Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 389121 times)

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1950 on: August 31, 2017, 10:57:40 PM »
The 80-20 rule suggests that in many situations getting 80 percent done is a damn sight easier than getting the last 20 percent done.
Mr. Trainer may have a point.

Another point is if renewable energy just means we change nothing except our source of energy the planet is still stuffed.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1951 on: August 31, 2017, 11:12:15 PM »
The "100% renewables" is a bit of a distraction, using a mixture of storage plus standby flexible biofuel/NG plants for those low solar/wind days will still get rid of nearly all the carbon emissions. Ted points out that Australia has a lot of available biomass possibilities versus the population size. The issue is different for each country, given the availability of hydro/biomass etc. and longer range electricity supplies (e.g. Tunisia's PV and Norwegian hydro for Europe).

The other issue is the speed of transition, given that we are already over 500ppm CO2e and heading for 2 degrees quite possibly in the 2030's. If feedbacks kick in then its game over. That's where reduced energy demand may very well be required.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1952 on: August 31, 2017, 11:26:51 PM »
Just over 400 at Mauna Loa.

If you can figure out how to reduce demand other than via efficiency have a go at it.  The world is not ready for mandatory energy rationing.

There are many valid points.  There aren't a lot of approaches that seem workable.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1953 on: September 01, 2017, 12:20:14 AM »
400 is CO2 only, does not include the impact of methane, nitrous oxide etc., that's what CO2e counts. If you account for the 20-year impact of methane, which is important for when we hit 2 degrees, we are well above 600ppm CO2e.

We don't have an option, unfortunately there is not the leadership required. Until the elites start feeling pain/understand that their lifeboats will sink too, which may not be for a long time, it will be business as usual. Then we have the geo-engineers to supply them with fantasies of a global human-controlled flexible thermostat.

With leadership we would have a carbon tax that would effectively shift consumption away from high energy usage toward more local production and services consumption, as well as more efficient machines and buildings.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 12:26:27 AM by rboyd »

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1954 on: September 01, 2017, 01:48:11 AM »
“One gigawatt is equivalent to the annual output of a large nuclear or coal-fired power plant, so it’s like we’re eliminating one of those every single year.”

Tesla starts solar cell production at Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo, raises annual capacity goal to 2 GW Per year
https://electrek.co/2017/08/31/tesla-solar-cell-production-gigafactory-2-buffalo-solar-roof/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1955 on: September 01, 2017, 06:06:05 AM »
“One gigawatt is equivalent to the annual output of a large nuclear or coal-fired power plant, so it’s like we’re eliminating one of those every single year.”

Tesla starts solar cell production at Gigafactory 2 in Buffalo, raises annual capacity goal to 2 GW Per year
https://electrek.co/2017/08/31/tesla-solar-cell-production-gigafactory-2-buffalo-solar-roof/

Misrepresenting capacity as output - by a Tesla CTO. The capacity utilization of solar is less than a third/quarter that of a large nuclear plant, therefore not directly comparable. Output is measured in gigawatt hours in a given time period. I find the same capacity/output confusion when many PR/journalists discuss wind and batteries as well. The Bruce nuclear power station in Canada produced 47.63 Terawatt hours of electricity output in 2015.

The headline of the above story is misleading. The plant will only get to 1MW of output in 2019, the 2GW is for all of Tesla's output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations



« Last Edit: September 01, 2017, 06:11:38 AM by rboyd »

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1956 on: September 01, 2017, 06:24:14 AM »
Wait, what ?

"One gigawatt is equivalent to the annual output of a large nuclear or coal-fired power plant, so it’s like we’re eliminating one of those every single year."

the annual output of an electric plant would have a time unit like 1 gigawatt-year or 8760 gigawatt-hour or such.

