Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[russ_watters]

Not to poke this gorilla, but my apartment complex in Fort Worth Texas (yes, Texas, where some of the biggest oil producers are) is entirely run on renewable power via the company https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/, I am all for it, it might cost a tad bit more, but my weekend power is free... Renewable energy is being used in spits and spurts all over, problem is that it is in percentage points of the total...

My oldest kid who is a newly minted environmental engineer can't wait to come to visit and find out about this company.

Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

 

[Dr Transport]

Be wary: I applied for a job there and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

I'll pass that along to my apartment management...good to know.

 

[mfb]

As long as we burn coal and oil (stationary), there are places with 20% CO2 instead of 0.04% - the exhaust of these power plants. Capturing that to make hydrocarbons is rarely a good idea, of course.

 

[NTL2009]

Not to poke this gorilla, but my apartment complex in Fort Worth Texas (yes, Texas, where some of the biggest oil producers are) is entirely run on renewable power via the company https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/, I am all for it, it might cost a tad bit more, but my weekend power is free... Renewable energy is being used in spits and spurts all over, problem is that it is in percentage points of the total...

My oldest kid who is a newly minted environmental engineer can't wait to come to visit and find out about this company.

Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

Yes, these plans where they say you are 100% renewable due to paying them for electricity never made sense to me.

Like, if you didn't sign up, they would shut down their wind turbines and solar panels? Or they never would have installed them without your commitment? I don't think so, they get a premium for that power. Seems to me they just scrape an extra penny per kWh by reselling to people who want to feel good about this.

 

[Dr Transport]

Yes, these plans where they say you are 100% renewable due to paying them for electricity never made sense to me.

Like, if you didn't sign up, they would shut down their wind turbines and solar panels? Or they never would have installed them without your commitment? I don't think so, they get a premium for that power. Seems to me they just scrape an extra penny per kWh by reselling to people who want to feel good about this.

No they would not have, but I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain...

 

[NTL2009]

No they would not have, but I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain...

Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html

 

[OmCheeto]

Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html

And down the rabbit hole we go...

Wiki re: ConsumerAffairs.com

Criticism

In October 21, 2014, Truth in Advertising published "Who is ConsumerAffairs.com Really Advocating For?" In the article, Unbeatablesale.com complained to the Electronic Retailing Self-Regulation Program, a division of the Better Business Bureaus and National Advertising Review Council, that ConsumerAffairs "creates biased and negative portrayals of companies that don't pay for its service called ConsumerAffairs for Brands." ​

Sounds like the mafia to me.

Be wary: I went for a job interview with them and it is basically a multi-level marketing scheme and more or less a scam. They don't generate much of their own power, but rather over-pay for electricity that is already being generated.

They told you they were scammers in your interview? hmmmm...

Anyways, wiki says this about the company, NRG, that owns Green Mountain:

Following the acquisition of Reliant, NRG extended its retail footprint with the acquisition of Green Mountain Energy in November 2010. In doing so, NRG also became the largest retailer of green power in the nation, providing all of its Green Mountain and many of its Reliant customers with energy derived from 100% renewable resources.​

The most interesting fact about NRG was this number: "After the GenOn merger, NRG has 47,000 MW of total generation capacity, enough to power approximately 40 million homes."

That's 1/3 of the homes in America! All supplied by one company. I find that interesting. I'm not sure why, but I do.

 

[Dr Transport]

Sorry, you lost me.

From your previous post, what would your son learn by visiting to find out about this company (or visiting your apartment - that wasn't clear either?)? It's not like you can see where your electricity comes from.

I think you could learn about them here:

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/texas-electricity-companies/green-mountain-energy.html

He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...

 

[NTL2009]

He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...

OK. But what about your other comment - "... I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain..."? That's the one that I got lost on. Why wouldn't you have your apartment?

And down the rabbit hole we go...
...
Anyways, wiki says this about the company, NRG, that owns Green Mountain:

Following the acquisition of Reliant, NRG extended its retail footprint with the acquisition of Green Mountain Energy in November 2010. In doing so, NRG also became the largest retailer of green power in the nation, providing all of its Green Mountain and many of its Reliant customers with energy derived from 100% renewable resources.​

...

The bolded part is what I'm really wondering about. I just can't see how signing a contract for 100% renewable energy does much of anything at all. It seems like a marketing ploy/semi-scam to me.

As I said earlier, does my signing on actually cause a single added kWh of renewable energy to be produced? How so?

