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.
Batteries are mostly hype from battery salespeople. Have to promote their own product, and all.
Truth is surplus Solar PV and surplus Wind can just be "dumped." A solar spill is just a Sunny day. Surplus wind is just a day to fly a kite.
Extra water at a Hydro Dam site, just goes over the dam. We do not try to run of drop of water through the turbines, and then save all the rest. Why would we have to do that with Solar PV or Wind?
Just try to learn to live in Surplus. A fresh batch of Sunshine comes up every day.
"Able to do..." and "Should do..." are two different things.
Arguments against renewables & EVs often include the lack of infrastructure and the cost of providing it. I find that way down deep, those are shallow arguments...ICE autos were commercially available for 20 yrs before the first dedicated filling station appeared, and Ike's first command (1919) was a trek from StL to LA by truck to determine the feasibiitly of such for military purposes. He was so impressed by the inadequacy of roads that it eventually led to the Interstate system when he was President, 35 yrs later.
Eventually, fossil fuels will become depleted. Those alive will have to deal with that. All solutions have their down sides-- nuclear waste, environmentally devastating mining & habitat destruction for solar/wind installations, etc etc.
This means the question is not "Should we switch to alternatives?" but "WHEN should we switch?
Cloudy, calm weather, or for peak load during heat and cold waves.
Things are not really this complex.
You design to more than cover a Peak, and then live is surplus. We have been doing this for DECADES with Coal, Nukes, and Gas. You understand that Coal and Nukes are baseload -- pretty much flatline production, so the they could never hit the Daytime Summer and Winter peak? So we built many surplus Coal and Nukes, and would shut them down in the Spring and Fall for service and rebuilds.
Since Coal and Nukes were / are too weak to carry the Daytime Peaks, there are some grid scale storage -- but again, these were built to carry the day, from the surplus flatline electricity from the night. Here is a sample. Built back in the 1970s to support a Nuke that is now shut-down. >>> https://www.consumersenergy.com/comp...ro-electricity
Why is this somehow magically, mysteriously so different? The Peak use is still during the daytime. And in the Summer, and the Peak is higher when it is a SUNNY day (Air Conditioning Load). So Silicon Solar PV very easily hits the Peak. And yes, Silicon Solar PV still produces on a Cloudy Day. Not as much, but not so much is needed. And no, the Peak is not the night -- dunno where that nonsense came from? You can see the peak use for various regions and all the different seasons here. It is the Yellow Line. >>> https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
So just like with Coal and Nukes, build Silicon Solar PV for the Peak, and the rest of the time live in Surplus. Silicon Solar PV is already MUCH cheaper than Coal, Nukes, or Gas -- so surplus is easy.
Folks that use Net Zero (produces as much as the site uses) Grid-Tied Silicon Solar PV already send daytime power up to the Grid for everyone to use. Typical Net Zero Grid-Tie produces as much energy in about a 6 hour run time as the site uses for the entire day.
Batteries are handy for some emergency power -- like a UPS backup -- but they are not required on a Grid Scale operation.
Sure. Your author is a total moron. At least in this topic.
He does not understand the difference between:
Power. Watts = Volts X Amps.
and
Energy. Power X Time. Typically Watts X Hours. for example Mega, or Kilo-Watt-Hours.
The chart is about correct. It says that Solar PV produces energy at the lowest cost -- less than 3 cents per kWh.
That is where the REAL story stops. END.
=====================
Now is where the moron comes out to play.
Nameplate ratings are done in Watts, or Power.
To find the Energy produced by a nameplate rated source, we multiply by the "Run-Time" or Capacity.
So we take a source -- say a typical house-side 10,000 Watt = 10 Kilo-Watt (nameplate) rated Silicon Solar PV system. And it operates at 6 hours per day average (25% Capacity if compared to a 24 hour day).
10 KW X 6 Hours = 60 Kilo-Watt-Hours. That would be the average daily Energy Production. Typical to a typical household use.
So to consider that for comparison -- we have already considered BOTH Power and Energy. That was already done in the referenced table where we see Solar PV is now cheapest.
Your moron tries to take that already calculated energy product and RE-APPLY Capacity or discount for production time all over again. And winds up with errors in his "answer."
========================
Real Deal -- Wattsup is sort of an ill-informed hack site, not peer-reviewed, where any moron can post, and many do.
His point is that studies of cost of energy (or power. The one depends on the other.) production always forget to add in the cost of providing back up for the renewables. He uses the example of the new invention of kerosene lamps completely putting the business of hunting whales for oil out of business over the course of just a decade due to the economics of a cheaper energy source.
The govt EIA charts show the renewables are cheaper in terms of direct cost per kW-hr. If that were indeed true, then there would be a rush to produce more energy via renewables, but there isn't. Deductive reasoning suggests that must be because the renewables aren't really cheaper....
His point is that studies of cost of energy (or power. The one depends on the other.) production always forget to add in the cost of providing back up for the renewables. He uses the example of the new invention of kerosene lamps completely putting the business of hunting whales for oil out of business over the course of just a decade due to the economics of a cheaper energy source.
