Renewable Energy

[Bob Wallace]

Speaking of Japan and renewables.  They are, right now, towing their first offshore, floating wind turbine into place.  The cable is laid and buried. 

This thing's a monster.  7 MW with a 110 meter hub height.  They are not starting slow and warming up....

(I hope they're well lashed down for the blow headed their way.  I should try to check that out.)

[crandles]

Good for Japan.  They will now have a lot more power on partial cloudy days and can curtail a bit on sunny days while they beef up their grid.

Germany, China and the US have run into similar problems where generation and transmission were not closely coordinated.  These are fixable problems,

Lets hope the fixes don't include too much 'pay less for solar generation' thereby removing the incentive for more solar installations.

[domen_]

Speaking of Japan and renewables.  They are, right now, towing their first offshore, floating wind turbine into place.  The cable is laid and buried. 

This thing's a monster.  7 MW with a 110 meter hub height.  They are not starting slow and warming up....

(I hope they're well lashed down for the blow headed their way.  I should try to check that out.)

Have a link?

This won't be Japan's first floating wind turbine, they already installed one 2MW unit off the coast of Fukushima.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/fukushima-floating-offshore-wind-turbine-starts-generating-power.html

I guess floating wind turbines are the next logical step for offshore wind power. The potential is really big, environmental impact very low and so far experience with pilot projects has been positive (there's one 2MW in Portugal and one in Norway).

[ghoti]

http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1228423/japan-plays-long-game-floating-technology

The second phase of the project is scheduled for 2015, with the installation of two 7MW Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) SeaAngel turbines, one on a semi-submersible foundation, the other on an advanced spar design.

[Bob Wallace]

Speaking of Japan and renewables.  They are, right now, towing their first offshore, floating wind turbine into place.  The cable is laid and buried. 

This thing's a monster.  7 MW with a 110 meter hub height.  They are not starting slow and warming up....

(I hope they're well lashed down for the blow headed their way.  I should try to check that out.)

Have a link?

This won't be Japan's first floating wind turbine, they already installed one 2MW unit off the coast of Fukushima.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/fukushima-floating-offshore-wind-turbine-starts-generating-power.html

I guess floating wind turbines are the next logical step for offshore wind power. The potential is really big, environmental impact very low and so far experience with pilot projects has been positive (there's one 2MW in Portugal and one in Norway).

Here's some basic info about the SeaAngel - the 7 MW turbine. 

http://www.rechargenews.com/wind/1377781/SeaAngel-set-for-year-end-installation

After my last post I checked the typhoon news and saw something about an unnamed turbine tow being rescheduled to December (IIRC).  Sounds like they may be hunkering down until the storm season is over.

Thanks for the info on the 2 MW.  I knew Japan was testing a couple of platform designs but I wasn't aware they had hooked a turbine to their grid.

Offshore is where the wind is for several countries.  While there's a lot made about all the wind in the center of the US the really big stuff is off our coasts and over the Great Lakes.  The West Coast bottom drops off very quickly so we need floaters there.  Our first floater is about to be launched out of Coos Bay Oregon in a year or so.  Right now we've got some sophisticated wind stations moored out collecting a year's worth of detailed wind data.

[Csnavywx]

High Plains generation is pretty good, but it does have a few issues to work around (besides the omnipresent storage issue at the moment): Lower wind speeds during summer days (during peak demand) and most generation is related to the nocturnal low-level jet (LLJ) that sets up when the atmosphere decouples at night during the warmer parts of the year. Solar could help even the gaps there if deployed in sufficient force.

Great Lakes generation is a bit tougher due to the relatively extreme conditions over the lakes during the cold months. Icing (both from extensive lake-effect clouds, precipitation and lake spray) can significantly hamper efficiency and wear down parts pretty quickly. This isn't a problem in say.. the Pac NW where airmasses are sufficiently modified by the Pacific. With some tech used by the aircraft industry, we could help offset some of those losses.

[Bob Wallace]

By adding a large amount of dispatchable load to the grid we can install very much more wind without needing to curtail during low demand hours.  That means that we'll have more wind input during times when the wind is blowing slower.

It's hard to imagine a better dispatchable load than EVs.  The average EV needs less than 3 hours of charging on a regular 240 vac line (clothes dryer, water heater stuff).  Cars spend 90% of their time parked.  And as we move to 200 mile or greater EVs many drivers are going to be able to skip charging for one or more days.