They're not going to disconnect their wind turbines or solar panels if I don't sign up, a market already exists for that power. Maybe, just maybe, the extra penny (or whatever) they might make on these contracts provides a little more incentive to install more wind/solar? But I think demand already exists, not sure this would create any tipping-point decision for a new wind or solar farm. But if it does, I think the effect is very slight, certainly not 100% responsible. So it seems to me these certificates don't result in any significant amount of renewable energy production, they are just a 'badge' sold to well-meaning people who want to advertise (or just feel good personally about) their 'commitment' to green energy?

I also cringe a bit when I see these announcements that some facility, or entity is going to be 100% renewable energy by year 20XX. I'd be more impressed if they showed they could do that by disconnecting from the grid (but that would be rather stupid and bad economics). But as long as they are reliant on the grid, and the fossil/nuke back up, are they really 100% renewable? Oh, except for the part that isn't?

OK, maybe saying "We will install enough renewable energy to offset our energy usage", is too big a mouthful for a headline or public statement. I'd need to look at one of those though, I'm pretty sure they really just mean the electrical energy they consume, not the energy they use for their delivery trucks, or maybe heating the building, or producing the products they sell.

 

[OmCheeto]

He was going to look into the company as a possible employer...

After some googling, I now understand what Russ was saying. It's not so much a scam on the customers, as much as it is a scam on the employees.

But wiki claims that there are plenty of such companies: List of multi-level marketing companies
So I don't know that it's fair to kick one horse, and not all the rest.

The bolded part is what I'm really wondering about. I just can't see how signing a contract for 100% renewable energy does much of anything at all. It seems like a marketing ploy/semi-scam to me.

Perhaps someone needs to explain "retail" to me. I always though it was only Joe-blow customer that was sold "retail" stuff. Are business to business sales also considered "retail"?
All I know, is that Green Mountain supplies my electrical provider(PGE) with 100% green energy.
For about the last 20 years or so, I've been donating $2.50 a month to something called "Clean Wind".
So each month, I get 200 kwh of "wind energy". I think. The wind doesn't always blow, so like you, I don't fully understand their maths.

As I said earlier, does my signing on actually cause a single added kWh of renewable energy to be produced? How so?

I would think so.

Om's silly "wind" donations * 20 years * 120 million households = $72 billion

http://www.windustry.org/how_much_do_wind_turbines_cost
$3.50/watt wind

$72 billion / ($3.5/watt) = 20,600 MW

http://www.awea.org/wind-energy-facts-at-a-glance
Total U.S. installed wind capacity, through end of 2016: 82,143 MW

Om's relative contribution: ¼​

So, "my demand" for 200 kwh/month of wind power seems to have partially funded the current installed wind capacity.

I like to think that's how it works.

Of course, some people are really serious about "green energy".
I believe Artman paid 3 to 4 times more for his "PV system" than I did for my house!

 

[russ_watters]

After some googling, I now understand what Russ was saying. It's not so much a scam on the customers, as much as it is a scam on the employees.

Actually, I think it's both.

I consider multi-level marketing schemes to be abusive of employees. For those not familiar, they are a pyramid scheme from the sales side, where the salesmen make money both by doing sales and by recruiting more salesmen. The "interview" I went to wasn't really an interview insofar as there wasn't any specific job to fill, just more sales-people to sign up. If you're not competing for a job, and there is no base pay, that tells you your value to the company: zero. Ultimately it felt like they hoped you'd sell to your friends and family before giving-up and quitting. My understanding is Avon pioneered this strategy, and there are a lot of modern "Avon"s out there, which are abusive to women whom as housewives are not considered to have any value as workers, so you don't have to pay them. It should be illegal.

On the product side, [did a bit of research], things have gotten better since my "interview". At the time (2002), they didn't own any generating facilities and mostly just bought and re-sold hydro power. I think re-selling, at a mark-up, hydro power from decades-old hydro plants that are bought and paid for already and will generate electricity whether you buy it at a higher price or not is pointless. But they have since opened two wind farms in 2009 and 2010 and it looks like from their rates that at this point almost all of their electricity is from those wind farms or re-selling from other wind farms. Building your own wind farm is directly supporting wind energy. Re-selling power from someone else's wind farm is indirectly supporting wind energy, which isn't as good, but is still better than re-selling hydro power.

 

[Dr Transport]

OK. But what about your other comment - "... I'd not have my apartment because they required that I get my power from greenmountain..."? That's the one that I got lost on. Why wouldn't you have your apartment?

They have a contract with Greenmountain to provide electricity, you have to sign on with them and show a valid account number to take possession of your apartment.

