight reflecting off the snow... at least 3 weeks out of the month anyway.
PV off moonlight hitting the snow?
THAT is wild.
And wind on a 30 foot tower? This is too easy.
Quote:
Lower winter generation isn't that horrible an impact because winter consumption is usually lower for us, even though we must use more lights, we don't need to run the freezer (the porch works just fine for at least the 4 darkest months!) and we aren't using a bunch of power tools/equipment every day when it's -20 or lower. The only way we'd increase our consumption during the winter deficit is if we kept all our vehicle warmers/chargers plugged in and needed heat-tape to keep fluid lines from freezing up. (Electric being such an inefficient way to make heat unless you have a serious overabundance of it!)
Sure. On somewhat bigger wind, we use "dump loads" from the surplus power to heat water or space heating.
Quote:
Anyway, the challenge for us with any generation technology is that the difference between winter and summer is, quite literally, night and day. 2 hours of weak sunlight and temps down to -70F, or 24 hours of strong sunlight and temps up to 100F... and lets not forget the permafrost, which makes digging or burying anything a problem during start-up and run-time regardless of season
Started into the designs for the Canadian Tar Sands - but they were not as extreme as THAT.
So what all are you doing there -- other than maybe barely surviving?
Quote:
It would be very interesting to use our place as a challenging test site if that experiment came with it's own budget LOL. You'd have to talk to the big man (Gungnir) since he's the EE and in charge of our utilities. I'm just the "Designer/Architect" of the Big Picture, and the "Caretaker" around the Homestead LOL. I understand Physics and Economics... but they really aren't my thing Vision and Vetting - I'm the Go-to-Girl; Joules and Ergs -- that's all on G-Man.
Always run on OPC (other peoples' cash). So that part is good.
btw, also an EE, and doing applications that are presently fossil fuel with Renewable produced electricity.
From what I think I am following -- you are using Diesel for various real equipment power loads? That would some of what I might think had some applications from Renewable Electricity.
Erm your conversion of MBTU to kWh assumes 100% efficiency, which is of course garbage, but lets run with it... Incidentally conventional power plants are normally 33% up to 48% if you have a super-crit plant.
So now your between 1.4 to 2.1 cents for the fuel. you still have 2 to 3 cents left for capital costs and maintenance.
Here's a simple question, if a solar plant is cheaper long term why do we need mandates and subsidies to get them built? Answer: Because it isn't cheaper, they wouldn't need to provide financial incentives if it were.
Quote:
compared to the 1GW Solar (with 50% Cycle) of $850M.
Source? The first solar plant I come up with that large is estimated at 6 billion dollars.
Quote:
SpeakSolar.org - 1 GW Solar Plant in Calif. Marks New Milestone (http://www.speaksolar.org/forums/content/132-gw-scale-solar-plant-calif-marks-new-milestone.html - broken link)
The six year project will be completed in four phases at a total cost of $6 billion. Once completed the 1GW plant will be able to provide enough power for 800,000 homes and it will nearly double the current US commercial-scale solar generation of 585 megawatts.
That one is solar thermal, here's recent PV one from 2010:
The federal government gave Sempra Generation about $42 million in tax credits, 30 percent of the price tag for Copper Mountain. The Economic Development Commission said the 48-megawatt project cost $141 million.
State officials provided sales tax abatements for equipment purchases and a 55 percent property tax reduction for 20 years. Those incentives amounted to $12 million. The state gave Sempra an additional $2 million in concessions for El Dorado, an adjacent 10-megawatt solar array.
So now your between 1.4 to 2.1 cents for the fuel. you still have 2 to 3 cents left for capital costs and maintenance.
Sounds about right. Thing that is totally missing from both your analysis is Time of Use (and the Time of Production).
Like the issue we barely hit upon above about how valuable Daytime Peak Power is -- Which Solar -- both PV and Thermal/CSP) hit quite well.
Midnight to 4 am power is just about worthless. But Coal just keeps chugging (and burning) all night long. Not really valid to give credit for an otherwise useless product, is it?
Quote:
Here's a simple question, if a solar plant is cheaper long term why do we need mandates and subsidies to get them built? Answer: Because it isn't cheaper, they wouldn't need to provide financial incentives if it were.
No, that really is not it. The industry does not like them because it under-cuts the entire Central Plant model. Not only does it scale up to the size of what you are looking at below, it scales easily down to the small business and home level.
Totally undercuts the entire Generation > Transmission > Distribution model. Remember your concern for EV's not paying road taxes? Who is going to pay for Generation and Transmission just parked and not being used once folks out on the metered-end of the grid start their own production?
Quote:
Source? The first solar plant I come up with that large is estimated at 6 billion dollars.
$6E9/1E9 = $6 per watt capacity. That sounds pretty steep. More than even full-fare PV. Dunno that one's exact details, but it was likely burdened with "storage." That can easily double the costs.
