Renewable Energy

[jacksmith4tx]

Over-militarization and financialization are symptoms of a nation in decline.

I just hope it implodes, not explodes. Best outcome for the planet would be for the US to default on it's debt and crash the dollar by at least 50%.

[Tor Bejnar]

Solar prices are dropping so fast it is ‘muting the impact’ of Trump tariffs, CEO says
ThinkProgress - July 31, 2018

A huge glut of global solar panels has led to sharp price drops that have muted the effect of the Trump administration’s import tariffs on solar.

Trade wars have unpredictable results, and solar power is a classic case in point.

In 2017, when Trump was considering putting tariffs on imported solar cells and panels, U.S. companies started buying and stockpiling foreign panels, which drove up prices. Then in January, the President imposed a 30 percent tariff.

Domestically, orders were canceled, and workers were let go, since the industry gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
...

It's like predicting how much ice there will be in the Arctic two months ahead.

[Sciguy]

China is ramping up wind energy production.

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/07/31/china-set-to-exceed-210-gigawatt-wind-power-target-by-2020/

China’s recently-announced switch from a Feed-in Tariff (FiT) scheme to a competitive auction mechanism will help the country surpass its national cumulative wind power target of 210 gigawatts (GW) by 2020 and install more than 20 GW per year on average over the next 10 years.

China Continues to Increase Installed Renewable CapacityChina’s National Energy Administration (NEA) announced earlier this year that it was transitioning from a Feed-in Tariff scheme to a competitive auction mechanism for wind projects, heralding a change to the competitiveness of the industry. While certain onshore and offshore projects will still be eligible for the FiT, most projects starting in 2019 will need to win at auction.

[jacksmith4tx]

Thanks Ken.
China is ramping down coal too.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-peak-coal-is-getting-closer-latest-figures-show

Planned new coal capacity has been cancelled around the world, with particularly rapid falls in China and India. At the end of 2015, China had plans to build 515GW of new coal capacity. That figure now stands at 76GW. In India, the pre-construction pipeline has shrunk from 218GW in 2015 to 63GW today.

I posted a story in the Nuclear Power thread not long ago that featured a historic China/Russia nuclear power plant deal so the story as of now looks like less coal and more of everything else including LNG, Oil and Natural Gas unfortunately.

RE:Tor's comment about solar.
The shock to the solar panel supply chain is will take a few more quarters to stabilize. The same thing happened to the US agriculture sector - foreign buyers accelerated their orders in the 1st quarter because they were predicting Trump's tariffs and how China would react(they slapped tariffs on US ag). I would add the Chinese have started to drop the Yuan value too.

[jacksmith4tx]

Texas regulators cancel nations largest wind project.
https://www.news-journal.com/news/business/local/swepco-cancels-b-wind-farm-project-after-texas-commission-denies/article_3f7c4baa-94d4-11e8-831c-df6514d453c1.html

SWEPCO cancels $4.5B wind farm project after Texas commission denies approval
The 2,000-megawatt Wind Catcher wind farm would have spanned two counties in the Oklahoma panhandle and provided power to customers in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana...

The project included the construction of 800 wind turbines and also called for the construction of a 360-mile transmission line from the wind farm to Tulsa, Oklahoma, where the company said the existing electric grid would deliver power from the farm to customers.

If there was a price on carbon those Texas wind turbines would offset(some/most/all) of the cost for the new transmission network. More bad accounting.

[Sigmetnow]

Texas regulators cancel nations largest wind project.
https://www.news-journal.com/news/business/local/swepco-cancels-b-wind-farm-project-after-texas-commission-denies/article_3f7c4baa-94d4-11e8-831c-df6514d453c1.html
...

What reason did the Texas commissioners give?  From the article:

Texas commissioners had said the benefits of the project weren’t enough for the state’s ratepayers and were based on questionable assumptions.

SWEPCO said the project was expected to save its customers more than $5 billion, net of cost, over the 25-year life of the wind farm compared with projected market costs for procuring power over the same period. Those savings included fuel cost; the value of the federal Production Tax Credit, which is available for construction of new wind farm projects; and the cost-efficient delivery of wind power to customers through the new power line.

Customers would have seen savings primarily through a decline in the fuel portion of their bills beginning in 2021, SWEPCO had said.  A coalition of area cities, including Longview and Kilgore, was reviewing the project to ensure project construction costs passed to consumers were fair.

SWEPCO in July 2017 had asked state utility regulators for the authority to charge retail customers nearly 25 percent of the cost to build transmission lines connecting the utility to the Wind Catcher project wind generation facility.

[jacksmith4tx]

China mid-year solar report:
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-installed-24.3gw-of-solar-power-in-the-first-half-of-2018

According to China’s National Energy Administration (NEA), new solar PV installations in the country reached 24.3GW in the first half of 2018.
 
At the end of June 2018, cumulative PV installations had reached 154.51GW, which included 112.6GW of utility-scale PV power plants and 41.9GW of Distributed Generation (DG) projects, according to the NEA.