In exchange for a lower rate drivers could turn over actual charge time to the utility.  They would set a minimum.  ("Gotta have 50 miles by 7am" might be the minimum for someone with a 20 mile RT commute.)  Windy nights the utility fills everyone up.  Wind down, skip some cars.

The same will work for solar.  With cars plugged in at work/school during the day we can install a lot more solar than grid demand would justify.  Charge hard on sunny days.  Hold back on charging on less sunny days, sending all or most of the power generated to the grid.

Deal with a lot of the variability by greatly overbuilding supply for the grid and then selling the peaks to EV owners at a bargain price.

[Sigmetnow]

There have been several instances in recent months when wind energy has accounted for all, or nearly all, electricity demand in South Australia. Last Tuesday, however, set a new benchmark – the combination of wind energy and rooftop solar provided more than 100 per cent of the state’s electricity needs, for a whole working day between 9.30am and 6pm.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/south-australia-hits-100-renewables-whole-working-day-86069

[Sigmetnow]

Southern California Edison, a utility that serves about 14 million people, has amassed more than 600,000 lithium-ion battery cells -- enough to power 2,000 Chevrolet Volts -- at a substation in Tehachapi, California. The $54 million, two-year test project aims to collect power generated from the area’s 5,000 wind turbines and store it for future use.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-13/giant-battery-unit-aims-at-wind-storage-holy-grail-commodities.html

[Sigmetnow]

Scientific American: 
”Despite all the metals and raw materials that go into making solar cells and wind turbines, these sources of low-carbon renewable electrify will have a low climate and environmental impact through 2050”

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/renewables-are-as-green-as-you-d-expect/

[Sigmetnow]

Prudential Plc, the largest U.K. insurer by market value, today said it’s investing in the construction of a tidal lagoon power plant that may generate as much as 8 percent of Britain’s electricity.

http://about.bnef.com/bnef-news/prudential-investing-in-1-billion-pound-u-k-tidal-power-plant/

[Sigmetnow]

If free donuts, gym memberships, or flex pay programs aren’t your preferred employee benefit, cheap solar systems could soon be an option. On Wednesday, three major companies — Cisco Systems, 3M, and Kimberly-Clark — announced they will now give employees a deeply discounted way of buying or leasing solar panels for their homes.

Called the Solar Community Initiative, the program promises a flat rate that is on average 35 percent lower than the national average and roughly 50 percent less expensive than average electric utility rates. According to the announcement, the offer will start as a benefit to more than 100,000 employees. If one percent choose to power their homes with solar, more than 74,500 metric tons of carbon emissions would be avoided each year.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/22/3582763/cheap-solar-power-employee-benefit/

[Sigmetnow]

Burlington, Vermont, USA (population about 42,000; home of Ben & Jerry's ice cream) has gone 100% renewable.  Mostly.   

http://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/renewable-energy-burlington

[Sigmetnow]

Residential solar is contagious!

http://www.vox.com/2014/10/24/7059995/solar-power-is-contagious-neighbor-effects-panels-installation

[Sigmetnow]

@insideclimate: RT @Sustainable2050: Danish wind power provided >100% of national electricity demand entire night, peaking at 130%

[Bob Wallace]

Just saw a comment that Denmark was exporting wind-electrici That price will hurt fossil fuel generators.

[SATire]

That price will hurt fossil fuel generators.

Bob - that price hurts wind generators the most. The fossil plants go idle on such days, since they know a day ahead the prices. But wind generators are hurt each time if there is much wind. And if there is no wind, they are hurt again, because they have nothing to sell during expensive times. On such windy days as posted above prices are below zero: They pay someone to burn all the power... (see prices e.g. here: http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,256.msg15017.html#msg15017 )

That is the reason why wind needs subsidies still and that is also the reason, why such subsidies make really sense economically. Therefore, the market needs new rules to prepare for fluctuating renewables in the grid.

[Bob Wallace]

Something weird happened to my comment.

Denmark is exporting wind-electricity at an average cost of 4 euro cents per kWh.  That price will cause NG to stay offline and will undercut some coal.

Wind has very low operating cost.  Wind can sell, without subsidies, for as little as 2c and make some money.  Wind needs a higher average price to be profitable but wind can force other generators to curtail and still do better than breaking even (compared to shutting down).

It costs wind little to run (some extra wear on bearing surfaces) so if there's any money available over fixed operating expenses wind might as well run and accumulate a little toward annual expenses.