That is a real problem on this side of the game. We have total business morons who weasel and climb aboard and then insist on adding "ego" features -- like storage. At least in Coal, the business folks are just there to steal the money.
Quote:
That one is solar thermal, here's recent PV one from 2010:
If it were a 1 GW plant that's almost 3 billion.
Well let's compare side-by-side to a typical 600 MW Coal Plant? Everyday math says that build cost is about $1.5 Billion -- we match on that? I have been out of Coal plants for a couple years, but is that a good base number?
Then add Coal/fuel costs, and plan for the entire O&M budget with multimillion dollar shutdowns for a month(s) or more for periodic retubing and other issues that Coal plants reek of? No income during those outages, either, yunno.
But just that new Coal Plant build of $1.5E9/600E6 = $2.50 per production watt. Now add fuel, operations, and maintenance.
Now run the Solar you cited. Numbers you have $148E6/48E6 = about $3 per production watt. No fuel costs for the next 25 years, and Much Much Less O&M.
Real Solar Thermal is even cheaper. This is what I was telling you about Solar Thermal already undercutting Coal.
So now your between 1.4 to 2.1 cents for the fuel. you still have 2 to 3 cents left for capital costs and maintenance.
Here's a simple question, if a solar plant is cheaper long term why do we need mandates and subsidies to get them built? Answer: Because it isn't cheaper, they wouldn't need to provide financial incentives if it were.
Source? The first solar plant I come up with that large is estimated at 6 billion dollars.
That one is solar thermal, here's recent PV one from 2010:
If it were a 1 GW plant that's almost 3 billion.
Source First Solar, currently charging $0.75 per watt, I also added in an additional 10 cents for other costs making a 1GW plant $0.86 per watt or $860M. Hell even if we can't get 'em at $0.75/watt at $1.00 per watt, we're still in the green.
You need to get with the times, Solar PV is experiencing a drop in pricing per watt following Moore's law. Which isn't that surprising since PV panels are just semiconductors, and now are getting some serious research and development attention.
Solar plants are frontloaded in costs, so you pay up front, which is why the reluctance. If you build a $400M conventional power plant, you need $400M investment, but that's not the overall price, the overall price is that plus the fuel. Your ROI begins before you've paid almost the full cost (or even half the full cost).
Solar is the reverse, you pay 95% or more up front, so your ROI is beginning at nearly 100% of your cap investment.
While the overall cost of conventional is higher, the initial investment is lower.
That's the problem, to use an analogy.
It's like buying a car, you go to the showroom, and see a bunch of cars in your price range, only occasionally do you consider the gas mileage and/or maintenance in your car budget, but it still exists. So you opt for a $30k model that's going to last say 200,000 miles and have gas mileage of 20/gallon, so it'll use 10,000 gallons of gas, at say $3.50, for an additional cost of $35,000, and $500 maintenance every 10k for an additional $10k so overall the vehicle for it's purpose costs $75,000. Ok now suppose that a similar vehicle was standing next to it, but was priced at $60k, with negligible fuel costs, and negligible maintenance costs. Which one would you buy? Given it's relatively new on the market.
On the surface yes, however can your investment run to 60k, or just to 30k where you can use cash flow to keep the vehicle costs up to date? Or do you even consider that the $60k vehicle has negligible fuel and maintenance costs? Many people wouldn't since they're a nearly "hidden" cost, we all know about them, but don't really consider them too much in our decision except as a tie breaker...
This is pretty simple investment and expenditure strategy, by investing 100% cap costs up front exposes you to greater risk.
At worst case, with conventional fuels if after construction there's no market, you've lost the construction costs (which are lower than solar), the running costs need not be spent, if there's no market. With solar the risk is that after construction the bottom falls out of the market, and you can't recoup your construction costs from market pricing, which are roughly double conventional fuel costs.
While the difference between $4 and $8 isn't that much pain, the difference between $400M and $800M is some serious pain. Then of course you can structure the investment return so that it's front loaded, so the investors (most likely the company) can recoup the costs (plus interest) much more rapidly, not quite half the time of Solar, but still fast enough so that there is less chance of a huge market change (for instance successful sustainable nuclear fusion).
Have come to the observation that the auto industry R E A L L Y does not like or want them.
On the other hand, the Electric Utility industry sure does. There is so much surplus electricity, they are hoping the cars will be a market for the surplus electricity.
Same for us. But according to some folks, nobody wants them and they will never sell. Go figger.
