Interesting article on solar and wind costs.
- Thread starter sesmith
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
As always, cost-effectiveness depends on the area. Germany and UK have relatively modest local energy resources, and what they have in Germany is mostly coal, which is heavily taxed. When you're paying $0.30/kWh (US equivalent), a lot of alternatives look attractive that don't necessarily make sense in the US where the average is $0.11/kWh.
The supposed cycle the article references is flawed, however. If such a cycle starts, it always bottoms out at the cost of energy from the renewable source. The fact that the energy is "free" (it would be better described as paid up front) doesn't change that. To get more generation, you have to spend more money, and the decision whether or not to build more generation comes down to a comparison - e.g. is it cheaper to run my natural gas plant more, or to install more wind turbines or solar panels?
And beyond certain levels, cost stops mattering because you must have enough capacity you can control to meet demand when the sources you can't control aren't producing (night time, calm days, etc).
This is one of several reason why a lot of experts expect wind and solar generation to plateau around 20% of our national supply unless some sort of radical new energy storage technology is developed.
The supposed cycle the article references is flawed, however. If such a cycle starts, it always bottoms out at the cost of energy from the renewable source. The fact that the energy is "free" (it would be better described as paid up front) doesn't change that. To get more generation, you have to spend more money, and the decision whether or not to build more generation comes down to a comparison - e.g. is it cheaper to run my natural gas plant more, or to install more wind turbines or solar panels?
And beyond certain levels, cost stops mattering because you must have enough capacity you can control to meet demand when the sources you can't control aren't producing (night time, calm days, etc).
This is one of several reason why a lot of experts expect wind and solar generation to plateau around 20% of our national supply unless some sort of radical new energy storage technology is developed.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Radical new energy storage, or radical implementation of demand management, or both.
Why does a hot water tank draw electricity whenever internal temperature hits a threshold, without regard to supply conditions?
Why not have a data connection so that it draws electricity over a range of internal temperatures, depending upon the instantaneously variable electricity price?
My internet hub is 2 m from my hotwater tank; the electronics would be simple if made in bulk.
Likewise for electric resistance/storage heat, air conditioning, freezers, refrigerators, slow cookers, electric car charging, even laptop charging etc.
And/or, stagger the timing of local electrical draws; when my water heater goes on, yours goes off etc.
This is already done for large industrial consumers, but could be scaled out.
We are no longer trapped in the model that a consumer can draw electricity in arbitrary amounts, at arbitrary times, for a fixed rate.
Why does a hot water tank draw electricity whenever internal temperature hits a threshold, without regard to supply conditions?
Why not have a data connection so that it draws electricity over a range of internal temperatures, depending upon the instantaneously variable electricity price?
My internet hub is 2 m from my hotwater tank; the electronics would be simple if made in bulk.
Likewise for electric resistance/storage heat, air conditioning, freezers, refrigerators, slow cookers, electric car charging, even laptop charging etc.
And/or, stagger the timing of local electrical draws; when my water heater goes on, yours goes off etc.
This is already done for large industrial consumers, but could be scaled out.
We are no longer trapped in the model that a consumer can draw electricity in arbitrary amounts, at arbitrary times, for a fixed rate.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Smart phones already learn user behavior, know when you are awake or sleeping, driving or not, etc. The electronics/controls would be simple for appliances/electronics to do the same, even suggest a different time for use (for example, based on rates, grid supply/demand conditions, or user's PV supply availability).
semipro
Minister of Fire
maple1
Minister of Fire
You would first need variable electricity prices.
The only way we can get that here, is to install a very expensive ETS heating system. Then NSP will do you up a time-of-day meter. So your heating system will charge itself up at night when rates are lower - but the rest of the time when you are using most all the rest of your juice, you are buying at a much higher rate. I could do that with my present heating system, but it doesn't qualify because it isn't a 'real & official' ETS system, and I'm not sure if we would be any further ahead anyway with the much higher 'normal time of use' rates.
So getting to variable use with variable rates is more on the supply side of the system & the utilities to provide it, than the users to use it. Can't use what isn't there. Hopefully the utilities will come around in that thinking, at some point in the not so distant future.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
Another approach would be to let the consumer decide how to use electricity, how to manage that use, and how much to pay for it. If energy conservation was the goal, then the utility could have a scale of rates based on monthly usage, for example: $0.10/kwh for usage less than 500 kwh/mo; $0.15/kwh 500-1000 kwh/mo; $0.20/kwh 1000-1500 kwh/mo; etc. This would use price as the mechanism for consumers to achieve conservation. The result likely would be a substantial reduction in electricity usage.
My utility electronically reads the meter every day. Another step would be a similar scale of rates based on daily consumption. This would lead consumers to schedule their usage on their terms and according to their preferences to even out usage to gain the lower price electricity. Suppose a daily rate at $0.10/kwh for usage less than 15 kwh/day; $0.15/kwh 15-30 kwh/day; $0.30/kwh 30-45 kwh/day; etc. Now the consumer based on price would make efforts to even out usage on a daily basis to achieve a lower overall rate. Maybe I would dry one load of clothes per day rather than multiple loads. The result likely would be more even grid demand and energy conservation.