If the claim is that all the batteries that tesla sells would, if connected together, produce one gigawatt  for x minutes or y hours, then that is what they should say.

sidd

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1937
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1957 on: September 01, 2017, 06:24:55 AM »
As I see it adding renewables does nothing to solve our problems if we're increasing ff generation at the same time. If we increased renewables at a gigawatt per month, while simultaneously increasing fossil fuel by a megawatt per year, we've gained nothing. We've simply produced another megawatt's worth of CO2 emission.
We need to end CO2 emissions, not to increase electrical production.
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1958 on: September 01, 2017, 07:40:58 AM »
The problem is sort of localized. 



Small growth for some regions that use comparatively very little.  Europe and North America fairly flat so what renewables we are installing are mostly offsetting FF.

We will need to increase electricity production.  We need to replace oil for transportation which means that we'll need more electricity.  If we can find more efficiency then that will make getting rid of oil easier.

etienne

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 189
    • View Profile
    • About energy
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1959 on: September 01, 2017, 07:54:26 AM »
If you don't need all the power of the batteries to drive around, than it would be better to onload the batteries and leave them at home for network balancing. Batteries are too heavy to be driven around just for fun, much heavier than the inverter.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that batteries be removed from cars and left hooked to the grid.  The idea is to keep as many EVs as possible plugged in as much as possible so that electricity can be pulled from the vehicle when needed.

Batteries are far too heavy to be moving in and out of EVs without some heavy duty equipment.

Well, there was a working project in Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place where you just switched the batteries at loading points instead of waiting all the loading time. Same thing could be possible at home. You could have two different batteries, one small and an bigger one, and when leaving in the moring, you could just choose the one you need.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1960 on: September 01, 2017, 08:01:45 AM »
The Nissan Leaf battery pack weighs 648 pounds.  The pack for the Tesla S85 weighs 1,200 pounds.

Could be some smashed toes....

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1961 on: September 01, 2017, 08:13:24 AM »
Well, there was a working project in Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Place where you just switched the batteries at loading points instead of waiting all the loading time. Same thing could be possible at home. You could have two different batteries, one small and an bigger one, and when leaving in the morning, you could just choose the one you need.
That project was based on robotic switching of the batteries, plus I believe they were much smaller (and I assume lighter) than current batteries. When the project went bankrupt, the buyers were stranded without battery switching and with a fast degrading battery, so were really screwed.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1962 on: September 01, 2017, 09:23:07 AM »
IIRC the major reason Better Place failed was the CEO more than anything else.

I doubt that Better Place, had they become larger would have survived long term (much past 2020).  Batteries will almost certainly get cheaper and better.  And charging rates will probably increase some.  The extra battery inventory and swapping infrastructure would simply add to the cost of owning a car, there would be no real advantage worth paying for.

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1541
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1963 on: September 01, 2017, 09:33:56 AM »
IIRC the major reason Better Place failed was the CEO more than anything else.

I doubt that Better Place, had they become larger would have survived long term (much past 2020).  Batteries will almost certainly get cheaper and better.  And charging rates will probably increase some.  The extra battery inventory and swapping infrastructure would simply add to the cost of owning a car, there would be no real advantage worth paying for.
Correct on both statements.

BenB

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1964 on: September 01, 2017, 10:42:37 AM »
The "100% renewables" is a bit of a distraction, using a mixture of storage plus standby flexible biofuel/NG plants for those low solar/wind days will still get rid of nearly all the carbon emissions.

It is a complete (and usually deliberate) distraction, since most countries are in the 0-30% range for the share of electricity that comes from non-dispatchable renewables – mainly wind and solar. 100% hydropower is clearly not a problem. Let's raise the share from e.g. 10 to 40 percent as quickly as possible, and then see where the technology is at that point. Using "we can't do 100% renewables" as a reason not to invest in renewables now is nonsense, as most countries are decades or even centuries away from 100% at current rates of installation.

The reduction in CO2 emissions is just as great if you raise the renewable contribution from 10 to 40 percent as if you raise it from 70 to 100 percent, so let's start with the easy bit. If and when we get to 40-60 percent, it's likely that the technology will have moved on significantly. If it hasn't, we've still limited CO2 emissions massively in the meantime.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1965 on: September 01, 2017, 01:46:46 PM »
U.S.:  Amazon says it just flipped switch on N.J.'s largest rooftop solar array
CARTERET -- Amazon on Tuesday unveiled what the company says is the largest rooftop solar panel energy system in New Jersey on the 30-acre roof of its Carteret warehouse.