The auto industry doesn't want them and has been dragging its ass and throwing monkey wrenches and corrupting the political processes that would make Murdock blush (for example basically buying off CARB (California Air Resources Board) because there's an incestuous relationship between the auto industry and the oil industry and there's much less profit in EVs. The EV is much more reliable and cheaper to maintain (no fluid changes, no exhaust, simpler transmission and motor, no or much simpler cooling system). The oil/car industry is terrified of EVs because when PV panels become cheaper and batteries get better the game is over. The oil/car industry wants centralized power with them at the center. When people start producing their own power with solar panels (decentralized power) they basically cut the oil industry out of the equation. Also there's less gas tax revenue for municipalities. That's why everyone in power hates EVs and is doing their best to stall as long as possible.
Source First Solar, currently charging $0.75 per watt, I also added in an additional 10 cents for other costs making a 1GW plant $0.86 per watt or $860M.
I'm asking for a real world example? The second plant built in 2010 FYI was using First Solar panels.
Quote:
Solar PV is experiencing a drop in pricing per watt following Moore's law
What's interesting here is the solar industry is also subject to the law of supply and demand, it saw a tremendous downturn with economic situation which is one of the reasons the cost of the panels have dropped a lot since 2007. What happens when demand increases and we combine that with the scarcity of raw materials?
-----------------
You have to understand something Gungnir, I'm not for or against Solar/Wind. What I'm against is all the subsidies/tax breaks and everything else that goes along with it. When you're giving money to companies like this it breeds corruption and incompetence. As I already mentioned I've looked into solar myself mostly because of the green credit which could make the system pay me in a few years. I'm not paying for it long term, someone else is and that is the issue. I know for fact the only place I could place these gets almost no sunlight in the winter and very little even now. It wouldn't be a very economical application except for the subsidies/green credit, I would basically be wasting other peoples money and you know the solar installer is going to be pushing it like mad because it's not their money either. Here's the quote someone on my forum received just recently:
Quote:
$65,000 installation with 5 yr. warranty of system malfunction (but not hail damage, etc.)
$12,000 credits within 6 months of install from state.
$19,500 Fed. tax credit which I can use over 15 years (it rolls over).
Earn $4000 a year in renewable energy credits sold like commodities on exchanges
Assuming the installer wasn't giving him a line about the renewable energy credit in about 6 yeas he goes into the black. That's how they are pushing these installs in my state and the cost of this is fully bared by both the taxpayer and the ratepayer some of whom are the least able to afford it.
$6E9/1E9 = $6 per watt capacity. That sounds pretty steep. More than even full-fare PV. Dunno that one's exact details, but it was likely burdened with "storage." That can easily double the costs.
Does sound very expensive however it's thermal plant, I'm assuming polished stainless steel or some type of mirror that is going to last????? Forever if it were SS. Obviously an investment of 6 billion makes sense if it's going to be around for 100 years or more.
Quote:
That is a real problem on this side of the game. We have total business morons who weasel and climb aboard and then insist on adding "ego" features -- like storage. .
It's easy to do that when you're spending other peoples money and don't have to be held responsible for it.
Quote:
Well let's compare side-by-side to a typical 600 MW Coal Plant? Everyday math says that build cost is about $1.5 Billion -- we match on that? I have been out of Coal plants for a couple years, but is that a good base number?
I came across the Comanche plant which is brand new in 2010, 1.2 billion for 750MW.
What happens when demand increases and we combine that with the scarcity of raw materials?
Scarcity of Raw Materials is the biggest crock of Doomer Bull available.
Not saying you a Doomer or BS-er, at all, you follow? Just that is always the final cop-out for why "it will never work" becomes. Never can get specific, just that is final line of all Doom claims.
What is a scarce raw material with typical Solar? (PV or Thermal)?
Quote:
'm not for or against Solar/Wind. What I'm against is all the subsidies/tax breaks and everything else that goes along with it. When you're giving money to companies like this it breeds corruption and incompetence.
You understand that Iraq really WAS the 2001 Cheney Energy Task Force "Plan?" A Home Invasion Robbery was the best thinking of the (as you observe) companies breeding corruption and incompetence.
If we could (again) be free of the companies breeding corruption and incompetence, (great phrase by the way -- maybe trademark that), Oil would already be fading behind US in the rearview mirror, and Coal's days would numbered, as well, as those operations require permits to pollute.
Quote:
As I already mentioned I've looked into solar myself mostly because of the green credit which could make the system pay me in a few years. I'm not paying for it long term, someone else is and that is the issue. I know for fact the only place I could place these gets almost no sunlight in the winter and very little even now. It wouldn't be a very economical application except for the subsidies/green credit, I would basically be wasting other peoples money and you know the solar installer is going to be pushing it like mad because it's not their money either.
No, probably not. We tell customers all the time that some of what they might want may not be such a good idea. And then of course try to help them find other methods or solutions that work well for their site and situation.
Guys selling crap harms any legit industry. Solar holds itself to a pretty high standard, and we would try to run any scammers out. Small wind had a bunch of wild claims and inflated prices. Hurt that industry. Looking to branch into small wind and am doing open-source performance results so that folks will really know and see what they are getting.
