Will Solar Power Outshine Oil in the Near Future?

[russ_watters]

So all but the residential systems are generating power at less than what I pay for electricity. (12.2¢/kwh)

You're not comparing their generation cost to your total cost, are you?

 

[Algr]

Re: Trillion Dollars of windmills/solar = Middle East:

I can't find my original sources So I have to redo this calculation. I did the conversion based on how many watt/hours were in a barrel of oil, and what was the realistic long term output of a windmill.

An important factor in this is that we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East, so replaceing it with windmills still leaves us with plenty of oil for 747s. We are going to see a big upswing in electric cars in the next few years, as they will soon be cheaper then gas. They tend to charge at night, thus evening out demand spikes.

Remember that cars get replaced regularly, so the cost of switching to electric is only ADDED cost of the new car that you were going to buy anyway. People who actually need to drive cross country already know not to buy electric yet, there is no need for you to make that decision for anyone else.

 

[NTL2009]

Re: Trillion Dollars of windmills/solar = Middle East:

An important factor in this is that we don't get that much of our oil from the Middle East, ...

I don't think that is a factor at all. Commodity products are fungible. In order to say we aren't importing any oil from the ME, we need to not import any oil (at all). Our demand for imported oil will be filled from world supplies. You can't segregate ME oil any more than you can segregate solar or wind driven electrons on the grid (I want those electrons!).

We are going to see a big upswing in electric cars in the next few years, as they will soon be cheaper then gas. They tend to charge at night, thus evening out demand spikes.

Remember that cars get replaced regularly, so the cost of switching to electric is only ADDED cost of the new car that you were going to buy anyway. People who actually need to drive cross country already know not to buy electric yet, there is no need for you to make that decision for anyone else.

OK, we can assume some % of EV adoption, but let's not overdo it. Not everyone has access to chargers, and range will be an issue for some people, and long haul trucks, trains, etc (not just 747's) will be petroleum based for the foreseeable future.

 

[Algr]

I don't think that is a factor at all. Commodity products are fungible. In order to say we aren't importing any oil from the ME, we need to not import any oil (at all). Our demand for imported oil will be filled from world supplies. You can't segregate ME oil any more than you can segregate solar or wind driven electrons on the grid (I want those electrons!).

The original quote was "One trillion in windmills and solar cells would generate more power then we get from the middle east." It doesn't NEED to be different oil or electrons. The point was to eliminate US dependence on the middle east so that radicals 1. Can't keep blaming the US for their problems, and 2) Have less money to fund terrorist activities.

Not everyone has access to chargers,

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

 

[NTL2009]

The original quote was "One trillion in windmills and solar cells would generate more power then we get from the middle east." It doesn't NEED to be different oil or electrons. The point was to eliminate US dependence on the middle east so that radicals 1. Can't keep blaming the US for their problems, and 2) Have less money to fund terrorist activities. ...

Something makes me think that they will blame us even more, if we were to effectively boycott their products - that usually makes the provider mad at you. And again, oil is fungible, others will buy from them. Unless we eliminate all our oil imports, a % will continue to be ME oil. Like I said, I'm not sure it is even meaningful to assign the entire cost of our ME involvement to oil, but if you are, we need to at least isolate ourselves from all imported oil.

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

Now you are being silly about a serious subject. I lived in the city of Chicago for some years. That is a large city, not a cave. Many people are in apartments, with no electricity at their parking space, many people park on the street. Of homes with garages, many/most are detached, and out in the "alley", and are wired for a single 115 V 15 A circuit (maybe less - they were electrified a long time ago when all anyone wanted was a single 60W light bulb - luxury!).

 

[mheslep]

If you live in a cave with no electricity, then EVs are not for you. Got it.

The large majority of the world's vehicle owners don't have two car garages. They increasingly live here:

 

[Algr]

Solution: costs $239

http://www.northerntool.com/shop/to...gSl8AxXMOp358vGbIohl7ZfjbXofVcY4aAo0nEALw_wcB

Also if you park on the street, you probably aren't buying a 2018 model car for a few years. If the city can install street lamps, they can install outlets. And the latter will make them some money so there will be plenty of motivation to do so. I live in the suburbs and all the malls near my house have electric charging stations already.