[Sigmetnow]

Scientific American: Study of Eastern U.S. Shows Wind Energy Could Stabilize the Grid

While the study’s results are counterintuitive at first glance, they make sense when you consider the inertia associated with a spinning windmill over 100 feet (30 meters) in diameter in the context of our merry-go-round analogy. While wind turbines might not have electrical energy storage (e.g. batteries), all wind turbines have a significant amount of passive mechanical energy storage in the inertia of their spinning blades. GE and NREL’s study shows that with the right mechanical controls, this inertia can be harnessed to keep the grid’s frequency under control—even in a high wind penetration scenario—disrupting the notion that wind energy will destabilize the grid.
...
GE and NREL’s study shows that the entire eastern U.S. grid could achieve a dramatic increase in wind penetration without suffering any major destabilizing effects, without threatening electric reliability, and without installing any costly energy storage. For now, at least, wind energy’s intermittent nature should not be held up as a barrier to its development.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/2014/09/16/study-of-eastern-u-s-shows-wind-energy-could-stabilize-the-grid/

[Sigmetnow]

Swiss-based group launch new battery technology that they claim will be a breakthrough for storing excess clean energy, and create 2,500 jobs in the US.

It said its lithium ferrophosphate and graphite batteries would help guarantee an even flow of electricity over the grid, and smooth deployment of wind and solar power.

The battery arrays can run 24/7 and be recharged within 30 minutes, with a lifespan of 40,000 charges. There is a lower fire risk than lithium ion batteries.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/28/power-storage-group-alevo-plan-1bn-us-battery-plant

[deep octopus]

Grid parity is coming to a state near you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar.html

While You Were Getting Worked Up Over Oil Prices, This Just Happened to Solar

Every time fossil fuels get cheaper, people lose interest in solar deployment. That may be about to change.

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states -- in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.

Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states. Gone are the days when solar panels were an exotic plaything of Earth-loving rich people. Solar is becoming mainstream, and prices will continue to drop as the technology improves and financing becomes more affordable, according to the report.

[Sigmetnow]

A bunch of positive renewables and fossil-fuel-lessening stories.  Included:  "solar donkeys."

http://www.1010uk.org/itshappening

[Sigmetnow]

India is about to witness a massive scaling up of solar power capacity to 100,000 Mw, with Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking the ministry of new and renewable energy (MNRE) to prepare an action plan by November first week.

Aiming to reach this target in five years, before the next general elections, the government is expediting the work by directing states to identify suitable locations across terrains - deserts, wastelands, national highways, river banks and even over canals (as was done in Gujarat).

http://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/govt-chalks-out-plans-for-massive-solar-power-push-114102800028_1.html

[Sigmetnow]

Five towns in Austalia have put their hands up to become the first zero net energy town (ZNET) in the state – and indeed the country.

It was also encouraging that many small towns had engaged a large part of their population – and community groups – into the idea. Blakester says that once a blueprint is developed for one of the towns, then these could be adapted for other towns in the region and elsewhere in Australia.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/five-nsw-towns-bid-to-be-australias-first-zero-net-energy-town-16968

[Sigmetnow]

EU to create an interconnecting grid and balance renewables.

Forty leading organisations from research, industry, utilities and grid operators are combining in a €63 million research programme aimed at incorporating all renewable energies into a supergrid that can balance intermittent sources of electricity and ensure uninterrupted supplies.

It is part of a wider European Union policy to make the 28 states less reliant on imports of power. States along the border with Russia are particularly concerned about over-reliance on gas pipelines from Siberia, which have been turned off periodically in the recent past because of disputes over prices.

http://www.rtcc.org/2014/11/05/eu-plans-power-supergrid-to-boost-renewables

[Sigmetnow]

Use the internet?  You're an environmentalist!  (In the U.S., anyway.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/06/like-kite-surfing-the-internet-why-google-microsoft-and-yahoo-are-buying-up-wind-energy/

[Sigmetnow]

The UK tests giant batteries for energy storage.

Improving the way we store energy is important for the UK’s energy security, as it will allow us to decouple energy generation and its usage. If we can find a better way to store energy it will allow us to save it when it’s generated and use it when it’s required, replacing our current awkward system where generation has to match demand in real time.