On the Solar PV side we are held to a very high standard for our production estimates to closely match the end result. At this point of the game, NREL standards have been established. We get better results than the NREL estimates, but we still use their standards on all statements. When there is Grant money involved, there are even independent third party Engineers (and stamps, you recall those expensive things) involved.
Quote:
Here's the quote someone on my forum received just recently:
Exact money details are something I cannot do on an open forum, but we can PM, email those details. Our typical "paybacks" have become less than 6 years. A lot less. And we do not count the RECs as having any real value in the money discussion.
Does sound very expensive however it's thermal plant, I'm assuming polished stainless steel or some type of mirror that is going to last????? Forever if it were SS. Obviously an investment of 6 billion makes sense if it's going to be around for 100 years or more.
That might make good sense -- if we were being Stainless Steel mirror salesmen. But that is a Very Good example of how something gets set and then the project follows that direction or mis-direction without any further critical thought or analysis (allowed).
Happens that way on not just the mirrors, or
materials, or
type (trough v. fresnel v. power tower v. . . .), or
storage (on not) like we talked, above, or
working fluid (water/steam v. oil v. molten salt) or
On and on and on. It becomes like strange religions and articles faith that must be defended. I just shrug and say I am just here to do the power and controls, and you all must know best about those complex decisions.
But let me praise you on where you started -- You picked a great starting point -- the mirror surface. Some of the trade-offs include not only service life, but also total reflectivity (some of the energy is lost on the mirror, itself, as heat), durability, cleaning, business relationships with various sources, and also of course, cost -- which includes local v. global sourcing, shipping, and all the various requirements to meet the Grants Games.
There is a wide range of mirror choice available -- stainless, as you mentioned, dunno if it would have a 100 year service life or not. Only piece of power production hardware that I know of that has a 100 year service life is the concrete in the Big Dams -- Like Hoover or Grand Coulee.
The mirror material is such a big deal because there is so much of it involved. Typical baseline numbers are 5 watts produced for each square foot of mirror. Works out around 250 kW per acre. You can do the math from there.
So let's look at some of the range of choices --
The most expensive Solar Concentration Surface I have come across is a NASA spec'ed project of $100 per square foot polished front-surface aluminum hexagons that fit together in a total coverage package for flexible arrays.
The cheapest I know of is me. I pay 25 cents per square foot for surplus mirror. 1/400 th of NASA's price.
There is a whole range of choices in between. Polished Aluminum, Front Surface Mirror, Mylar, on and on.
But keeping Renewable Folks down to Earth and focused is its own challenge. So my chant, spoken as a couplet, to the large scale renewable folks is --
The Goal -- is to beat Coal.
Really hard to keep some of them focused on that. Google gets and got that early on. They ramped-up to a being a utility themselves, last year.
Solar Thermal can be just dirt simple and cheap if folks would let it be. In the real world Coal plants are enormously more complex machines.
When someone would ask how a Coal plant works, I would point to one end of the plant and say, "Coal goes in THAT end." And then do a big swing around and point at the substation on the other end, and say, "Electricity goes out THAT end." And then pause and do big sweep around and say, "And the Money Comes in From Every Direction." That is how it works.
The plant management would just laugh when I would do that routine. Off to the side they would say you are an ahole, Phil, but we really like you. But Coal people tend to Very Clearly Understand that the bottom line is just about the bottom line. About like you in that regard. So on a business end, Coal folks are much easier to work with than some of the Renewable Folks.
Quote:
It's easy to do that when you're spending other peoples money and don't have to be held responsible for it.
From what I have seen it usually driven by a belief system running in place of a knowledge system.
Quote:
I came across the Comanche plant which is brand new in 2010, 1.2 billion for 750MW.
Sounds about right. For any particular site, some of the costs vary widely depending on cooling water sources -- lake, rivers, or towers, and other assets, like rail, and ash handling facilities.
There is a wide range of mirror choice available -- stainless, as you mentioned, dunno if it would have a 100 year service life or not.
Assuming good quality material I'd imagine it would be much longer. We lined the boxes of our coal trucks with SS. There's two reasons for that, firstly it's a very slippery surface. The coal is always wet and in the middle of the winter the coal freezes to the surface, you can usually get most of it off giving the box a good whack with the shovel. Secondly durability, you have sulfur water and obviously the abrasiveness of the coal. That's really bad combination for regular steel. Without the SS you end up replacing the bed every 4 or 5 years. I have two lifts with the same SS liner for 35 years. The liner is almost as old as me. You're probably looking at a 150,000 tons of coal that went across them. Couldn't tell you how much longer it they would last but if I had to guess it would be in the hundreds of years.
Last edited by thecoalman; 07-15-2011 at 01:33 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
