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.
The real root is the total cost of the energy. When wind and solar total cost becomes less costly than the operating cost of fossil fuel plants you run wind and solar whenever available. Storage adds cost and will have to be evaluated on its own. Storage is not likely to be viable soon.
We may also see long distance back bone lines moving energy between regions. This may make unused wind capability in one region avaiable in another.
Eventually storage perhaps by hydrogen generation.
This is a naive myth that people with no understanding of utility plant operation and dispatch keep repeating because to them it sounds logical. Redundancy in a grid system is usually dictated by the largest plants, typically 1000 MW nuclear plants. The reserve easily covers the variable nature of renewables.
Ok, so we have plenty of capacity to meet existing maximum demand, plus redundancy. That is not surprising.
What's the economic value of adding a bunch of wind and solar to the grid, when wind and solar have a nasty habit of going to zero at times? It'd be like adding a bunch of randomly-failing power plants to the grid. We wouldn't be able to retire any of the existing capacity, right? Isn't the whole point to eliminate most (if not all) of the existing fossil (and maybe also nuclear) plants?
Yes, having wind turbines distributed all over the country will help reduce the probability of wind capacity going all the way to zero. But there will still be long periods of greatly reduced generation, as the Germans know all too well. And how much will this distributed generation cost? Won't we need to run new power lines all over the place? Solar power has a nasty habit of going to zero every single night over the entire country, so how is distributed generation going to help with that?
Ok, so we have plenty of capacity to meet existing maximum demand, plus redundancy. That is not surprising.
What's the economic value of adding a bunch of wind and solar to the grid, when wind and solar have a nasty habit of going to zero at times? It'd be like adding a bunch of randomly-failing power plants to the grid. We wouldn't be able to retire any of the existing capacity, right? Isn't the whole point to eliminate most (if not all) of the existing fossil (and maybe also nuclear) plants?
Yes, having wind turbines distributed all over the country will help reduce the probability of wind capacity going all the way to zero. But there will still be long periods of greatly reduced generation, as the Germans know all too well. And how much will this distributed generation cost? Won't we need to run new power lines all over the place? Solar power has a nasty habit of going to zero every single night over the entire country, so how is distributed generation going to help with that?
What am I missing?
Solar fully loaded cost...that is capital cost and operational cost is simply less than the variable cost of a fossil fuel plant. That is the coal costs more than the capital cost of the solar arrays. Large solar arrays are now below 3 cents per HWH. That is less than the cost of the coal and operating a coal plant. At that point you build solar to handle most of the load on the system. And you run the coal or gas plants when there is not enough solar. The wind equations will be similar. And solar probably has enough efficiency improvement and cost reduction coming to cut the cost 50% or more over the next decade.
Solar fully loaded cost...that is capital cost and operational cost is simply less than the variable cost of a fossil fuel plant. That is the coal costs more than the capital cost of the solar arrays. Large solar arrays are now below 3 cents per HWH. That is less than the cost of the coal and operating a coal plant. At that point you build solar to handle most of the load on the system. And you run the coal or gas plants when there is not enough solar. The wind equations will be similar. And solar probably has enough efficiency improvement and cost reduction coming to cut the cost 50% or more over the next decade.
What is the economic value of a power plant that generates free power during the day but fails every single night? You'd still need to have the conventional plants, unfortunately. The solar plant would have value only if fuels for conventional power generation were very expensive relative to the capital cost of the solar plant (which is the case in remote areas like Hawaii).
What is the economic value of a power plant that generates free power during the day but fails every single night? You'd still need to have the conventional plants, unfortunately. The solar plant would have value only if fuels for conventional power generation were very expensive relative to the capital cost of the solar plant (which is the case in remote areas like Hawaii).
The fully loaded cost of utility scale solar has gotten below the variable cost of fossil fuel plants. That is true in NV today and I think anywhere in the sun belt. At that point it pays to duplicate much of the fossil fuel capability. Basically you save some money when you run the solar array.
And it may well change the economics of the fossil fuel plants. Given the primary role of backup it may well pay to have some of the fossil plants of the quick response, low capital cost type. These would basically be gas turbine plants which are cheap to buy, quick to ramp up and down but more expensive to run.
This is all going to continue moving around over the next decade. Thinks like storage and hydrogen generation may or may not appear. But the basic cost advantage of solar and likely wind is now clear.
Ok, so we have plenty of capacity to meet existing maximum demand, plus redundancy. That is not surprising.