The UK’s first two-megawatt (MW) lithium-titanate battery is to be connected to the energy grid as part of a new research project to tackle the challenges of industrial-scale energy storage. The project aims to test the technological and economic challenges of using giant batteries to provide support to the grid. We’ll also test whether used battery packs from electric vehicles can be given a second life, and applied in hybrid systems to lower the cost of storage.

http://www.theguardian.com/big-energy-debate/2014/nov/14/giant-batteries-connected-to-the-grid-the-future-of-energy-storage

[Sigmetnow]

Huge solar thermal plant in California is not quite ready for prime time.  But documents show a learning curve was expected.

Holland said the company always expected a ramp-up period of four years to reach maximum output. That extended period was not publicly disclosed, however. Holland said it is outlined in confidential agreements with two California utilities buying the power, Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Co.

Brightsource said on its website that the weather has generally been substantially worse than historical averages - in other words, cloudy - resulting in reduced output in certain months.

"We remain confident that over time the sun at Ivanpah will be more than sufficient for the plant to meet its expected performance targets," the statement said.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_289563/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=LquqP5en

[Sigmetnow]

LOW AUCTION BID PRICES SHOW SOLAR CHEAPER THAN COAL IN INDIA

NEW DELHI: India’s fast-expanding solar industry has received another shot in the arm with the news that a recent solar auction has resulted in remarkably low-price bids.

Bid prices for an auction of 500-MW grid-connected solar projects that took place in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh last month reached new lows, signaling a shift in the energy market to solar.

An oversubscribed 63 bids totaling 1,291 MW were proposed in the auction. According to Indian newspaper Business Line, First Solar, a US-based solar module manufacturer, submitted the cheapest bids of all, quoting INR 5.25 (just over US$0.08) per kWh for 40 MW.

LOW COST SOLAR

These low bids show large-scale solar is slipping further down the price-ladder and is now below the price needed to make coal imports economically viable, which means power generation from solar plants in India is now cheaper than indigenous or imported coal.

http://www.theclimategroup.org/what-we-do/news-and-blogs/low-auction-bid-prices-show-solar-cheaper-than-coal-in-india/

[Sigmetnow]

Large US energy company sets greener goals, pushes renewables and CCS:

On Thursday, one of the country’s leading energy companies announced new goals aimed at subtantially cutting carbon emissions over the next several decades. NRG Energy, a massive enterprise with over 100 power plants situated primarily across the Northeast, set a target of cutting its carbon emissions 50 percent by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050.
...
While NRG is pushing renewables hard, to accomplish these objectives the company is also banking on cost-effective carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) for its emissions-intensive coal-fired power plants as well as new natural gas generation coming online. According to a ThinkProgress review of NRG’s assets, the company has 21 coal-fired power plants in the U.S. and around 100 more split between oil and gas. The company also has about 30 wind-power plants and five solar plants totaling close to 2,300 megawatts.

“I would hate to see the country sort of turn its back on coal,” Crane told the New York Times. “I think we, alone or with the Chinese, have to direct our attention to capturing the carbon. ”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/21/3594916/nrg-groundbreaking-emissions-cuts-power-plants/

[Sigmetnow]

Ikea plans to invest a total of $1.9 billion in wind and solar power by the end of 2015.

Ikea will continue purchasing power plants to meet its goal of producing as much renewable energy as it uses globally by 2020, Rob Olson, the acting president and chief financial officer of Ikea’s U.S. unit, said in an interview.

“We see the need to offset our energy usage,” said Olson. He expects the project to deliver a positive return. “Whenever we do investments, we also evaluate the return. That’s part of being a sustainable business.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-18/ikea-buys-second-u-s-wind-farm-plans-more-in-renewables-push.html

[Sigmetnow]

UN report maps out Decarbonization plan for the U.S.

The U.S. can reach the “[80% by 2050]” goal in many different ways, the net costs of which would be roughly 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product per year.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/report-maps-out-decarbonization-plan-for-u.s-18362

[Bob Wallace]

The cost of oil, coal and gas has steadily climbed in past years, but the major change is caused by the price of renewables, which has dropped at a fantastic rate. In some markets in the US, the tipping point where the price of renewable energy equals that of conventional energy has already been reached. This was made possible by subsidies which may or may not be continued, but recent analyses conclude that even without those subsidies, alternative energy can often compete.