First half 2018 installations of utility-scale projects was said to have reached 12.24GW, down 30% from the prior year period, while DG installations were reported to have been 12.24GW, a 72% increase year-on-year.

Looks like they switched from utility scale systems to more distributed generation(roof top & small commercial). Will this be a long term trend?
>
India jumped into the PV tariff wars on July 30 with a new 25% safeguard duty on imports of solar cells and modules from Malaysia and the People’s Republic of China.
>
This is stupid. While India relies almost entirety on imported Chinese PV, India actually produces some of the lowest quality solar panels in the world.

The solar sector is currently a punching bag in the tariff wars so it's really hard to predict what this will do to long term planing and financing.

[rboyd]

With the imposition of caps and further reduction in feed in tariffs announced in June, the second half of 2018 may see a lot less progress on solar in China - the changes affect both utility-scale and distributed plants.

"According to previous NEA guidance, China had targeted 13.9GW of utility-scale projects for deployment in 2018. However, the issued notice Friday, highlighted that the utility-scale target for the year had been abolished, instructing all regional provinces to impose bans on all entities seeking FiT’s under any 2018 mechanism ... local governments were instructed not to approve any utility-scale projects until further notice."

"The government agencies notice also included a uniform reduction in the FiT mechanism, lowered by RMB 0.05/kWh, including a similar reduction for DG ‘self-consumption’ projects, which means surplus power would be have a FiT of RMB 0.32/kWh."

"The sudden and serious changes to PV deployment in China is expected to have a major effect on total deployments in 2018 and beyond. According to AECEA, it has lowered its previous deployment forecast for China in 2018 from a range of 40GW to 45GW to 30GW to 35GW."

https://www.pv-tech.org/news/china-putting-major-breaks-on-solar-deployment-as-new-market-rules-imposed

[rboyd]

Good news from Spain ...

Spain’s new government commits to massive clean energy build-out

"Spain’s conservative government tried to stop the transition away from coal, but has been replaced by a coalition which will focus on reinvigorating the economy with clean energy. From scrapping unpopular taxes on solar to creating a Green Fund, the future of renewables looks bright"

https://energytransition.org/2018/07/spains-new-government-commits-to-massive-clean-energy-build-out/

[magnamentis]

Good news from Spain ...

Spain’s new government commits to massive clean energy build-out

"Spain’s conservative government tried to stop the transition away from coal, but has been replaced by a coalition which will focus on reinvigorating the economy with clean energy. From scrapping unpopular taxes on solar to creating a Green Fund, the future of renewables looks bright"

https://energytransition.org/2018/07/spains-new-government-commits-to-massive-clean-energy-build-out/

finally, where else to do it if not where the sun shines 300+ days a year and strongly as well as if there is no sun there is almost certainly wind, most often even both.

it should be mandatory to install PV on all those millions of flat roofs here upon next reconstruction above something like 20'000 €uros

who can afford a new luxury kitchen and/or bathroom to impress missy can be forced to reduce his carbon footprint IMO.

i'm a bit angry because it's almost criminal that in such a country this has not been implemented yet, at least it applies for newly built commercial and public buildings.

[Sigmetnow]

“Bill Gates became the richest bloke on Earth off the end of the mainframe,” said Neil Eckert, chairman of Aggregated Micro Power Holdings Plc, an energy services company that installs small power plants. “We are seeing the end of the energy mainframe. The world will have to learn new techniques -- how to invest in small-scale distributed energy.”

Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid
Wind and solar farms are glutting networks more frequently, prompting a market signal for coal plants to shut off

Once confined to a curiosity for a few hours over windy Christmas holidays, sub-zero cost of electricity is becoming a reality for hundreds of hours in many markets, upending the economics of the business in the process.
...
Periods with negative prices occur when there is more supply than demand, typically during a mid-day sun burst or early morning wind gust when demand is already low. A negative price is essentially a market signal telling utilities to shut down certain power plants. It doesn’t result in anyone getting a refund on bills -- or in electric meters running backward.

Instead, it often prompts owners of traditional coal and gas plants to shut down production for a period even though many of the facilities aren’t designed to switch on and off quickly. It’s left the utilities complaining that they can’t earn the returns they expected for their investment in generation capacity.

“Energy market price signals are critical to telling generators where to build new resources,” said Abe Silverman, deputy general council at NRG Energy, which is concerned about the anomaly in California. “As negative prices become more prevalent, we’ll have to evolve our energy market price formation strategies to ensure that we will continue to drive efficient investment.”

Prices are below zero most often in Germany, which was the first major economy to make a big push into renewables. It’s phasing out nuclear reactors and coal power, leading to more frequent swings in the electricity market. It also exported its negative costs to surrounding markets. Denmark, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Switzerland and even France have all registered negative hours during this year or last. ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-08-06/negative-prices-in-power-market-as-wind-solar-cut-electricity

Several charts of negative pricing by country, at the link.

[SteveMDFP]

“Bill Gates became the richest bloke on Earth off the end of the mainframe,” said Neil Eckert, chairman of Aggregated Micro Power Holdings Plc, an energy services company that installs small power plants. “We are seeing the end of the energy mainframe. The world will have to learn new techniques -- how to invest in small-scale distributed energy.”