 

[mheslep]

Street lamps are typically 400 W, one or two per block, not 6000 W per parking space.

 

[Algr]

Street lamps are typically 400 W, one or two per block, not 6000 W per parking space.

So we are going to fight another gulf war because it's easier than installing a $239 cable? You guys seem really desperate to find obstructions here.

Something makes me think that they will blame us even more, if we were to effectively boycott their products - that usually makes the provider mad at you. And again, oil is fungible, others will buy from them. Unless we eliminate all our oil imports, a % will continue to be ME oil. Like I said, I'm not sure it is even meaningful to assign the entire cost of our ME involvement to oil, but if you are, we need to at least isolate ourselves from all imported oil.

Yes, they'll be mad at us, but what will they do, refuse to sell us oil? Reduced demand will make the price go down for everyone, and if they reduce supply they reduce their profits even more. And it's not like we'd be on our own doing this, Europe is already ahead of us. Or the rich oil sheiks will realize that terrorism is hurting their profits, and they will get serious about stopping it.

 

[NTL2009]

So we are going to fight another gulf war because it's easier than installing a $239 cable? You guys seem really desperate to find obstructions here. ...

Your cable "solution" is about as viable as all the other "solutions" that have been provided.

A semi truck won't get very far on a 100 foot cable.

Imagine all these EVs, charging at night (so as not to cripple the grid during daytime heavy loads). No solar w/o storage, still need fossil/nukes for low wind nights. Not as simple as a silly cable.

Solar has a place, but it's limited. Best to understand and work within those limitations than to count on unicorns to show up.

 

[Algr]

A semi truck won't get very far on a 100 foot cable.

Now you are just being obtuse. Read context above. Nobody parks a semi outside their apartment at night.

======================
So far I've got:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries.

1 barrel = 1.7 MWh.

2,958,000 MWh per day from the Middle East.

http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-energy-costs

$32-$62/MWh for windmills - But I'm still missing the context for this one or the price comes out absurdly low.

 

[johnbbahm]

I didn't mean to imply (and did not say) that the linked process violated the laws of physics, it clearly doesn't. I mentioned that as a means to estimate the "best case" limits of any proposed solution.

Regarding Sunfire, it seems to be as said earlier, a military solution where cost is not near the top of the priority list. From your link:
Nowhere in there did I see any reference to this fuel being anywhere near cost-competitive with fossil fuels. So it simply is not reasonable to assume this process would be applicable to large scale use of any excess grid energy.

I would be very interested if you could find a reputable source that shows a process like this has the potential to convert solar energy to gasoline to power my car, at a competitive $/gallon retail price, with all costs factored in.

And their plans (as of a year ago), called for scaling this up to... one gallon a day. So this is still very small scale demonstration level. The question is cost. We have plenty of storage options today, if you ignore cost.
Please don't make me laugh, this is a serious subject. I will assume you have never brought a product from prototype to commercialization. I have, and trust me, there is still plenty of "hard work" to be done after your proof-of-concept has been shown to work in the lab. Often, it is the commercialization that is the hardest part, and often where the failures occur.

Even Edison said it: "Invention is 1% inspiration, and 99% perspiration".

The Navy states that their man made fuel will cost between $3 and $6 a gallon, but Sunfire which is commercial
spinoff from Audi, states they can make fuel from between $1.10 and $1.30 per liter.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/technology/audi-diesel-air-water/index.html
What we do not know in all of this, is what the Exxon and Shells of the world have been doing.
The oil related companies have a long history of leading edge research.
(Texas Instruments, was founded from the geophysical company GSI)

 

[William Adams]

Yes, it can. I agree with the fact that it can overtake in future.

 

[johnbbahm]

You keep repeating this over and over again without responding to the points people are making about its irrelevance. Let me reformulate @NTL2009 's point with an example: we figured out the physics behind space travel 50 years ago and used it to put men on the moon. After that, "the scale up engineering" to build a colony on the moon "is possible". So why hasn't it happened? Because the laws of physics still dictate how big of a rocket it takes to get to the moon, which thereby dictates how much it costs. So a colony won't happen without a game-changer technology because the laws of physics drive the economics and prevent the idea from being affordable.