What's the economic value of adding a bunch of wind and solar to the grid, when wind and solar have a nasty habit of going to zero at times? It'd be like adding a bunch of randomly-failing power plants to the grid. We wouldn't be able to retire any of the existing capacity, right? Isn't the whole point to eliminate most (if not all) of the existing fossil (and maybe also nuclear) plants?
Yes, having wind turbines distributed all over the country will help reduce the probability of wind capacity going all the way to zero. But there will still be long periods of greatly reduced generation, as the Germans know all too well. And how much will this distributed generation cost? Won't we need to run new power lines all over the place? Solar power has a nasty habit of going to zero every single night over the entire country, so how is distributed generation going to help with that?
What am I missing?
The economic value of renewables is quite high. Wind and solar while variable are quite predictable and have zero fuel cost.
Again you obviously have no understanding of grid operations and grid economics. We don't need to look to the Germans for operating examples. We have plenty of wind capacity on our system and understand its operating characteristics.
BTW, while solar goes to zero at night, the demand of electricity goes much lower than during the daytime. We have many generating plants built just to run during the summer day when it's hot outside. Think these things through before you post. You will not look so silly.
The fully loaded cost of utility scale solar has gotten below the variable cost of fossil fuel plants. That is true in NV today and I think anywhere in the sun belt. At that point it pays to duplicate much of the fossil fuel capability. Basically you save some money when you run the solar array.
<snip>
This is all going to continue moving around over the next decade. Thinks like storage and hydrogen generation may or may not appear. But the basic cost advantage of solar and likely wind is now clear.
If all of the above is true, then why does Germany have some of the highest electricity rates in the world? Why do wind and solar still rely on subsidies in that country if they are so economical?
It doesn't add up.
Can you give an example of a modern industrialized continental nation with a large amount of wind and solar that has lower average electricity costs compared to that of the US?
The economic value of renewables is quite high. Wind and solar while variable are quite predictable and have zero fuel cost.
And yet US power companies won't add wind and solar without subsidies and mandates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Again you obviously have no understanding of grid operations and grid economics. We don't need to look to the Germans for operating examples. We have plenty of wind capacity on our system and understand its operating characteristics.
Please explain in detail what I misunderstand about grid operations and grid economics. While I'm no expert, I understand that a power source must be reliable if it is going to displace conventional generation methods.
Are you suggesting that a country like Germany is not a good example of a country with a lot of wind on its grid? Why is Germany not a good example? Is it because they have high electricity costs, which refutes the "renewables are economical" assertion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
BTW, while solar goes to zero at night, the demand of electricity goes much lower than during the daytime. We have many generating plants built just to run during the summer day when it's hot outside. Think these things through before you post. You will not look so silly.
Peak demand in most markets happens around sunset. Solar PV actually does not follow the demand very well. California is having problems with the so-called "duck curve." Google it if you don't believe me.
CSP with molten salt storage is the only practical solar on the grid right now, since it can generate power all night long. But it only works well in sunny desert areas and is still expensive. Hopefully costs will come down in the future.
If all of the above is true, then why does Germany have some of the highest electricity rates in the world? Why do wind and solar still rely on subsidies in that country if they are so economical?
It doesn't add up.
Can you give an example of a modern industrialized continental nation with a large amount of wind and solar that has lower average electricity costs compared to that of the US?
You are misunderstanding the utility business. The assets have very long tails. Basically takes a decade or two before you will see the reflection of the impact of cheap solar on retail prices. And the really cheap solar has only just begun. Recent large scale contracts in both Dubai and Chile below 3 cents per kwh. US has a couple in the low threes but not built yet. It will be ten or twenty years before these come on line and have impact on consumer cost.
I would think we will see very little new fossil plants in the sun belt and that will continue to creep north. In a place like Hawaii I would expect almost all daytime power to be wind and solar within five years. I would not however expect Hawaiian utility rates to drop until well after that time. The assets on the books need to be paid for first. May provide an exceptional opportunity for roof top solar as the utilities will not reflect the cost effectiveness of solar and wind until some years out providing a long window for roof top.
I built my solar and wind /battery system on my shop trailer so that I can take it with me where ever I go .
It took years to build but it's worth it .
In the day, I paid $100. an amp per panel "USED" .
Only in the last few years have i bought new panels and they are only slightly better than their distant cousins .
I have one wind mill on the trailer that only produces when the wind is up about 3-4 times a day or night depending on the storms coming in. It produces more efficiently than solar when it's working.
This year it's been working over time. (comparatively )
Should I have the capitol this year, I'd invest in another.
Far as I'm concerned I think people should invest in their own energy ,and as a result be more thoughtful about their consumption.
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.
