Renewable Energy

[Sigmetnow]

"A new way to make the most efficient and powerful types of solar cells could help solar power compete with fossil fuels."

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/527926/exotic-highly-efficient-solar-cells-may-soon-get-cheaper/

[ghoti]

Lots of incorrect info in the first 4 paragraphs of that article at which point I stopped reading. Regular cheap silicon PV cells now routinely meet the 18% level. PV cell cost really isn't the issue anymore. Supply chain, installation, and regulatory costs make up the majority of the price these days. Making some new cheaper (per watt per area) cells won't help much.

[domen_]

Actually making them more efficient would make whole installation cheaper, because there are just less inverters, cables, etc, to deal with.

[SATire]

domen_, any efficiency increases are taken greatefully. But we will not wait for new technologies - there is no time left. Therefore, such new technologies will not play a role in the transition to renewables. They may play a role in future when old renewables are renewed again. So if they learn to make more efficient PV-modules from old PV-modules it makes sense. If they use other materials (like in that article above) than it will not renew old installations and it is probably nonsense. Sorry - it is to late for such games.

In 2050 we will have 100% renewables and now we have about 25% - so assuming further linear replacement in about 10 years 50% of all renewables will be installed allready. That will be existing technology and the main scaling is completed after that. You see, it is allready to late for any technology needing >10 years for penetration of 50% of the market. So we have to concentrate on things working today. At this place that are wind on-shore and PV.

[domen_]

SATire, I agree. I was just trying to point out that more efficient panels (no matter which technology) leads to further cost reductions.

But I agree that we should go all-in with solar and wind, because they are here, they work and they are cost efficient.

What do you think about offshore wind? In Europe offshore wind currently makes about 0.7% of electricity (compared to 7.1% for onshore wind and 3% for solar).

There are many projects in the pipeline in North sea:

http://www.4coffshore.com/index.html

When all these projects are built then offshore wind will provide about 10-15% of electricity in EU.

That is a bit more than hydro power (which contributes about 10% in EU), so it's quite a substantial contribution. And this is not the full potential.

[SATire]

What do you think about offshore wind? In Europe offshore wind currently makes about 0.7% of electricity (compared to 7.1% for onshore wind and 3% for solar).

[...]

When all these projects are built then offshore wind will provide about 10-15% of electricity in EU.

That is a bit more than hydro power (which contributes about 10% in EU), so it's quite a substantial contribution. And this is not the full potential.

domen_, usually all my comments refer to Germany because I know that best. In Germany off-shore wind is not competetive (see also http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg18178.html#msg18178 ). The reasons against off-shore wind in Germany are the rough weather & waves in the shallow north sea and the fact, that the sea floor here is covered with dangerous weapons from 2 major wars. Both facts make the installations expensive and companies are still in the learning courve.

For EU the picture is clearly different - but you should allways investigate the potentials of all renewables regionally. E.g. in Denmark off-shore wind is important and in UK it may be a good idea, too. 

But there is also politics in involved in Germany - with good cause: In this summer the concept for "Energiewende 2.0" will be presented and I would not be to surprised, if off-shore wind would play a significant role despite its low local competitiveness. The reason for that could be, that off-shore wind is the only energy source left to the 4 big utilities solely - so they do not have to compete with decentral poeples PV & wind. And the good reason for politics to give the 4 big utility companies some candy could be, that we need them for 20 years healthy enough to deconstruct all the nuclear power plants. Storage of nuclear waste is paid by tax payer, but for deconstruction of the plants the big utilities have reserves by law which would be lost, if they go bankrupt. So for German poeple it could pay off, if we spend some money for expensive off-shore wind to save some money for deconstruction of nuclear by the big utilites.

To conclude: The energy mix must be optimized locally and also the big picture must be taken into acount. We will see in a few month how things will go in Germany...