Closer to home, the laws of physics dictate the size and height of reservoir needed, size of piping, size and power of pumps/turbines, etc required for a certain amount of storage, which therefore dictates the cost. That's why pumped-storage is a difficult proposition.

You're completely ignoring this issue with the technology you are discussing (not necessarily your fault: it is generally glossed-over in the media hype of new inventions), but it is certainly there and it is unlikely to allow the technology to become viable.

It may "make sense" but the reason it hasn't happened yet in a scale needed to save solar is because it costs more money than it saves. I doubt the solar-to-gas idea will fix that.

The choice is essentially this for places that haven't maxed-out their solar without storage:
Option 1. [do nothing] Keep an existing gas/coal plant (zero capital cost, a certain production cost).
Option 2. Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before.

Right now, Option 2 isn't too painful, so people are doing it some.

For Germany and several other countries, Option 2 doesn't really work anymore because above 8% some of the output of a solar plant gets wasted if there is no storage. So now we have:

Option 3: Build a solar plant. Keep the existing coal/gas plant for back-up at a higher cost than it was before. Build a storage or conversion plant.

Since Option 3 incorporates Option 2, it *must* be more expensive than Option 2.

First, I am not advocating solar plants, I do not think they are viable.
I do think that at the current prices home solar could be vary viable, but they need to address the
deficiencies in the current grid tie rules. The home solar producer cannot be paid more than the wholesale
price for their surplus, without harming the utility. the utility would have to make the cost up somewhere.
I see the future role of solar as minimizing home electric bills. doing so will by the nature of our seasons,
produce large seasonal surpluses. I think those surpluses could be stored as transport fuels.
Sunfire has an energy storage fuel cell that looks interesting, but I do not think making fuel from electricity to later
burn for electricity is viable (The storage losses plus the Carnot losses would be too great.)
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com...le-solid-oxide-electrolyser-fuel-cell-system/

 

[nikkkom]

we figured out the physics behind space travel 50 years ago and used it to put men on the moon. After that, "the scale up engineering" to build a colony on the moon "is possible". So why hasn't it happened? Because the laws of physics still dictate how big of a rocket it takes to get to the moon, which thereby dictates how much it costs. So a colony won't happen without a game-changer technology because the laws of physics drive the economics and prevent the idea from being affordable.

Moon base does not require game-changer technology. Chemical rockets will do.

True, the size of the rocket is dictated by the amount of fuel it needs, which in turn is dictated by rocket equation and maximum attainable Isp with chemical fuels, ~450s for hydrogen/oxygen, less for hydrocarbons.

But the cost of all that fuel is very small, less than 1% of current launch costs. So far, most of the costs are elsewhere (labor and discarded hardware). If you reduce those costs, chemical rockets are enough to build Moon bases. SpaceX already shows how to do that.

So why hasn't Moon base happened? Because (1) there is no clear commercial reason to build one, and (2) if you try to build one with govt program, all the dangers of govt SNAFUs and astounding inefficiency jump on you. Space Shuttle is a govt rocket. Also, it is the most expensive rocket in history (by $/kg-in-LEO metric) - which is not a coincidence. Only government program people could think that to refurbish and refuel a solid motor, it's okay to send it 1500 miles across the country from Florida to Utah, and then back!

 

[NTL2009]

The Navy states that their man made fuel will cost between $3 and $6 a gallon, but Sunfire which is commercial
spinoff from Audi, states they can make fuel from between $1.10 and $1.30 per liter.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/28/technology/audi-diesel-air-water/index.html...

In the linked article, Sunfire says no such thing. They say (actual quote here, with emphasis):

"The company said it was aiming for a pre-tax price of between 1 and 1.20 euros per liter ($1.10 to $1.30), compared to the current German pre-tax price of around 0.6 euros per liter of gasoline."