 

[OmCheeto]

Actually, I think it's both.

I consider multi-level marketing schemes to be abusive of employees. For those not familiar, they are a pyramid scheme from the sales side, where the salesmen make money both by doing sales and by recruiting more salesmen. The "interview" I went to wasn't really an interview insofar as there wasn't any specific job to fill, just more sales-people to sign up. If you're not competing for a job, and there is no base pay, that tells you your value to the company: zero. Ultimately it felt like they hoped you'd sell to your friends and family before giving-up and quitting. My understanding is Avon pioneered this strategy, and there are a lot of modern "Avon"s out there, which are abusive to women whom as housewives are not considered to have any value as workers, so you don't have to pay them. It should be illegal.

On the product side, [did a bit of research], things have gotten better since my "interview". At the time (2002), they didn't own any generating facilities and mostly just bought and re-sold hydro power. I think re-selling, at a mark-up, hydro power from decades-old hydro plants that are bought and paid for already and will generate electricity whether you buy it at a higher price or not is pointless. But they have since opened two wind farms in 2009 and 2010 and it looks like from their rates that at this point almost all of their electricity is from those wind farms or re-selling from other wind farms. Building your own wind farm is directly supporting wind energy. Re-selling power from someone else's wind farm is indirectly supporting wind energy, which isn't as good, but is still better than re-selling hydro power.

I disagree on the "customer" part.

Caveat Emptor.

Though, I'm guessing this is where the demand for "Marketing" majors came from. A lot of people aren't smart enough to know what's good (or bad) for them, so they need someone to "feed" them.

And, as always, in an interesting subject, we again seem to be straying off topic.

The future of solar power!

ps. Stupid sun will not come out again today. Argh! I have only 3 days left to do a solar science experiment!

So your battery wouldn't give you much for a freezer.

<10 minutes, just to power my new/old 100 watt refrigerator...

I am soooooo screwed...

 

[russ_watters]

I disagree on the "customer" part.

Caveat Emptor.

How so? Are you just saying the customers have to pay more attention to what they are buying? I kind of agree. Like I said, it isn't as bad as it used to be with these guys.

And, as always, in an interesting subject, we again seem to be straying off topic.

The future of solar power!

Actually, we're not. You may have noticed I didn't mention solar power at all in this discussion of Green Mountain Energy, but that's a problem hiding in plain sight: they buy very little solar power.

Looking at their plans:
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/for-home/shop-for-electricity/

For my area, not sure if you can see this without filling-out the form:
https://www.greenmountainenergy.com/for-home/products/peco/

Their basic plan - their most popular - is $0.069 / kWh for 100% wind, whereas their new 100% solar plan is $0.099, more than 40% more expensive. That's still a problem for the long-term viability of solar power.

 

[mheslep]

Literature indicates solar becomes uneconomic with increasing share of generation, as more installation after a few percent canabalizes the value of existing capacity. More than a decade of data is available now on solar power usage in major countries, which seems to confirm predictions. Apparently solar hits a wall at ~7-8% share of total generation. The five largest countries by installed solar share:

Most of the world is still below 1% solar, so the industry has considerable growth potential, though the data above suggests limits ahead, perhaps lower than these five countries when subsidies are not feasible.

 

[Algr]

What is causing the "wall"? Political resistance? Lack of panel availability? Splitting up the sun between too many cells?

 

[nikkkom]

Germany and Japan are not particularly sunny countries and population density is high. They don't have huge unpopulated areas, and no deserts.

 

[NTL2009]

What is causing the "wall"? Political resistance? Lack of panel availability? Splitting up the sun between too many cells?

None of the above as far as I can tell. I believe the reason for topping out is simple math, and lack of practical/affordable storage now, or on the horizon.

The panels are only producing a portion of the day (and varies seasonally as well in most areas), with that 8% concentrated into mid-day. So the actual solar power near noon and in-season is a much higher number ( ~ 4 x the 8%? maybe/probably even higher?). Other base load power plants can't be cut back too much, and still be ready for morning and late afternoon peaks, so you can get to the point where the solar power simple cannot be used, and therefore not sold.

Every incremental panel you add at that point is adding to the 'problem', delivering more of its power when it can't be sold, so the economic return on each added panel becomes less and less. There may also be issues of not being able to regulate voltage/frequency of the grid when there is a high % of decentralized power that can't be controlled - but that is beyond my knowledge. There are others here steeped in grid technicalities that could address that.

 

[OmCheeto]

What is causing the "wall"? Political resistance? Lack of panel availability? Splitting up the sun between too many cells?