[Sigmetnow]

They don't give many specifics on exactly how much power these SolarWindow Coatings generate, other than "53% more than other similar publicized products," but it was certified by the US Dept. Of Energy:

New Energy Technologies’ See-Through SolarWindow Coatings Set New Record for Generating Electricity

"Using today’s certified power-production data, Company engineers estimate that a SolarWindow™ installation on a fifty (50) story commercial building located in Florida could generate enough electricity to power at least 100 homes while eliminating the equivalent carbon emissions produced by vehicles driving approximately 2,750,000 miles per year."

http://www.azom.com/news.aspx?newsID=41122

[Sigmetnow]

Elon Musk's SolarCity just announced they will build a huge solar panel factory in upstate New York.  Despite current oversupply of low-efficiency, cheap panels, the objective is to address the "massive volume of affordable, high efficiency panels needed for unsubsidized solar power to outcompete fossil fuel grid power."

SolarCity has signed an agreement to acquire Silevo, a solar panel technology and manufacturing company whose modules have demonstrated a unique combination of high energy output and low cost. Our intent is to combine what we believe is fundamentally the best photovoltaic technology with massive economies of scale to achieve a breakthrough in the cost of solar power. Although no other acquisitions are currently being contemplated, SolarCity may acquire additional photovoltaics companies as needed to ensure clear technology leadership and we plan to grow internal engineering significantly.

We are in discussions with the state of New York to build the initial manufacturing plant, continuing a relationship developed by the Silevo team. At a targeted capacity greater than 1 GW within the next two years, it will be one of the single largest solar panel production plants in the world. This will be followed in subsequent years by one or more significantly larger plants at an order of magnitude greater annual production capacity.
...
SolarCity was founded to accelerate mass adoption of sustainable energy....

http://blog.solarcity.com/silevo/

[Sigmetnow]

Texas Utility Doubles Large-Scale Solar, Says It Will Be Coal-Free By 2016

According to the agreement, signed last year, EPE would buy solar power from Macho Springs for 5.79 cents a kilowatt-hour — less than half the 12.8 cents per kilowatt-hour average price for electricity from new coal plants, according to Bloomberg.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3449604/texas-utility-solar/

[crandles]

Vanadium batteries?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27829874

[Jim Hunt]

Vanadium batteries?

As used in the UK!

http://www.energystoragejournal.com/redt-provides-windy-scottish-island-with-flow-battery-storage-system/

[Sigmetnow]

A bit more on Silevo and their solar panels.  Peak Efficiency 18.4 %; up to 22% has been demonstrated.  Uses copper instead of silver, which saves on cost.  Factory in Buffalo, NY.

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/137334/solarcity-moves-into-manufacturing-with-silevo-takeover

[Sigmetnow]

Utilities in Texas and Utah switching to solar -- because it's cheaper.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/17/3449604/texas-utility-solar/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/20/3451429/utah-solar-purpa/

[Sigmetnow]

The Major Solar Projects List is a database of all ground-mounted solar projects, 1 MW and above, that are either operating, under construction or under development in the US.

- There are over 550 major solar projects currently in the database, representing over 32 GW of capacity.
- The list shows that there is over 6.3 GWac of major solar projects currently operating.
- There remains an enormous amount of capacity in the pipeline, with over 26 GW of PV and CSP projects either under construction or under development.
- Under the Obama Administration, 16 projects have been permitted on federal lands, which will provide 6,058 MW of generating capacity.

http://www.seia.org/research-resources/major-solar-projects-list

[Laurent]

5 unexpected countries that are leading the way on renewable energy

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/stories/5-unexpected-countries-that-are-leading-the-way-on-renewable-energy

[Sigmetnow]

"Organic" solar cells are paper thin and flexible.  And you can get a sample for free!
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451684/future-of-solar-technology/

[Sigmetnow]

Two Washington, D.C. Universities sign a 20-year agreement to buy "cheaper than brown power" solar power from three solar farms to be built in North Carolina -- the biggest solar set-up east of the Mississippi River.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/24/3452290/universities-solar-deal/

[jonthed]

Here are two more emerging technologies that I'm excited about:

1 - Wind Turbine/Water Condenser combo: Produces electricity, and also harvests water from humid air in dry regions. Providing off grid electricity and water in one swoop. Desalination may work out better value for coastal cities, but for remote communities who can't expect a network of water pipelines to cover the whole country, this is a simple solution.

http://www.treehugger.com/wind-technology/wind-turbine-makes-clean-water-desert.html
http://www.eolewater.com/gb/home.html

2 - EmDrive - New type of thrust engine, requires no fuel or propellant, simply electricity. Has now been demonstrated and explained theoretically. Has major implications for Satellites and space craft, but also potential implications for air travel and sub orbital travel.