The 22,000-solar-panel system will power the online retailer's facility. The company said it is one of the largest rooftop solar panel systems in the country and generates enough electricity to power 600 homes.

Inside the facility, 3,000 employees work with 900 robots on a million-square-foot floor and a mezzanine to prepare and package products sold by Amazon. ...
http://www.nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2017/08/amazon_installs_one_of_largest_rooftop_solar_panel.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1966 on: September 01, 2017, 06:01:05 PM »
The "100% renewables" is a bit of a distraction, using a mixture of storage plus standby flexible biofuel/NG plants for those low solar/wind days will still get rid of nearly all the carbon emissions.

It is a complete (and usually deliberate) distraction, since most countries are in the 0-30% range for the share of electricity that comes from non-dispatchable renewables – mainly wind and solar. 100% hydropower is clearly not a problem. Let's raise the share from e.g. 10 to 40 percent as quickly as possible, and then see where the technology is at that point. Using "we can't do 100% renewables" as a reason not to invest in renewables now is nonsense, as most countries are decades or even centuries away from 100% at current rates of installation.

The reduction in CO2 emissions is just as great if you raise the renewable contribution from 10 to 40 percent as if you raise it from 70 to 100 percent, so let's start with the easy bit. If and when we get to 40-60 percent, it's likely that the technology will have moved on significantly. If it hasn't, we've still limited CO2 emissions massively in the meantime.

This is a well made argument. 

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1967 on: September 01, 2017, 06:13:00 PM »
Apparently the Texas coastal wind farms that were in Hurricane Harvey's path survived and are now back in operation. Or at least one is.  The details are sketchy.

https://electrek.co/2017/09/01/egeb-6/

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1968 on: September 01, 2017, 06:28:43 PM »
If this makes it from the lab to it will have a large impact on PV panel price.  Cheaper solar.

Two things, professors from a southern Taiwan university have developed indium-plated aluminum solder strips which can be directly attached to PV modules without using silver paste as adhesive – silver market won’t take a hit on this because they’re at a flat number anyway, but in the long game this could save a bit for panels – up to 20oz of silver per panel, that’s $10 of silver in a $30 solar panel. I’ve read of companies in the past trying this silver-aluminum switch…Second item – using indium-plated aluminum solder strip is equivalent to raising energy conversion efficiency by over 5% compared to using conventional solder strips – on a 20% efficient solar panel, we get a raise all the way to 21% overall on a panel. That ain’t bad!

https://electrek.co/2017/09/01/egeb-6/

I'm not sure what they mean by a $10 cut to a $30 panel.  Perhaps they should have said cell, not panel.  Not a 30% drop in panel costs, but a significant cut.

And a move from 20% to 21% is a 5% improvement.  A 5% drop in the cost of manufacturing panels.

Some improvements like this would keep driving the cost of panels down and make solar even more affordable.  We need to see solar in the US hitting $0.04/kWh, unsubsidized.  At that point new solar is cheaper than new CCNG and the fuel price for a solar farm will not rise over time.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1969 on: September 01, 2017, 07:04:09 PM »
Panels are about US$300 on the retail market, so a missing zero is the most parsimonious fix I can think of. Of course, indium isn't cheap either. Clicking through to the actual story reveals no details.

It fits in the overarching theme of small incremental improvements on every aspect of solar PV. Most research won't pan out, and what does pan out can take a decade or more to go into production. Read the literature from 5-10 years ago to get a sense of what's going into production today. Read the literature today to get a sense of what's coming in the next 5-10 years. Seems that despite the huge improvement we've seen in the past ten years, there's just as much yet to come.