Leaving the choice to utilities is like asking a business to reduce their profits. Utilities are in the business of making money and encouraging energy use, and in setting rates that ensure that result. They are not in the business of reducing profits and conserving energy.
My utility electronically reads the meter every day. Another step would be a similar scale of rates based on daily consumption. This would lead consumers to schedule their usage on their terms and according to their preferences to even out usage to gain the lower price electricity. Suppose a daily rate at $0.10/kwh for usage less than 15 kwh/day; $0.15/kwh 15-30 kwh/day; $0.30/kwh 30-45 kwh/day; etc. Now the consumer based on price would make efforts to even out usage on a daily basis to achieve a lower overall rate. Maybe I would dry one load of clothes per day rather than multiple loads. The result likely would be more even grid demand and energy conservation.
Leaving the choice to utilities is like asking a business to reduce their profits. Utilities are in the business of making money and encouraging energy use, and in setting rates that ensure that result. They are not in the business of reducing profits and conserving energy.
Hmmm. Market failure.
A case to rewrite the rules, that were originally created to subsidize grid electrification beyond dense urban centres.
In sunny, spread out Africa, they may leapfrog the whole rural powergrid stage and jump direct to local solar powered networks, analogous to what is happening with their telephone services.
A case to rewrite the rules, that were originally created to subsidize grid electrification beyond dense urban centres.
In sunny, spread out Africa, they may leapfrog the whole rural powergrid stage and jump direct to local solar powered networks, analogous to what is happening with their telephone services.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...ast-over-next-20-years-china-has-over-past-20
India may leapfrog from a terrible, inadequate electricity grid driven by coal to a distributed system driven by solar and wind.
India may leapfrog from a terrible, inadequate electricity grid driven by coal to a distributed system driven by solar and wind.
^^This^^ When I was in India with my sons we were frequently surrounded by young men asking about living in America and what would be the best thing to learn. I told them to take leadership in energy independence via solar and wind. So glad to see this happening.
Yeah I agree - energy storage and transmission is still the elephant in the room when it comes to renewables. Probably the best available renewable energy storage is hydroelectric. During the day when solar/wind are peaking the dam can store up potential, then release it at night to make up the difference. The issue is that hydroelectric doesn't exist everywhere, transmission is limited, and even where it does exist in great quantities (here in WA state), there are limits to how much river flow can be altered without causing damage to the (already severely damaged) ecosystems around them. In WA, where up to 7% of the states total electrical energy is wind generated, it is still not too uncommon for windmills to be left locked out at times in order to maintain enough flow on the Columbia river via the Grand Coulee dam. The spillways alone can't provide enough flow so the generators have to be run sometimes.
It's actually more convoluted than that. The wind turbine owners got a sheisty court ruling requiring BPA to buy their power even when BPA has more power than they can dispose of. They can't reduce power at the dams beyond a point either, even if they have storage capacity (which in the spring when wind production peaks, they don't because of the flowrates are so high), because they need to maintain minimum river flow rates for the protected salmon, and they're only allowed to use the spillways under limited circumstances because they churn the water too much and the extra air that ends up dissolved in the water can hurt the fish. That means the water has to go through the turbines. So to use up the excess electricity and prevent damaging overvoltages, the BPA has to pay some of the big industrial users to keep equipment running when it's not needed, which is a cost that gets passed on to the rest of us ratepayers.
I thought at Grand Coulee they use the excess power to pump water up into Bank Lake as a power and irrigation reservoir.
That's correct begreen, but the pump/generators are relatively modest in size (as much as you can call a pump station with the power of literally about 100 locomotives "modest"). They only amount to about 5% of the generating capacity of Grand Coulee, making them a pretty minor contributor to the region's supply.
True only a third of the 18 generators can pump. And these are the older generators. The new ones are monsters in comparison. The point being that pumping excess water up to a storage resevoir is another way to address excess power in some locations. Of course there are always environmental trade-offs with any dam/reservoir installation.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
I suppose panic would strike the US public if citizens actually had to have a material role in energy management. The mere idea of having unlimited power available whenever desired is ridiculous.
I think the sought after solution is one in which people themselves would have little to no role, or knowledge, of there being anything amiss. Integrated smart grid automation technology that makes the decisions for us. To the end user, it might simply be a matter of lights being dimmed slightly, or thermostat setting adjusted slightly upwards at certain times of the day. In many cases unnoticeable, or actually working towards an improvement in occupant comfort. There is a ton of savings to be had, without having any adverse affect on comfort levels as it stands today.
No more so than having a credit card. If you can afford it, money = power. Go buy a Lamborghini or a Tesla, if you prefer.
semipro
Minister of Fire
Along with the lowered maintenance costs comes less congestion associated with traffic rerouting around bucket trucks.
The advance of technology like this seems to be a win all around.
- Status
Similar threads