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-02/06/emdrive-and-cold-fusion
http://www.emdrive.com/

See in particular their proposal for a hybrid vehicle:

http://emdrive.com/terrestrialapplications.html

[slow wing]

Jonthed,

That EMdrive is rubbish, based on your first link.

Shawyer aimed to develop an EmDrive: a closed, conical container which, when filled with resonating microwaves, experiences a net thrust towards the wide end. It seems to violate of the law of conservation of momentum, implied by Newton, which says that no closed system can have a net thrust. However, Shawyer says net thrust occurs because the microwaves have a group velocity which is greater in one direction than the other and Einstein's relativity comes into play. Group velocity, the speed of a collection of electromagnetic waves, is a tricky business -- a pulse of light can even have a group velocity which is greater than the speed of light -- but can it really cause net thrust?

Einstein's relativity doesn't save it because momentum is conserved in relativistic systems as well.

No, a closed system cannot sustain net thrust, no matter what is inside it.

[jonthed]

slow wing,

This EmDrive was first announced back in 2006 and was apparently met with much skepticism and ridicule, along the lines of what you have said. They claim to have addressed these concerns with physics and maths I don't understand, and even have a working prototype now. Did you read their FAQ? I know I can't discern the physical possibility or impossibility of what they are proposing, but it seems they have addressed the issues raised, and proven the theory with their working prototype.

They even have formulas showing how momentum is in fact conserved. Either way, no point arguing with me about it, I just wanted to make sure you had read the FAQ, and not dismissed it too quickly. Like I said, there have been many years and several teams working on this since it was first critiqued several years ago.

[jonthed]

From the EmDrive FAQ: http://emdrive.com/faq.html

Q. Why does the EmDrive not contravene the conservation of momentum when it operates in free space?
A. The EmDrive cannot violate the conservation of momentum. The electromagnetic wave momentum is built up in the resonating cavity, and is transferred to the end walls upon reflection. The momentum gained by the EmDrive plus the momentum lost by the electromagnetic wave equals zero. The direction and acceleration that is measured, when the EmDrive is tested on a dynamic test rig, comply with Newtons laws and confirm that the law of conservation of momentum is satisfied.

For more details see their last published paper on their latest work (found on their home page):

http://www.emdrive.com/IAC13paper17254.v2.pdf

[slow wing]

...I just wanted to make sure you had read the FAQ, and not dismissed it too quickly. Like I said, there have been many years and several teams working on this since it was first critiqued several years ago.

Don't worry, I'm also quick at dismissing perpetual motion machines, and there are plenty of people working on those as well.



OK, I looked on their theory page...

http://emdrive.com/principle.html

The inevitable objection raised, is that the apparently closed system produced by this arrangement cannot result in an output force, but will merely produce strain within the waveguide walls. However, this ignores Einstein’s Special Law of Relativity in which separate frames of reference have to be applied at velocities approaching the speed of light. Thus the system of EM wave and waveguide can be regarded as an open system, with the EM wave and the waveguide having separate frames of reference.

That is poppycock, presumably intended for those unfamiliar with special relativity. People analyse relativistic systems all the time using a single frame of reference.


And then the claim that their method of relativistic analysis somehow makes it an open system is ridiculous.


Momentum is conserved, component by component, in any (inertial) reference frame.

They can pump up the EM energy inside the cavity all they want - the cavity won't start shooting off in one direction without something else shooting off from it in one or more other directions.



It's not even a clever fraud.


This EmDrive is mumbo jumbo, voodoo science, ...

[crandles]

domen_, any efficiency increases are taken greatefully. But we will not wait for new technologies - there is no time left. Therefore, such new technologies will not play a role in the transition to renewables. They may play a role in future when old renewables are renewed again. So if they learn to make more efficient PV-modules from old PV-modules it makes sense. If they use other materials (like in that article above) than it will not renew old installations and it is probably nonsense. Sorry - it is to late for such games.