As the graphic above shows, the component cost is only half the picture. But the business process side is seeing lots of work too.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1970 on: September 01, 2017, 10:15:20 PM »
Pattern Energy Group Inc.’s Gulf Wind farm in Texas remained in operation even as Hurricane Harvey devastated the state with a deluge of rain and winds that reached 130 miles an hour. The 283-megawatt power plant is in Armstrong, about 85 miles (137 kilometers) from Corpus Christi, where the storm crashed into the coast.
...

Other wind farms that were forced to shut down are now back online, according to the American Wind Energy Association, though one site remains down due to the loss of the local transmission grid near Corpus Christi. Wind often supplies about 20 percent or more of the power in Texas during the windiest parts of the day, according to grid operator Electric Reliability Council of Texas. That slipped to about 13 percent on Aug. 26, when Harvey hit.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/harvey-pushed-this-texas-wind-farm-all-the-way-to-the-max

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1971 on: September 02, 2017, 12:38:19 AM »
Wind turbine: emergency stop without mechanical brake

https://youtu.be/dvrttCzpUh4

This things can take a beating! I didn't realize how ingenious this breaking mechanism is.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1972 on: September 02, 2017, 03:27:23 PM »
Wind turbine: emergency stop without mechanical brake

https://youtu.be/dvrttCzpUh4

This things can take a beating! I didn't realize how ingenious this breaking mechanism is.

They "feather" the blades like an airplane propeller! (Or "luffing" a sail.)  8)
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1973 on: September 02, 2017, 03:30:47 PM »
Wind turbines during Hurricane Harvey.

When there’s too much wind
Modern wind turbines are engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds, but there’s nothing like a real-world test. Hurricane Harvey came ashore on Aug. 25 as a Category 4 storm, meaning winds over 130 miles per hour, and plowed into a region with several wind farms.

Initial reports indicate that the wind turbines themselves came through fine. The facility closest to where the storm made landfall was Papalote Creek in San Patricio County, near Corpus Christi. This facility, owned by E.ON, has 380 megawatts (MW) of Vestas and Siemens equipment. E.ON told the website Recharge that its turbines and substation were not damaged, despite sustained 90 mph winds and gusts above 100 mph. The utility grid, however, did not fare so well, and the turbines will remain shut down until transmission and distribution lines can be repaired. The Recharge story is here. A post on the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy’s Footprints blog, here, concludes that coastal Texas wind farms were mostly online and operating as the storm moved on.

Whatever the damage incurred by clean energy infrastructure, it pales in comparison to the damage inflicted by flooded old economy energy facilities. A week into this tragedy, an accounting is just starting to emerge of the pollution that’s being released into the floodwaters and the air by the vast refineries and chemical plants surrounding Houston. E&E News has a roundup, here, which also touches on the hazards of the region’s many Superfund toxic waste cleanup sites. The Dallas Morning News reports here on how shutting down refineries in an emergency results in excess toxic chemicals released into the air. InsideClimate News looks at the chemical releases and health risks here.

KEY STAT: Some 800 MW of wind power dropped off the grid as the full force of Harvey hit, indicating the temporary idling of turbines facing winds that were too strong for safe operation.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=7c733794100bcc7e083a163f0&id=739291ad17
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1974 on: September 03, 2017, 07:43:43 PM »
New proposals would kill solar and wind in the European Union

As intermittent renewables gain a greater share of the electricity supply we should expect the non-renewable providers to push back. If you only pay spot prices to wind and solar they will not be economic, as they can drive spot prices to zero with over supply - especially as they become a greater percentage of supply. Probably why we are seeing such issues in Europe, where intermittent renewables have a high share in may countries. Will be an issue until we have the capability for grid-scale storage.

"In mid-May, European grid regulators spoke out against priority grid dispatch for renewables. If the European Commission adopts their suggestions into law, it will be hard to add more wind or solar capacity"

"The problem, as the experts certainly know, is twofold. First, wind and solar react to the weather, not to prices. From the grid operator’s perspective, this situation is undesirable: they want generators that produce more power when needed and less when not. Solar and wind cannot be switched on.