So they are aiming for it to be twice as expensive to produce as gasoline. How good is their aim? Does this company have a track record of bringing products to market at their pre-announced price?

That claim is from 2.5 years ago - how are they doing now? OK< found this, from July, 2017 -
http://www.sunfire.de/en/company/pr...he-production-of-blue-crude-planned-in-norway

from 2020 the first plant shall start its operation ...
The target-price per litre lies below 2 Euros. ...

So they might start in 2020, and the target price has doubled in the last 2.5 years... so we will see. I wish them well, but I would not hold my breath.

 

[NTL2009]

Now you are just being obtuse. Read context above. Nobody parks a semi outside their apartment at night. ...

No, it was to demonstrate how obviously obtuse you were being, suggesting that a 100' cable was all that people in apartments or detached garages would need.

... So far I've got:
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries.

1 barrel = 1.7 MWh.

2,958,000 MWh per day from the Middle East. ...

While I can't accept your premise that reducing our imports by the % that represents our ME purchase will save that entire Military budget, and your assumptions on EV conversion are far too optimistic, let's go with it, just to see where it takes us...

On military costs: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/04/u-s-foreign-military-support/

A 2013 Senate Committee on Armed Services report put the cost of supporting the U.S. military presence abroad at more than $10 billion a year, 70 percent — or nearly $7 billion (annually) — of which, the report said, was spent in Germany, the Republic of Korea and Japan.

How much oil do we import from Germany, Korea, and Japan? Yet, we have costs there. Not all Military spending can be tied directly to oil.

http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-energy-costs

$32-$62/MWh for windmills - But I'm still missing the context for this one or the price comes out absurdly low.

Well, this thread is "The Future of Solar Power", not wind, so that should get it's own thread if you want to go there.

But the Levelized Cost numbers you provided are for lifetime costs. I think a better way to compare to the cost of a war (which is still a very questionable assignment) is take your daily Millions of MWh number, then calculate how much installed solar it would take to produce that energy on average (using capacity factor of ~ 16%). Now, add in the cost of storage and losses. Now add in all the conversions to fuel for uses that cannot be supplied by batteries. Show your work :)

 

[OmCheeto]

Cutting loose of the grid and going it alone...

Not sure where I inferred that. As I recall, I said the grid should be expanded.

You're not comparing their generation cost to your total cost, are you?

Yes. Why not?

 

[mheslep]

1.74 million barrels per day from person gulf countries

North America is no longer dependent on Persian Gulf oil. As that EIA reference shows, the US exports five times the petroleum product that it imports from the Gulf.

 

[mheslep]

SpaceX already shows how to do that

Showing is doing, so clearly not. SpaceX talks about Moon missions. But there is no moon base, and there is no private moon landing.

 

[mheslep]

$32-$62/MWh for windmills - But I'm still missing the context for this one or the price comes out absurdly low.

The suggestion made by quoting a price alone is that, if A is cheaper than B, then A could be used to eliminate B, then the price going forward would be the price of A instead. In the case of intermitent power, that's not generally true. From currently available technology, we know a coal or gas or hydro or nuclear plant is required in addition to intermittent source A. Also, some new transmission is likely required to support source A installed in remote regions.

The AWEA likes to cite electricity costs from Lazard. What they don't include is the disclaimer at the top Lazard chart:

Certain Alternative Energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies under some scenarios; such observation does not take into account potential social and environmental externalities (e.g., social costs of distributed generation, environmental consequences of certain conventional generation technologies, etc.), reliability or intermittency-related considerations (e.g., transmission and back-up generation costs associated with certain Alternative Energy technologies)

 

[Algr]

I can't accept your premise that reducing our imports by the % that represents our ME purchase will save that entire Military budget

Okay, this discussion is pointless. You can't deny what I said so you are claiming I said something totally different so that you can "disprove" that instead.

 

[NTL2009]

Okay, this discussion is pointless. You can't deny what I said so you are claiming I said something totally different so that you can "disprove" that instead.

We can still go through the "what if", even if we don;t agree on the premise. Please present your calculations.