My guess is "storage capacity".
You have to pay REALLY CLOSE ATTENTION to what mhesleps graph is saying.

My guess as to what it is saying; "We've installed solar to the point where it supplies 100% of our needs when it's sunny. We didn't think about storage, so, there is no need to add more, until we solve that problem."

 

[johnbbahm]

Literature indicates solar becomes uneconomic with increasing share of generation, as more installation after a few percent canabalizes the value of existing capacity. More than a decade of data is available now on solar power usage in major countries, which seems to confirm predictions. Apparently solar hits a wall at ~7-8% share of total generation. The five largest countries by installed solar share:

View attachment 211050

Most of the world is still below 1% solar, so the industry has considerable growth potential, though the data above suggests limits ahead, perhaps lower than these five countries when subsidies are not feasible.

I suspect the wall is because of the policies in place for grid attachment.
Net metering and other plans that pay more than the wholesale rate, are accounting dead ends, and will generate push back from the utilities.
The pushback is because they like to stay in business, the response to the utility pushback is often to lower the amount paid for surplus power.
this in turn makes solar less attractive, to the homeowner.
I think solar is strong enough to stand on it's own merit, but they need to sell it correctly.

 

[NTL2009]

...
I think solar is strong enough to stand on it's own merit, but they need to sell it correctly.

And how do you sell solar power at noon, if everyone already has all they can use?

It's like the old joke (not to make a joke of the issue though), of selling refrigerators to the Eskimos.

 

[johnbbahm]

My guess is "storage capacity".
You have to pay REALLY CLOSE ATTENTION to what mhesleps graph is saying.

My guess as to what it is saying; "We've installed solar to the point where it supplies 100% of our needs when it's sunny. We didn't think about storage, so, there is no need to add more, until we solve that problem."

If one thinks about it a bit, the biggest surpluses will be in Spring and Fall when it is still sunny, but not
hot enough or cold enough for AC or Heating.
I think the surpluses could be stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels made at existing refineries.
The efficiency is only about 70%, but the power was going to be wasted anyway.

 

[russ_watters]

What is causing the "wall"? Political resistance? Lack of panel availability? Splitting up the sun between too many cells?

It is mostly availability of the sun and matching the grid demand with the solar supply. In a country like Germany, you get an availability factor of at best 20%, which means 8% of annual consumption corresponds to a peak capacity of 40% of peak load. If the solar production peals at a time when the load is low, there can be a surplus, which has to be wasted or given away for free, providing no economic benefit. This has already happened: enviro-leaning news reports days of 100% renewable supply as glorious harbingers of an all renewable future but In reality they are economic disasters signaling the end of dollar's expansion.

In addition, solar still has to be fully backed up by conventional sources, which means the more solar you put in, the more expensive the backup gets (because it is used less).

 

[johnbbahm]

And how do you sell solar power at noon, if everyone already has all they can use?

It's like the old joke (not to make a joke of the issue though), of selling refrigerators to the Eskimos.

You change the market, it would take about 50 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline from scratch (Water and atmospheric CO2).
When something is over supplied, it is a buyers market.
There would be almost no limit into how much fuel that could be produced during surplus cycles.
Once the energy is stored as a hydrocarbon, it's shelve life is greatly extended.

 

[russ_watters]

If one thinks about it a bit, the biggest surpluses will be in Spring and Fall when it is still sunny, but not
hot enough or cold enough for AC or Heating.
I think the surpluses could be stored as man made hydrocarbon fuels made at existing refineries.
The efficiency is only about 70%, but the power was going to be wasted anyway.

...making solar even more expensive. The 8% limit isn't a technical hurdle per se, it is a threshold above which you can no longer ignore some of solar's major grid impact downsides and have to start paying even more to alleviate them.

 

[johnbbahm]

It is mostly availability of the sun and matching the grid demand with the solar supply. In a country like Germany, you get an availability factor of at best 20%, which means 8% of annual consumption corresponds to a peak capacity of 40% of peak load. If the solar production peals at a time when the load is low, there can be a surplus, which has to be wasted or given away for free, providing no economic benefit. This has already happened: enviro-leaning news reports days of 100% renewable supply as glorious harbingers of an all renewable future but In reality they are economic disasters signaling the end of dollar's expansion.

In addition, solar still has to be fully backed up by conventional sources, which means the more solar you put in, the more expensive the backup gets (because it is used less).

Germany has been aware of this problem for quite a while, and has considered energy storage as a solution.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
I think natural gas is too cheap to be viable right now, but the technology has advanced and they can now make liquid fuels.