The govt EIA charts show the renewables are cheaper in terms of direct cost per kW-hr. If that were indeed true, then there would be a rush to produce more energy via renewables, but there isn't. Deductive reasoning suggests that must be because the renewables aren't really cheaper....
They're probably not forgetting at all, but intentionally ignoring what dispatchable backup generation will add to their costs.
Then there's this:
Quote:
Solar asset underperformance continues to worsen, with projects “chronically underperforming†P99 estimates and modules degrading faster than previously anticipated, risk management firm kWh Analytics has found.
The report states that over a 20-year asset life, project degradation could therefore be underestimated by as much as 14%, resulting in severaly overestimated performance and revenue forecasts produced within a P50 model.
His point is that studies of cost of energy (or power. The one depends on the other.)
I know you know how to do basic math. This is about 5th Grade. The "depends" as you say, is the time factor. He cuts it in HALF based on . . . nothing . . . just his make-believe . . . and says that doubles the cost.
This is a Moron Piece, by and for . . . . Morons.
You have better basic math skills than this.
Power X Time = Energy. A X B = C.
If you try to change the Time Base, you change the Energy Produced. The guy is a Fake.
Quote:
production always forget to add in the cost of providing back up for the renewables. He uses the example of the new invention of kerosene lamps completely putting the business of hunting whales for oil out of business over the course of just a decade due to the economics of a cheaper energy source.
None of the sources being compared show back-up costs. IF you wanted to do back-ups . . . do you know how to back-up a Nuke? Build an additional Nuke. Really. Now a $10 Billion Dollar site costs $20 Billion. This is basic math, again. btw, Silicon Solar PV is now the MOST Reliable Source there is. Works fine without "back-up," as you say.
Quote:
The govt EIA charts show the renewables are cheaper in terms of direct cost per kW-hr.
Which is true. AND (the really important part they do not even mention -- Silicon Solar PV produces during the PEAK (Prime Time Payment) portion of the day -- you follow? We use Electricity the most DURING the day, and Solar produces during the day. That is why we are mostly just building New Solar PV for (at least) the next three years out, while Coal and Nukes fade away.
Quote:
If that were indeed true, then there would be a rush to produce more energy via renewables, but there isn't. Deductive reasoning suggests that must be because the renewables aren't really cheaper....
There is already SO MUCH surplus generation in the market there is no rush. Just because you want to declare how a market is supposed to work does not make it so. We already giving surplus Night and Weekend power away for FREE. Coal and Nukes can only bankrupt off-line so fast.
First their claims are a complete lie. Rather than dropping in degradation -- modules are IMPROVING. Really.
From the estimated baseline of 0.5% per year -- most Tier 1 manufacturers are now coming in at HALF of that, about 0.25% or better. That means at the end of the 20 year curve, they will still be running at AT Least 90% or Better. Even the 25 Year Industry Warranties are shifting to match this.
And your authors know this. Did you see what their REAL Product is? "Production Insurance." They are a Con-Job trying to convince suckers that the Solar Panels may degrade faster, and THEN (since they KNOW the opposite is true) SELL. YOU. INSURANCE . . . against the Make-Believe "problem."
You are just being played for a fool. Sorry.
Here is the sucker close, the Insurance Pitch -- (think about this, IF Solar is so bad, why are they willing to bet it works better than claimed?)
I know you know how to do basic math. This is about 5th Grade. The "depends" as you say, is the time factor. He cuts it in HALF based on . . . nothing . . . just his make-believe . . . and says that doubles the cost.
This is a Moron Piece, by and for . . . . Morons.
You have better basic math skills than this.
Power X Time = Energy. A X B = C.
If you try to change the Time Base, you change the Energy Produced. The guy is a Fake.
None of the sources being compared show back-up costs. IF you wanted to do back-ups . . . do you know how to back-up a Nuke? Build an additional Nuke. Really. Now a $10 Billion Dollar site costs $20 Billion. This is basic math, again. btw, Silicon Solar PV is now the MOST Reliable Source there is. Works fine without "back-up," as you say.
Which is true. AND (the really important part they do not even mention -- Silicon Solar PV produces during the PEAK (Prime Time Payment) portion of the day -- you follow? We use Electricity the most DURING the day, and Solar produces during the day. That is why we are mostly just building New Solar PV for (at least) the next three years out, while Coal and Nukes fade away.
There is already SO MUCH surplus generation in the market there is no rush. Just because you want to declare how a market is supposed to work does not make it so. We already giving surplus Night and Weekend power away for FREE. Coal and Nukes can only bankrupt off-line so fast.
This probably has a more educational graph for you?
Call the poster a few more derogatory names and you may make your point. SHOUT IT NEXT TIME. You will win debates doing that.NOT.
guido is not stupid.
He is posting nonsense to play games.
There is no "debate."
He knows this is garbage in advance.
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.