For an analogy - one could say "What if everyone drove EVs and charged at night, what would the effect on the grid be?" Now, maybe I don't think everyone will be driving EVs, but we could still run the calculation based on that assumption, as an exercise and a reference point.

So please go ahead, and show your calculations based on your assumptions.

 

[Algr]

These are not unicorns.

It just occurred to me, if solar generates too much power in the daytime, then install the parking lot plugs where people work, so they can charge in the daytime. Remember that most people drive less then 25 miles a day, so a few cloudy windless days aren't going to be a problem.

These aren't the huge obstacles that some people want them to be.

The ones near my two malls are nicer then the pic above. You'd never notice them if you weren't looking.

 

[NTL2009]

These are not unicorns. View attachment 211175 It just occurred to me, if solar generates too much power in the daytime, then install the parking lot plugs where people work, so they can charge in the daytime. Remember that most people drive less then 25 miles a day, so a few cloudy windless days aren't going to be a problem. ...

OK, that could help.

But some people aren't going to be too happy to expect a charge, and then it turns cloudy with no excess that day. I suppose we could have smart algorithms in cars, and people could say "charge my car only if there is excess solar, at the discount rate", or "charge me a minimum of XX kWh, regardless of excess". People with commutes that are short relative to their range, and with the option to plug in at home to charge at night could take advantage of the excess when it is available.

So how 'bout running some numbers on that? I often find when I do that, it doesn't work out as well as I hoped. Maybe this one is different?

 

[mfb]

Showing is doing, so clearly not. SpaceX talks about Moon missions. But there is no moon base, and there is no private moon landing.

They are showing how to reuse rocket - a big step towards cheaper rockets. Even without reuse they have the cheapest rocket on the market in its size class right now, but that is nothing compared to potential savings with reuse.

Space Shuttle is a govt rocket. Also, it is the most expensive rocket in history (by $/kg-in-LEO metric) - which is not a coincidence. Only government program people could think that to refurbish and refuel a solid motor, it's okay to send it 1500 miles across the country from Florida to Utah, and then back!

Space Launch System will probably beat it.
Sending a motor across the country is cheap. SpaceX does it with the whole cores. The Space Shuttle cost came from other issues.

Anyway, back to solar power.

@Algr: You have a habit of picking the most optimistic cost estimate and presenting it like a market price, while at the same time ignoring all associated costs that would come with it. That makes discussion difficult.

Remember that most people drive less then 25 miles a day, so a few cloudy windless days aren't going to be a problem.

They are. If you cannot rely on a charging station, you'll try to keep the battery close to 100% as often as possible. Which means you want even more charging stations, both at home and at work, and ideally also if you use the car to go shopping. And it would still be less comfortable than an ICE car.

 

[nikkkom]

Sending a motor across the country is cheap. SpaceX does it with the whole cores. The Space Shuttle cost came from other issues.

Apples and oranges.
(1) SRB empty weight is 91 tons, 590 tons fully fueled - it's some 10 rail cars worth. SpaceX Falcon 9 empty 1st stage is ~23 tons - one large (extra long) truck.
but more importantly:
(2) SpaceX ships freshly manufactured cores across country _once_. Reused cores are not normally shipped anywhere, they stay at the launch site. SpaceX targets core reuse within 24 hours. Because fast reuse is a must to make spaceflight much cheaper.

In SpaceX world, sending core on multi-week errands across the country after each flight is such an insane idea no one thought of anything that stupid.

Space Shuttle cost came from many issues indeed, but they all boil down to the same root cause: STS program had no strong incentive to think very hard about costs. NASA can't go bankrupt. SpaceX can. As we all see now, that makes a world of difference.

 

[mfb]

Reused cores are not normally shipped anywhere, they stay at the launch site.

They are produced in Hawthorne in California, shipped to McGregor in Texas for tests, shipped to one of the coasts for flight, then shipped back to McGregor for refurbishment and further tests, then shipped back to one of the coasts for another flight. One of the cores flew from both coasts already - it doesn't make a difference because they are in Texas in between anyway.
24 hour turnaround (which means no refurbishment) is the goal for Block 5, not for the current rockets.