In 2050 we will have 100% renewables and now we have about 25% - so assuming further linear replacement in about 10 years 50% of all renewables will be installed allready. That will be existing technology and the main scaling is completed after that. You see, it is allready to late for any technology needing >10 years for penetration of 50% of the market. So we have to concentrate on things working today. At this place that are wind on-shore and PV.

I really don't follow this. If the product is 40 years from being ready to be sold then yes and perhaps even if it is 25 years from being market ready. If only 10 years from market, I don't see all available areas having been covered in PV within 10 years so there will be new areas without waste to recycle that will want to use best efficiency for price type of panels.

You don't seem to be saying that all available areas will be covered within 10 years so is there some reasoning that I am missing?


Perhaps this:
If it really is just a simple switch to a less toxic chemical, Magnesium chloride instead of Cadmium Chloride, perhaps this might be rather less time than 10 years from market?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-27987827

More than 90% of the solar cells are made from silicon. Around 7% are made from a material called cadmium telluride. The cadmium telluride cells are thinner than silicon and these are popular because they are also lighter and cheaper.

Perhaps 'magnesium telluride'? could become cheapest for a while before something else takes over for a while and so on. Thus it seems quite possible to me that no panel type ever gains more than a 20% share.

What is wrong with that reasoning? Are you saying everyone should abandon development of promising materials if they are more than 10 years from market?

[SATire]

domen_, any efficiency increases are taken greatefully. But we will not wait for new technologies - there is no time left. Therefore, such new technologies will not play a role in the transition to renewables. They may play a role in future when old renewables are renewed again. So if they learn to make more efficient PV-modules from old PV-modules it makes sense. If they use other materials (like in that article above) than it will not renew old installations and it is probably nonsense. Sorry - it is to late for such games.

In 2050 we will have 100% renewables and now we have about 25% - so assuming further linear replacement in about 10 years 50% of all renewables will be installed allready. That will be existing technology and the main scaling is completed after that. You see, it is allready to late for any technology needing >10 years for penetration of 50% of the market. So we have to concentrate on things working today. At this place that are wind on-shore and PV.

I really don't follow this. If the product is 40 years from being ready to be sold then yes and perhaps even if it is 25 years from being market ready. If only 10 years from market, I don't see all available areas having been covered in PV within 10 years so there will be new areas without waste to recycle that will want to use best efficiency for price type of panels.

You don't seem to be saying that all available areas will be covered within 10 years so is there some reasoning that I am missing?


[...]

What is wrong with that reasoning? Are you saying everyone should abandon development of promising materials if they are more than 10 years from market?

CRandles, the reasoning is much more simple. But I agree it is a bit confusing that I talk about 2 different 10 years at once and also about 2 different time-scales at the same time. So I try to give some more details.

There are typically 2 different time scales in market penetration: Technology & economic scaling. First thing is time-to-market for a new technology. That is usually 10 years in this kind of markets. So it would take ~10 years from a new material development to a new kind of solar cell you can buy.

The second thing is the time that new product needs to penetrate the market, e.g. the time that some significant amount of electricity is produced by this new technology. So it is the time you need to produce and install a lot of TWh. Remember the reason for scaling effects: Things like solar cells or computer chips are not getting cheaper just because time goes by but because the price drops with a slope proportional to the number of things produced before. That is the typical learning curve, like "Moors law" and can be applied for computer chips as well as chicken wings...

The second 10 years I mentioned is a different time: It is the time after which we will have 50% of electricity from renewables. So in 10 years 50% of all the renewables we need will allready be bought and be installed. That means, in 10 years some technologies are succesfully scaled and much more competetive than any other technology (including nuclear, fossils and other renewables). Any new technology eager to replace fossils must therefore be scaled in 10 years to get any significant market share before e.g. 2034. If it is only coming to visit the market in 10 years it will not have a chance. And every year it comes later reduces its chances significantly. To conclude: If any new technology wants to get its own color in such a graph like the one attached (and not only beeing part of "the others"), it must be scaled to mass production within 10 years. Otherwise it will by out not because of technology reasons but because of simple economic scaling reasons.


http://www.agora-energiewende.org/topics/the-energiewende/germanys-clean-energy-transition-what-is-the-energiewende/

But please understand: I am allways with development of new technologies (and not only because that is my business). But a lot of new technologies mentioned today will have no chance to replace fossils just because they will be to late. Those new technologies, which come to market today have a small chance to be scalled sucessfully in 10 years and to participate to the replacement of fossils, which will be completed in about 20 years. All other new technologies must aim to replace wind and solar - which will be much tougher after 20 years of further scaling PV&wind than e.g. replacing fossils is today. I hope you understand this simple economic logic - it is just to late because wind and solar are scaling so good. You have to overtake a fast Ferrari with your new soapbox and the Ferarri is allready getting speed while you still tighten the screws...