Second, solar and wind cannibalize themselves. When the wind blows and the sun shines, more power is generated, so power prices on spot markets go down. If no payment is ensured for curtailment, it doesn’t matter how cheap solar and wind get; they price themselves out of the market. In other words, if you want wind and solar, you want guaranteed payments for them. Calls for them to make do with spot prices (and, eventually, forgo curtailment payments) are tantamount to saying, let’s just not have wind and solar, shall we?"

https://energytransition.org/2017/06/new-proposals-would-kill-solar-and-wind-in-eu/

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1975 on: September 03, 2017, 09:12:30 PM »
In the US almost all wind and solar is contracted for 20 or 25 years.  Utilities agree to pay for what  wind and solar farms generate, when they generate it.  They do that for two reasons: 1) wind and solar are the least expensive sources available and 2) the low contract prices are locked down for the length of the contract.  If they get electricity for $0.02/kWh today they will get electricity for $0.02/kW in 2037. 

We probably won't see spot market pricing for wind and solar in the future.  They won't be 'eating each other's lunch' because utilities will only contract for what they can use and no one will build a wind/solar farm without a contract in hand.

Utilities will purchase the fill-in power they need to keep the grid running.

Of course we should expect the fossil fuel industry and nuclear industry to push back.  Their oxen are being gored.  Their plants are being forced out of business.  As the cost of solar and wind drop that will only get worse.

The EU may not have yet figured out how to adapt to a solar/wind grid.

Even in Europe no one is going to build a wind or solar farm if the market is saturated.   

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1976 on: September 04, 2017, 04:48:10 AM »
Their oxen are being gored. 

That gave me good laugh on a Sunday night, very medieval!

ghoti

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 577
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1977 on: September 04, 2017, 09:55:42 PM »
Tidal power is still in its infancy but making progress. Like wind power 30 years ago perhaps?

http://reneweconomy.com.au/australia-led-tidal-energy-project-sets-new-production-records-29054/

Hopefully tidal grows faster than wind did.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1978 on: September 05, 2017, 03:02:40 AM »
Tidal strikes me as unlikely to make a big splash. I hope to be wrong: it would be transformative for Iqaluit, which gets 8-10 meter tides.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1979 on: September 06, 2017, 07:38:21 AM »
Energy production at wind parks in the German North Sea has increased by about 50 per cent in the first six months of 2017 compared with the first half of the previous year.

Power production at wind parks off the north-west shore of the country was 7.77 terawatt hours during the first half of 2016, transmission system operator Tennet said.

The production during the first six months of 2017 was 72 per cent of production for all of last year.

"The fact that costs for wind parks and transmission systems will sink in the future shows the large economic performance that offshore has reached in the meantime," said Lex Hartman of Tennet‘s executive board.

"We expect this trend to continue in the future."

The 953 wind turbines in the German North Sea have a performance capacity similar to about four very large conventional or nuclear power plants.


http://en.europeonline-magazine.eu/german-north-sea-wind-power-up-50-per-cent-in-first-half-of-2017_574032.html

In 2016 Germany generated 10% of their electricity with onshore wind and 1.9% with offshore wind.  The 50% uptick in offshore won't mean a huge amount of additional renewable but it means that offshore is catching on.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1980 on: September 06, 2017, 02:30:30 PM »
50% more wind means 1% of the electricity supply. In a grid that's 50% coal that can mean about 2% of coal going offline. In a year, from one technology. Add in onshore wind, solar, and efficiency.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1981 on: September 06, 2017, 07:20:30 PM »
50% more wind means 1% of the electricity supply. In a grid that's 50% coal that can mean about 2% of coal going offline. In a year, from one technology. Add in onshore wind, solar, and efficiency.

Yes, there's the FF -> RE multiplier effect we don't talk about very much.  Half the energy from coal (or more than half) is wasted - waste heat.  We don't need to replace that because we don't use it.

So one unit of electricity from a renewable source (wind, solar, etc.) replaces at least two units of fossil fuel. 