In SpaceX world, sending core on multi-week errands across the country after each flight is such an insane idea no one thought of anything that stupid.

They are literally doing this.

 

[nikkkom]

> Reused cores are not normally shipped anywhere, they stay at the launch site.

They are produced in Hawthorne in California, shipped to McGregor in Texas for tests, shipped to one of the coasts for flight, then shipped back to McGregor for refurbishment and further tests, then shipped back to one of the coasts for another flight.

That's why I have word "normally" there. First reused cores are not representative of how this will work in the long run. First cores were inspected and tested extensively.

 

[mfb]

I wouldn't call something that has never been done so far "normally". Your claim that the procedure done every time so far doesn't exist is simply wrong.

Anyway, let's get back to solar power.

 

[NTL2009]

...

Anyway, let's get back to solar power.

Thank you. The Space Shuttle and SpaceX are certainly worthy of their own thread.

 

[mheslep]

...
The most infamous 100% renewable author must be Jacobson, and in public discussions he is fanatically anti-nuclear, though he's not the only one. In comparing emissions from various sources, he ranked nuclear high in CO2. How so? Well, per Jacobson, one needs to count the massive fires started by coming nuclear wars and count them against nuclear power, never mind the actual blast destruction. For example:

...

From my inbox today:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/can-the-us-grid-work-with-100-renewables

Whoa boy. A respected scientist(?) calling criticism published in a respected journal fraudulent? Ugly and high scoring on the crackpot index...

It is very worrisome that Jacobson has such a high profile.

Crankdom is not sitting well with Prof Jacobson. He just filed a $10M http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-UIZYwE6YMvdTdySFZMbkxkbDA/viewagainst both the lead author of the paper critical of his work and the National Academy of Sciences.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...r-clean-energy-claims/?utm_term=.d231b615d1e5
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/s...it-against-critics-of-his-green-energy-study/
https://www.technologyreview.com/th...rgy-champion-is-suing-his-scientific-critics/

 

[russ_watters]

Crankdom is not sitting well with Prof Jacobson. He just filed a $10M http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-UIZYwE6YMvdTdySFZMbkxkbDA/viewagainst both the lead author of the paper critical of his work and the National Academy of Sciences.

Because that's how respectable scientists deal with criticism?

 

[OmCheeto]

Fun article in Nature about this conflict:

Energy researcher sues the US National Academy of Sciences for millions of dollars

Rare move stems from a conflict over two journal articles about renewable energy.
Chris Woolston
03 November 2017​

As a seventh generational techno-greenie, I of course side with Prof Jacobson, in spite of my differences of opinions on some minor details with him.
No need to through out the baby with the bath water.

Go Solar! (et al)

 

[NTL2009]

...

As a seventh generational techno-greenie, I of course side with Prof Jacobson, in spite of my differences of opinions on some minor details with him.
No need to through out the baby with the bath water.

Go Solar! (et al)

I cannot understand your stance on this conflict. If you support solar and renewables in general, you should also support accurate presentation of the information. Disinformation and over-promising can only result (in the long run) in hurting progress in these areas. And if the promises are accepted, money will be thrown at it, and much of that would be wasted, and could be applied to real solutions, instead of chasing unicorns.

Here's another link with some of the back-and-forth. The most notable and easy to understand (for me) is the section addressing Jacobson's rebuttal on his use of 1300 GW for future hydro power. Jacobson claims (though apparently never mentioned in his paper) that that was just a peak capacity (to smooth solar/wind), with no increase in average annual output. But current installed capacity of hydro in the US is ~ 80 GW. So that is an ~ 15x expansion, that Jacobson says would be done by adding turbines to existing plants.

As Clack points out in the rebuttal of his rebuttal, increasing peak capacity 15x is fraught with issues. 15x larger penstocks, is there enough space for that many turbines, and how can the downstream accept 15x the flow? That is no small detail!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8oxg2xykc8j3dx/ReplyResponse.pdf?dl=0

I'm all for clean energy and conservation, but so many proponents just seem to "hand wave" the realities that face the intermittent issues of wind/solar.