 

[russ_watters]

When something is over supplied, it is a buyers market.

...and producers no longer have any incentive to produce more. That's what has happened!

 

[johnbbahm]

...making solar even more expensive. The 8% limit isn't a technical hurdle per se, it is a threshold above which you can no longer ignore some of solar's major grid impact downsides and have to start paying even more to alleviate them.

By finding a new market for the surplus, the wall may disappear.

 

[russ_watters]

Germany has been aware of this problem for quite a while, and has considered energy storage as a solution.

Yes, as I said there are technical solutions; this is primarily an economic problem. Germany already pays dearly for their solar and above that threshold it gets a lot worse.

 

[russ_watters]

By finding a new market for the surplus, the wall may disappear.

That doesn't make the wall disappear, it adds a second nonviable product on top of solar. Sure, you can do it but the pain threshold only goes so high.

 

[johnbbahm]

Yes, as I said there are technical solutions; this is primarily an economic problem. Germany already pays dearly for their solar and above that threshold it gets a lot worse.

The ability to store energy for later use and other applications could be a game changer,
we will have to see if this is how it plays out.
Perhaps the oil companies could pay solar homeowners in fuel credits for their surplus, or something like that.

 

[NTL2009]

By finding a new market for the surplus, the wall may disappear.

Germany has been aware of this problem for quite a while, and has considered energy storage as a solution.
https://www.fraunhofer.de/en/press/research-news/2010/04/green-electricity-storage-gas.html
I think natural gas is too cheap to be viable right now, but the technology has advanced and they can now make liquid fuels.

Sure - but where is this new market?

The link you provided is from 2010. Have they come close to commercializing this in the past 7 years? Are there updates?

You need to take into account the efficiency, any losses make the electricity that much more expensive. Then add in amortizing the capital costs (and ongoing costs) of the storage system. The electricity is getting expensive, maybe so expensive that no one wants it?

And those capital costs for the storage system - remember, storing a few hours of say a 10% excess on a grid is a very large storage system ( a single typical coal plant is ~ 800 MW). So that system will be very expensive. And then, it only gets used during peaks, which will not be everyday, and will be seasonal. That is a very difficult economic case to make.

The ability to store energy for later use and other applications could be a game changer,
we will have to see if this is how it plays out.

Except there really is no "solution" that I know of on the horizon. Only ideas, none of them with a path towards practicality that we can see at this time. And large systems take a very long time to get deployed.

I wish it weren't so, but wishes an't change reality.

 

[johnbbahm]

That doesn't make the wall disappear, it adds a second nonviable product on top of solar. Sure, you can do it but the pain threshold only goes so high.

I do not think the pain threshold is that high.
If Sunfire is to be believed, they can create fuel at 70% efficiency (The Naval Research labs say 60%).
This means it would take 50 Kwh to make a gallon of gasoline counting breaking down the water and cracking the CO2.
At a wholesale price of 3 cents per Kwh, the cost to make a gallon of gasoline would be about $1.50,
or roughly equal to about $60 a barrel oil.
Gasoline, Diesel, and jet fuels are all viable products, if the price is right.

 

[russ_watters]

The ability to store energy for later use and other applications could be a game changer...

It's pretty unlikely. There are plenty of technically doable storage solutions out there, but by nature they are really difficult to make economically viable.

Perhaps the oil companies could pay solar homeowners in fuel credits for their surplus, or something like that.

I can't imagine why an oil company would ever want to do such a thing.

 

[johnbbahm]

Sure - but where is this new market?

The link you provided is from 2010. Have they come close to commercializing this in the past 7 years? Are there updates?

You need to take into account the efficiency, any losses make the electricity that much more expensive. Then add in amortizing the capital costs (and ongoing costs) of the storage system. The electricity is getting expensive, maybe so expensive that no one wants it?

And those capital costs for the storage system - remember, storing a few hours of say a 10% excess on a grid is a very large storage system ( a single typical coal plant is ~ 800 MW). So that system will be very expensive. And then, it only gets used during peaks, which will not be everyday, and will be seasonal. That is a very difficult economic case to make.

Sorry, I posted the 2010 link to show they have been working on the problem for a while.
http://www.sunfire.de/en/applications/fuel
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2014/scale-model-wwii-craft-takes-flight-with-fuel-from-the-sea-concept
Both Audi/Sunfire and the Naval Research labs have ongoing research efforts.
The Navy researchers seem to think they can have a detached carrier group by 2021.