[crandles]

OK, 10 years development and 10 years scaling to fully realise minimum price per unit so starting now doesn't get the cost right down until 2034. That makes more sense; 2024 seemed too early.

Even so, if in 2024 material X is cheapest now but offers little scope for further economies from scaling. While material Y is a little more expensive but offers much more scope for further economies.

A new entrant to market may struggle to sell enough Y. An existing company already selling X may be concerned about competitors using Y and getting enough scaling economies, but could well stick with X despite such a risk, certainly if all competitors are likely to reach this same decision.

However, if Y has some advantage for certain niches then I could see existing company using both X on large scale and Y for niches markets until sufficient experience gained to be sure they can get price of Y to be lower than X.

Getting to market by 2034 seems likely to be too late. However, if likely to be competitive by 2024, I wouldn't see that as a lost cause.

[Shared Humanity]

I would like to make the obvious point that while it is a renewable, biomass and biogas does not solve our CO2 problem. We should take that one off the table.

[SATire]

I would like to make the obvious point that while it is a renewable, biomass and biogas does not solve our CO2 problem. We should take that one off the table.

Everybody including me agrees to that point. In 2000 biomass had some hope in competition to PV - but that is lost. It is all about PV & wind...

[SATire]

OK, 10 years development and 10 years scaling to fully realise minimum price per unit so starting now doesn't get the cost right down until 2034. That makes more sense; 2024 seemed too early.

CRandles: In 2034 the party is over and fossil is gone. If you have the cost down in 2034 for your new technology to replace fossils you have lost the race, because in 2034 fossils are allready replaced. In 2034 you have to replace wind and solar, if you want to make a point.

Of course any improvements compatible with current PV & wind technologies will be included and used by PV & wind - that is normal evolution during the learning curve. So if you have some technology helping PV or wind like some cost reducing processing step or improving efficiency 0.1 % you may have some economical success.

[domen_]

I would like to make the obvious point that while it is a renewable, biomass and biogas does not solve our CO2 problem. We should take that one off the table.

Biomass + CCS makes some sense. It may eventually be needed to reduce CO2 in atmosphere for a couple ten ppm.

[sofouuk]

'fossils will be gone by 2034'? 'in ten years 50% of the renewables we need will already have been bought and installed'? not that I wouldn't like to see it, but I'll bet very serious money that neither prediction even comes remotely close to coming true

[SATire]

'fossils will be gone by 2034'? 'in ten years 50% of the renewables we need will already have been bought and installed'? not that I wouldn't like to see it, but I'll bet very serious money that neither prediction even comes remotely close to coming true

sofouuk, "bet very serious money that neither prediction even comes remotely close to coming true" is exactly, what a company investing in future renewables must do. I would suggest to reconsider your bet due to some reasons I will explain. But first I want to make clear what I was talking about:
I was talking only about electrical power generation - the market for PV & wind and its competition from new renewables technologies. Fossils will probably be used for e.g. transportation longer.

Furthermore I would consider the market for fossil electrical power generation "dead" after renewables have >70% market share. At that time fossils will only be used in windless winter time as backup for wind & PV and only until the future grid is ready rendering backup and storage useless. The latter may be in 2034 if politics reacts now accordingly or may be later if politics does nothing...
However - any new renewables technology based on sun will not compete with fossils anymore in 2034, since in the dark time it is out, too.

So you think 50% renewable in 10 years is unlikely? Since we have 25% today and will have 43% in 2020 and 63% in 2030 (prognosis by federal network agency, see my Reply #423) - I think it is a conservative linear extrapolation.
 