Texas, one of the biggest oil producers in the States, has developed a deal which will provide 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. It’s like Christmas for wind energy – everywhere you go, it’s there, and it’s cheap.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources. “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
But how low are prices actually going at a national level? A new analysis conducted by the investment banking firm Lazard showed that with subsidies, solar energy costs on average 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. Just so you can get an idea, the cost of energy from natural gas is 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal comes at 6.6 cents. But even without subsidies, wind is really cheap. Without subsidies, solar comes in at 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents – competitive to say the least.

“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.

http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/renewable-energy-ecology/solar-wind-energy-usa-24112014/

[Sigmetnow]

Storing energy in molten aluminum.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-27/molten-aluminum-lakes-offer-power-storage-for-german-wind-farms.html

[Bob Wallace]

Molten aluminum tanks was where Sadoway got his inspiration for liquid metal batteries.  His company, Ambri, is currently testing prototypes on line while developing a factory for production - last I heard.

[Laurent]

India shines with renewable energy announcement
http://wwf.panda.org/?uNewsID=234271

[Bob Wallace]

Dubai just received bid for a new solar far - 25 year PPA contracts.  The low bid was 5.98 cents/kWh and the runner up was 6.13.  These are non-subsidized prices.

Best US PPAs have been just under 5 cents/kWh but come out close to 6.5 once subsidies are removed.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/29/dubai-shatters-solar-tariff-records-worldwide-lowest-ever/

[crandles]

There is also mention of a 5.4cent/KWh bid in that article for a larger quantity than was being asked for.

Just 5 days after the last article quoting 7.2cent/KWh as the lowest unsubsidised price, that is quite a rate of decline. 

[Bob Wallace]

Utility scale PV solar is likely to move into the second least expensive slot for electricity production very soon.  US onshore wind is at 4 cents (no subsidy).  If Dubai can do 5-6 cents the US can as well.

That's cheaper than everything else (a new:new comparison).

With solar and wind falling below 5c/kWh, avg, coal and nuclear are going to have a hell of a time staying in business in open markets.  Wind is already tearing apart their late night pricing, forcing thermal plants to sell at no profits, even loose some money.  Now solar will start taking away a lot of their most profitable hours. 

And storage seems to be coming on strong.  EOS Energy's zinc-air battery can probably take some of the morning and evening business away from fossil fuels if they have to price above 10 c/kWh in order to recoup their losses.  It looks like EOS will be able to sell 4c electricity for about 9c if it can cycle, on average, 1x per day.

The more wind, solar and storage eat into thermal profits, the higher their selling prices  have to rise.  We could be a only a few years from a wind/solar/storage/NG grid.  (With some hydro, geothermal, biofuel thrown into the mix.)  At least a grid that was clearly headed that way, working it's way through the remaining coal plants.  (Can't close them until there is adequate replacement generation.)

[SATire]

Bob,

I face the risk that I bore you by repeating myself, but I have to give this statement as a warning again, since nothing is more dangerous than risking the transition to renewables by ignoring the obvious problems and causing disappointments in the population. That will make poeple turn away from the renewables future.

Wind and solar will not be competitive on the grid without a very good grid. Even the modern grid in Europe is not sufficient for that (no chance in e.g. US). Cheap storage could also be a solution but that is not present today (or in 10 years) and will be much more expensive than expanding the grid.

Wind and solar are competitive only for privat use (cheaper than electricity bought including all the taxes and grid prices) or in the case, that renewables are not significantly present in the grid (e.g. less than 25% mean).

Why can wind and PV not be competitive and will not pay the investions back without subsidies? Because we have a free market and the prices for electricity are derived from a supply and demand on hourly basis. If wind is blowing or sun is shining the prices for electricty on the spot market will be 0-4 ct/ kWh - it will not be enough to pay investions back and can never be due to the simple math of the market. If there is no sun nor wind the prices will be high - but you can not sell any electricity for that higher prices because there is no wind nor sun. Thus we need either subsidies or a drastically improved grid enabling long range transport of hugh powers from windy/sunny areas to dark regions without wind to solve this problem.

Without such massive investments in infrastructure the present "tipping of renewables" will not help much. And please do not hope for electrical batteries in cars and such - it is a tiny amount (less than 6h storage, after which all batteries will be empty) and way to expensive, since even a 100$/kWh battery with about 2,000 cycles in its life-time would add 5ct/kWh to the costs... 

So the grid is the thing to put all the billions in today, because that pays off the fastest. All the good news about falling prices are really very good - but it will not help us much if not backed up by poeples efforts like subsidies or investments or change of life-style and such. The rescue will never come for free or by itself, "the market" or such hopes.