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1982 on: September 09, 2017, 01:56:26 AM »
[quote Dominion Energy, which was scouring Virginia’s coalfields region for possible locations for a pumped hydroelectric storage facility, has found two potential sites.]

The Richmond-based energy company is continuing to study the feasibility of building a pumped storage facility and is focusing on a long-closed coal mine in Wise County and a 4,100-acre site in Tazewell County, the company announced Thursday.

Pumped storage facilities create energy by moving water from one reservoir to a second reservoir, typically during peak energy times.

Dominion operates what it describes as the largest pumped storage facility in the U.S. in Bath County. Appalachian Power Co.’s Smith Mountain Project is a pumped storage operation between Smith Mountain and Leesville lakes.[/quote]

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virginia/dominion-energy-considering-two-coalfield-sites-for-pumped-storage-facility/article_b86c3bec-5a34-5825-a0b9-a7c094a64900.html

A few weeks back San Diego put out a request for bids to convert San Vicente Reservoir into a storage facility.

It looks as if utilities are planning for larger wind and solar penetrations.

BenB

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1983 on: September 11, 2017, 10:07:08 AM »
The results of the recent CfD auctions in the UK have been announed. 3.2GW of projects were awarded contracts, with prices at £74.75 for projects starting generation in 2021-22, and £57.50 for those completing in 2022-23.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-renewables-auction/uk-renewables-auction-clears-as-low-as-58-pounds-mwh-for-offshore-wind-idUKKCN1BM0KL?il=0
http://renews.biz/108423/uk-awards-32gw-offshore/

Hinkley Point, if it ever gets completed, is seeming more expensive by the day.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1984 on: September 11, 2017, 02:02:38 PM »
I didn't quite understand what the subsidy price means -- is it just a PPA, or are they getting this plus whatever the market offers?

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1755
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1985 on: September 11, 2017, 02:35:50 PM »
I didn't quite understand what the subsidy price means -- is it just a PPA, or are they getting this plus whatever the market offers?


Not sure if this helps but

The subsidies, paid from a levy on consumer bills, will run for 15 years - unlike nuclear subsidies for Hinkley C which run for 35 years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

BenB

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1986 on: September 11, 2017, 02:50:31 PM »
Just to add to Crandles' reply, essentially it is a 15-year PPA, but indexed for inflation up to the point of starting to generate power (and beyond), and is quoted in 2012 pounds.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1987 on: September 11, 2017, 04:19:13 PM »
The results of the recent CfD auctions in the UK have been announed. 3.2GW of projects were awarded contracts, with prices at £74.75 for projects starting generation in 2021-22, and £57.50 for those completing in 2022-23.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-renewables-auction/uk-renewables-auction-clears-as-low-as-58-pounds-mwh-for-offshore-wind-idUKKCN1BM0KL?il=0
http://renews.biz/108423/uk-awards-32gw-offshore/

Hinkley Point, if it ever gets completed, is seeming more expensive by the day.


The strike price (PPA contract) for electricity from Hinkley Point C is £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices), which will be adjusted (linked to inflation) during the construction period and over the subsequent 35 years tariff period.

Archimid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 678
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1988 on: September 13, 2017, 02:55:39 PM »
DOE Officially Marks SunShot’s $1 per Watt Goal for Utility-Scale Solar

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-hits-sunshot-1-per-watt-goal-for-utility-scale-solar

It's official. The solar industry has met the 2020 utility-scale solar cost target set by the Energy Department's SunShot Initiative -- three years early.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1989 on: September 13, 2017, 05:17:25 PM »
DOE Officially Marks SunShot’s $1 per Watt Goal for Utility-Scale Solar

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-hits-sunshot-1-per-watt-goal-for-utility-scale-solar

It's official. The solar industry has met the 2020 utility-scale solar cost target set by the Energy Department's SunShot Initiative -- three years early.