If you are betting now your money by investing in renewables not on the market now / not scaled to mass production (dozens of TWh) in 10 years you should know, that we have allready "peak capacity installation" for renewables these days (in Germany that peak was in mad 2011 Fukushima year). It is safe to assume, that new installation (in Wh) will be constant between now and we reach about 75% and decline after that a bit to converge to a constant replacement rate. At the same time prices keep on dropping - so the renewable market is allready a shrinking market in terms of revenue. That is also observed by Renewables 2014 Global Status Report by REN21 (see Yuha's Reply #398) - that is the best free renewables market report I know. Maybe some extra demand in undeveloped countries will be generated when prices drop significantly - but you will not like to bet your money on new technologies sold for low prices.

So you are betting your money, that a new technology starting now and maybe scaled in 10 years will comepete in a shrinking market against existing technology, which allready is prooven to scale nicely? You should not need that money you are betting on that...

The same for fossil and nuclear: In this situation described above it is insane to invest in fossil or nuclear power plants unless you can get a guarantee from government for fix prices for 20-30 years (similar to renewables). But in a free market such investments would be like suicide. Renewables are so much tipped.

[sofouuk]

fine. not sure that '50% of electricity from renewables' is the same as '50% of the energy we need', also Germany is clearly far ahead of the global curve and hardly representative. I wouldn't consider 30% market share as 'dead' or 'gone', either, but never mind

[SATire]

also fine. The discussion above was about new renewable technologies for electricity and if that developments still makes some sense to replace fossils. So the context was clear for poeple involved and "no" was my answer above. It is all about PV & wind and nothing new is needed to save us, the new technolgies hardly have any chance.

I would see Germany as representative for countries transitioning towards renewables. It is not leading the pack but well mainstream transitioning and pretty standard in respect to wealth & industry and such things - so what Germany is doing can be done by any other developed country, too. Of course for some of the few countries not starting the transition yet that looks well ahead, but that perspective is surely not representative either.

[Sigmetnow]

Had not thought of this:  floating solar panels in a lake!  No need to purchase land, and it ties into the local hydropower grid.
However, despite what they say, I imagine it would affect the ecology of the lake, if only for the shade it creates.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/07/02/india-plans-worlds-largest-floating-solar-power-project-50-mw/

[Sigmetnow]

Due to solar power, Queensland Australia experienced a period when the wholesale cost of electricity was below zero -- in the middle of the day. 

"As early as 2018, solar could be economically viable to power big cities. By 2040 over half of all electricity may be generated in the same place it's used. Centralised, coal-fired power is over"

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/07/solar-has-won-even-if-coal-were-free-to-burn-power-stations-couldnt-compete

[Sigmetnow]

It's a solar roof and a wind roof!  ROI for this Jamaica location is 3-4 years.

http://phys.org/news/2014-07-kingston-jamaica-hybrid-harness-sun.html

[Sigmetnow]

Interesting graph showing solar cell efficiency improvements over the years.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/02/which-solar-panels-most-efficient/

[Yuha]

Interesting graph showing solar cell efficiency improvements over the years.

The latest version of the graph is available from NREL.

[Sigmetnow]

Interesting graph showing solar cell efficiency improvements over the years.

The latest version of the graph is available from NREL.

Cool.  Thanks!

[Sigmetnow]

Wind energy takes over for sudden loss of nuclear in the UK.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/wind-energy-to-rescue-as-edf-takes-part-of-uks-nuclear-fleet-offline-90185

South Australia wind energy jumps to 43% of power mix in July; at times renewables provided 100%.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-wind-energy-jumps-to-43-in-july-88992

[Sigmetnow]

Queensland, Australia tries a $500/day fee for using electricity -- no matter how little you use -- to protect utilities from decreased revenue due to customers using their own solar power.  Would that dissuade you from installing solar panels?  Or, persuade you to drop off the grid entirely?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/15/3471837/queensland-energy-fee-kills-solar/

Edit: added this fixed-fee story from the US.  It involves Wisconsin politics:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060004470

[ghoti]

I realized today that in the Canadian Arctic territory of Nunavut 100% of their electricity is generated with diesel generators. This is shocking to me given the abundant wind in the Arctic.

Nunavut has no electricity grid and has to have generators in every community. (something like 27 generators in 25 communities)  Their electricity was reported to cost between $0.50 and $1.00 (CDN) per kWh in 2011.