[Bob Wallace]

I'm finding myself in disagreement with just about everything you wrote.

With wind now at 4c and solar at 7c - unsubsidized - in the US they are now almost as cheap or cheaper than all other new generation.  If you add in the external costs of fossil fuels wind and solar are massively cheaper.  (Dubai is now contracting solar for under 6c which in the US would be the second cheapest source of new electricity.)

Wind and solar can be about as cheap to install in all countries.  Everyone can buy the hardware for the same price and few places have higher labor costs than the US.

Wind and solar are what they are.  The grid is what it is.  We will need more long distance transmission  (in the US, Europe, China and probably other places) to bring costs down as possible but that will be built as economics deem it desirable.  (Remember, we're talking a 20 to 40 year project to transform our grids.)

Affordable storage is already here.  Cheaper storage seems to be about here, we should know in the next year or two.  And there's a long line of storage technologies lining up behind the ones being prototyped and tested now.

"Why can wind and PV not be competitive and will not pay the investions back without subsidies?"

Wind, without subsidies, is now our cheapest way to bring new capacity on line.  Solar, without subsidies, is only a penny or so more expensive than CCNG and coal.  And that's not considering the high external costs of fossil fuels.

Do not forget - All things wear out.  We will be replacing all our current coal and nuclear plants over the next 40 years or so.  That is money we will spend.  It is much cheaper to replace with renewables and storage than with coal.

The change is coming.  It's now being driven by the market.  Utilities are signing wind and solar PPAs because that power is cheaper than fossil fuel power and protects them from market fluctuations.  Utilities are starting to replace gas peakers and "spinning reserve" with batteries because batteries are cheaper.

Letting the market control the rate of transition is too big a risk.  The rate of change may not be fast enough.  We would be well advised, IMHO, to pour some catalyst (subsidy money) into the reaction to speed things along.

[Sigmetnow]

From Climate Reality's 24 Hours of Reality, 24 Reasons for Hope:  The Electric Grid is Evolving.

http://climaterealityproject.org/blog/electric-grid-evolving

[Sigmetnow]

The world's largest solar plant is up and running on nine million solar panels covering 9.5 square miles of California's Carrizo Plain.
http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/28/topaz-solar-power-plant/

[SATire]

Another one bites the coal: One of our "big for" electric utility companies E.ON plans to concentrate on renewables, grid and customer solutions and prepares to sell the old stuff: Coal and gas and nuclear.

German: http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/2014-12/eon-energiekonzern-umbauplaene-energiewende

the Source: http://www.eon.com/en.html
"Our new strategy: Empowering customers. Shaping markets.

E.ON will focus on renewables, distribution networks, and customer solutions. Its conventional generation, global energy trading, and exploration and production businesses will be combined in a new, independent company."

[Sigmetnow]

Here's the article in The Guardian.

Germany’s biggest utility firm, E.ON, has announced plans to split in two and spin off most of its power generation, energy trading and upstream businesses, responding to a crisis that has crippled the European energy sector.

E.ON said it wanted to focus on its renewable activities, regulated distribution networks and tailor-made energy efficiency services, citing “dramatically altered global energy markets, technical innovation, and more diverse customer expectations”.

“E.ON’s existing broad business model can no longer properly address these new challenges,” the chief executive, Johannes Teyssen, said in a statement.

Germany’s power sector has been in turmoil, hit by a prolonged period of weak demand, low wholesale prices and a surge in renewable energy sources which continue to replace gas-fired and coal-fired power plants.

E.ON said it would prepare next year for the listing of the new company created by its breakup, with the spin-off taking place after its 2016 annual general meeting.

The split will not be accompanied by job cuts, E.ON said, adding that about 40,000 employees would remain with the parent group, while the remaining 20,000 would join the new company.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/01/eon-splits-energy-renewables

[Sigmetnow]

And from Bloomberg:

“We are the first to resolutely draw the conclusion from the change of the energy world,” Teyssen told reporters in Dusseldorf today. “We’re convinced that energy companies will have to focus on one of the two energy worlds if they want to be successful.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-30/eon-banks-on-renewables-with-plan-to-spin-off-conventional-power.html

[Sigmetnow]

Meanwhile, in Florida ("the sunshine state"), regulators vote to gut the state's energy efficiency plans and cease supporting rooftop solar.   