Now we need to follow China's lead.  Set a new, more aggressive goal.  And meet it early.

numerobis

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 239
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1990 on: September 15, 2017, 05:38:17 PM »
California is debating a mandate for 100% "clean" "energy" by 2045:
http://www.npr.org/2017/09/14/551046066/california-lawmakers-to-vote-on-100-percent-clean-energy-mandate

("Clean" defined as including CCS, "energy" defined as electricity generation.)

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1991 on: September 16, 2017, 06:55:13 AM »
This is an article i missed in 2017, but it illustrates huge potential for demand response by aluminium smelters:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/german-firm-turns-aluminum-smelter-into-huge-battery

Nice.

sidd

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1992 on: September 18, 2017, 12:55:00 AM »
Why Didn't Florida Power and Light Do More to Prepare for Irma?
FPL's lobbying wing has fought hard against letting Floridians power their own homes with solar panels. Thanks to power-company rules, it's impossible across Florida to simply buy a solar panel and power your individual home with it. You are instead legally mandated to connect your panels to your local electric grid.

More egregious, FPL mandates that if the power goes out, your solar-power system must power down along with the rest of the grid, robbing potentially needy people of power during major outages.
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/miami-frustrated-with-fpl-after-hurricane-irma-9666311
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1993 on: September 18, 2017, 01:15:51 AM »
I think that the solar panel cutout enforced during grid outage is to protect linemen repairing lines from backfeed.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1994 on: September 18, 2017, 02:21:46 AM »
I think that the solar panel cutout enforced during grid outage is to protect linemen repairing lines from backfeed.

So they say.  But why not allow the same kind of Utility Transfer Switch that residential generators use, when they detect the loss of utility power, start up and switch the house completely over to the generator?
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • ASIF Royalty
  • Posts: 9035
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1995 on: September 18, 2017, 02:30:57 AM »
Rotor length of ~79 meters (>250 feet)!

GE Renewable Energy Unveils Largest Onshore Wind Turbine
GE Renewable Energy unveiled its largest onshore wind turbine this week, a 4.8 megawatt turbine which is able to generate enough electricity at low to medium wind sites for the equivalent of 5,000 homes.
...
This is GE’s first 4 MW onshore wind turbine and is purpose-built to generate in low to medium wind sites — an important development, as many high wind sites have already been developed, and countries and developers look for more opportunities in less optimal conditions. Developing technology specifically for less-optimal renewable energy sites is a key step in continuing the development of renewable energy, and simply good business for technology manufacturers. ...
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/13/ge-renewable-energy-unveils-largest-onshore-wind-turbine/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2090
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1996 on: September 18, 2017, 05:09:43 AM »
I think that the solar panel cutout enforced during grid outage is to protect linemen repairing lines from backfeed.

So they say.  But why not allow the same kind of Utility Transfer Switch that residential generators use, when they detect the loss of utility power, start up and switch the house completely over to the generator?

A grid connection inverter is designed to island whatever is behind it until there is power on the grid.

sidd

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1376
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1997 on: September 18, 2017, 07:07:10 AM »
One cant connect a bank of solar to house wiring, no matter what inverter and have stable AC with variable insolation absent a battery, and i understand that most residential solar in Florida has no battery and is designed to feed the grid directly. Most homeowners elect not to have the battery and islanding inverter due to cost consideraitions. But that is changing.

Solar + battery is effectively the same as using onsite generator, which is allowed under Florida law, provided an isolation switch or, for solar+battery an islanding inverter is installed. But the latter is expensive, so many just get a generator.

sidd
 


Tor Bejnar

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1486
    • View Profile
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #1998 on: September 19, 2017, 07:50:23 PM »
A neighbor (here in Florida, USA) has panels on his roof and a backup generator for when the grid is down (5 days for Hermine and 1.5 days for Irma).  A friend has panels on his barn's roof (plus some more 'on the ground') and batteries and inverter, etc. and doesn't lose power.  (Getting his inverter installed on a wall was challenging:  we put a hole through the ceiling for a cable and winched it up.  Almost everything else was easy by comparison.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.