I can't imagine that wind wouldn't be extremely competitive. I can't figure out why nobody has put up at least one utility scale wind turbine.

Anyone now any more about this?

[Bob Wallace]

US PPA (Power Purchase Agreements) for onshore wind averaged $0.025/kW in 2013.  Down from $0.04/kWh during 2011 and 2012.

Those are subsidized prices, so add in about 1.5 cents. 

This means that the price of producing electricity with wind turbines in the US has dropped below 4 cents.  Cheap and should get cheaper.

[Sigmetnow]

Florida's largest beer distributor adds the state's largest private solar power system.  Because it just makes economic sense.

"Although renewable energy advocates say Florida's old-guard utility companies have dissuaded the state's government from adopting incentives to help with the upfront investment in solar power systems, the raw benefits of producing on-site power has proved incentive enough for many business owners."

http://tbo.com/news/business/huge-solar-grid-will-keep-beer-cold-in-st-pete-20140824/

[Sigmetnow]

I realized today that in the Canadian Arctic territory of Nunavut 100% of their electricity is generated with diesel generators. This is shocking to me given the abundant wind in the Arctic.

Nunavut has no electricity grid and has to have generators in every community. (something like 27 generators in 25 communities)  Their electricity was reported to cost between $0.50 and $1.00 (CDN) per kWh in 2011.

I can't imagine that wind wouldn't be extremely competitive. I can't figure out why nobody has put up at least one utility scale wind turbine.

Anyone now any more about this?

This article has some interesting information:

http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/65674wind_power_for_nunavut_dont_hold_your_breath_qec_boss_says/

[ghoti]

Yeah, I emailed a company that specializes in renewable infrastructure. They have 8 wind farms in development across southern Canada. They sent me this same article too.

My read of the article says a government utility with only diesel generator expertise won't do a good job of wind. The complete lack of a grid in Nunavut makes wind even tougher. They did a terrible job 15-20 years ago when wind was much more expensive and much less well understood. They feel burned and won't consider it again.

Seems like very small scale wind by individuals for home use would pay for themselves very quickly given the price they pay for electricity. It would even probably pay for itself even if it is just used for water and space heating.

[Sigmetnow]

Electricity from the tides:

"Scotland is building what it calls the world’s biggest tidal array in the Pentland Firth in northern Scotland, the country’s government announced last week."

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/08/25/3475122/worlds-biggest-tidal-array-scotland/

[deep octopus]

Blog post regarding renewable energy in the UK (and globally.)

via Carbon Brief

Why we’re going to be breaking renewable records for the foreseeable future, and what that means

UK wind power shattered records last week, spinning out 22 per cent of electricity demand for a day. One in five of our morning cups of tea was renewably-powered, if you like.

Sound familiar? It should, because renewables keep  breaking  records. In 2013 records were smashed. The same was true in 2010, 2011 and 2012.

In fact, the amount of power generated by renewable sources of electricity in the UK was record breaking through much of the 1990s… and in every single year since 2004 (graph, below).

<snip>...<snippity><snip>...

While not forgetting that electricity accounts for only a small part of our overall energy use, it's true that a renewable revolution of sorts really is under way.

It's just that it's happening at the same time as a revolution in living standards, with billions of new consumers hooking up to the electricity grid and millions more buying the latest power-hungry flat-screen TVs, made in China.

The IEA expects these twin revolutions to continue. Even though renewable power output will expand rapidly, its share of total electricity generation around the world will reach just 26 per cent in 2020.

Nevertheless, we can expect renewables to continue to demolish records - much like a wrecking ball. If we want renewables to help limit global temperatures to no more than two degrees, there's no other way.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/08/why-were-going-to-be-breaking-renewable-records-for-the-foreseeable-future-and-what-that-means/?utm_content=buffer7ac20&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

[Sigmetnow]

In this short video, Amory Lovins argues that bulk storage and fossil fuel plant backups are not needed for renewables to work, and the proof already exists in some regions of the world.

http://www.rmi.org/storage_necessity_myth_amory_lovins

[Laurent]

Some examples on ROI. (Return on investment)
http://www.greenandsave.com/master_roi_table.html