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/11/30/florida-gutting-energy-efficiency-goals-terminating-solar-power-rebates/

[oren]

So a (stupid) question for Bob and all. When comparing costs per kwh for wind, solar, NG etc., how is this calculated? Considering solar and wind can only run during parts of the day/year, depending on sunlight and weather, what is the methodology of the calculation?

[Bob Wallace]

Nothing stupid about the question.  And the answer is complicated.

The general metric used to price out various systems is the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE).  To calculate a LCOE you take the installed cost (which may include both capital costs and financing costs during construction), capacity factor,  operating costs including fuel if needed, the heat loss rate, the financing cost (years and rate).  That gets cranked through a formula. 

Easy way to calculate a LCOE is by using a online calculator like this one -

http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech_lcoe.html

You can find definitions for all the stuff I listed on the page.

Then there's a second way to figure price.  Use real world reported prices.

Then, when you have some prices that you think are pretty accurate they have to be filtered through several layers. 

Time of delivery can impact the value of a particular source.   While solar might be a little higher than another source solar is generally more valuable because it produces when demand is high.  Nuclear, however, might be a bit less valuable since it runs 24 hours a day.  If you have plenty late night capacity adding some new (kind of expensive) nuclear might cause you to have to pass on some cheaper wind and raise your overall cost.

Dispatchability, the ability to turn on or off quickly, makes power more valuable.  Natural gas and hydro are more valuable because they can be brought on line quickly when more power is needed.  Wind and solar can't be turned on 'at will'.  Coal and nuclear take a long time to turn on and off.

Then there are other issues.  If you're considering adding wind, solar, coal or nuclear do you have enough storage and backup capacity to cover this new addition?  Or will there be additional expense?  How about transmission costs?

I'll put this up and continue...

[Bob Wallace]

Wind, solar and stuff.  I'm going to put up some prices and their sources...

Wind = $0.025/kWh average 2013 PPA (subsidized). 

DOE "2013 Wind Technologies Market Report"

http://energy.gov/eere/wind/downloads/2013-wind-technologies-market-report

Solar = $0.05/kWh PPAs (subsidized) being signed in the US Southwest.  Working backwards through a LCOE calculation extrapolates a cost of about $0.02 higher for the less sunny Northeast.

 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory entitled “Utility-Scale Solar 2012: An Empirical Analysis of Project Cost, Performance, and Pricing Trends in the United States”

http://emp.lbl.gov/publications/utility-scale-solar-2012-empirical-analysis-project-cost-performance-and-pricing-trends

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/big-solar-now-competing-with-wind-energy-on-costs-75962

PPA prices for wind and solar are lowered about 1.5 cents by PTC (Production Tax Credits).  Both wind and solar are eligible for 2.3 cent/kWh tax credits for each kWh produced during their first ten years of operation.  Half of 2.3 is 1.15, but getting ones money early has value.  That means that the non-subsidized costs of wind are a bit under 4 cents and solar is running 6.5 to 8.5 cents/kWh.

http://energy.gov/savings/renewable-electricity-production-tax-credit-ptc

An analysis of the Vogtle reactor costs by Citigroup in early 2014 found the LCOE for electricity from those reactors will cost 11 cents per kWh (subsidized).  That is assuming no further cost/timeline overruns.

They also stated that reactors build after the Vogtle units would likely produce more expensive electricity as they would not be able to receive the low financing rates as Vogtle has obtained.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/citigroup-says-the-age-of-renewables-has-begun

Summary version...

Wind 4c/kWh
Solar 7.5c/kWh
CCNG 6.2c/kWh
Nuclear 11c/kWh

Notice coal isn't included.  We're done building coal in the US.  I've removed the wind and solar subsidies.  The nuclear price includes subsidies (the price is higher than 11c).

OK, let's see what it would cost (very rough math) to run a wind/solar/CCNG grid vs. a nuclear/CCNG grid.  Or to run the "baseload", the part no larger than the annual daily minimum demand.

I'm going to assume wind would provide about 40% of our power, solar about 30% and we'd use 30% NG for fill-in.  In the nuclear case I'll use 90% nuclear and 10% NG.

Wind/solar/NG
0.4 * 4c + 0.3 * 7.5c + 0.3 * 6.2c = 5.7c/kWh

Nuclear/NG
0.9 * 11c + 0.1 * 6.2c = 10.5c/kWh