Power Worth Less Than Zero Spreads as Green Energy Floods the Grid
Wind and solar farms are glutting networks more frequently, prompting a market signal for coal plants to shut off

Instead, it often prompts owners of traditional coal and gas plants to shut down production for a period even though many of the facilities aren’t designed to switch on and off quickly. It’s left the utilities complaining that they can’t earn the returns they expected for their investment in generation capacity.

Here's an ironic idea.  These fossil fuel generators might benefit from installing battery storage.  By evening out the peaks and troughs of demand, they might be able to keep the plants on longer, and off longer--less cycling.

Of course, the  more total battery storage in the grid, the  faster the ff generators become obsolete.  The incentives here for  individual power  plants could be adverse  to the industry as a whole.

[rboyd]

A sobering report from Carbon Brief about renewables in the UK:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/six-charts-show-mixed-progress-for-uk-renewables

"As the lower chart above shows, fossil fuels supplied 80% of the UK’s primary energy in 2017, a drop of one percentage point compared to 2016. This is the lowest ever share in the modern era. Even just 10 years earlier, the share stood at 91%. Meanwhile, the overall proportion of renewables in the primary energy mix reached 11.3% in 2017, its highest ever share. This was a rise of 1.2 percentage points compared to 2016 levels."

The easy bit, getting rid of coal fired electricity generation is pretty much done. The next is displacing natural gas generation. A big chunk of the replacement of coal comes from wood pellets at Drax, with much research showing that this may be just as bad as burning coal - crazily Drax is looking at converting another unit to wood pellets.

The bigger displacements will be oil for transport and natural gas for space heating - as with the rest of electricity generation these are the "higher hanging fruit" that have to addressed. In a rational world there would already be a massive drive to electrify transport and space heating, together with making UK buildings much more heat efficient. Such moves would tend to create skilled local jobs as well.

[Sciguy]

Wind energy in the US is projected to grow rapidly for the next few years due to production tax credits:

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/us-wind-industry-full-steam-ahead-despite-wind-catcher-cancellation#gs.vIdAl5Q

Year-over-year cost reductions, combined with the Production Tax Credit, make 2020 “the sweet spot” for wind projects on a cost basis, said Logan. As a result, MAKE is predicting enormous growth over the next few years, as developers take advantage of the PTC before it begins to decline in 2021.

More than 32 gigawatts of new wind capacity is forecast to be built in the U.S. over the next three years, according to MAKE’s latest North America Wind Power Outlook report. MAKE projected 13 gigawatts of new wind would be built in 2020, although that number includes Wind Catcher, Logan noted.

It’s unlikely Wind Catcher will be replaced by multiple smaller projects, he added, because the 350-mile transmission line was critical to building out that capacity. So unless Wind Catcher is revived, new U.S. wind capacity in 2020 may be closer to 11 gigawatts.

For the broader wind industry, Logan said that means it's still “full steam ahead.”

[rboyd]

More than 32 gigawatts of new wind capacity is forecast to be built in the U.S. over the next three years, according to MAKE’s latest North America Wind Power Outlook report. MAKE projected 13 gigawatts of new wind would be built in 2020, although that number includes Wind Catcher, Logan noted.

That's about 10GW per year of new capacity. Capacity at the end of 2017 was 89GW, with 7GW installed in 2017 ("The total 2017 installations were a little lower than in 2015 and 2016"). So overall capacity will grow by about 33% in 3 years. Capacity added has been flat for three years (2015-2017), will jump a little for the next three years (2018-2020). Then (quote from the executive summary of the MAKE report that I downloaded):

"Annual wind installation volumes will begin to decline as the production tax credit (PTC) phase-out begins, though projects built in 2021 with access to the 80% PTC will remain cost competitive
with solar PV and gas capacity in several states. After 2021, wind will struggle
as it first fights full-subsidy solar PV with 60 and 40% PTC phaseout values in 2022 and
2023 and then must compete on an unsubsidized basis with phase-out-subsidy solar PV
and natural gas capacity additions from 2024 onward."

So a doubling rate of maybe every 10 years. In 2017 Wind was 6.3% of US electricity generation, so in 10 years it should be at about 12.6% (assuming a continuation in the lack of growth of US electricity demand). Good progress, but we need much faster to cut CO2 emissions (and all those fugitive emissions of methane).

Thanks for the post, made me do some useful research (am a PhD student so this is my full time job).

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1455894/us-wind-capacity-rises-89gw

https://www.awea.org/wind-energy-facts-at-a-glance

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

[Sigmetnow]

Northeast U.S. offshore wind:
The initial [price] is so low that a nation of energy experts did a spit-take.

Offshore Wind is Getting Cheaper. Oh, and Much Sooner Than Expected

Last week [Aug 1, 2018], Massachusetts utilities disclosed in filings the prices they will pay for electricity from the Vineyard Wind project, an offshore wind farm that will be largest in the country.

The initial number is so low that a nation of energy experts did a spit-take.

The price is $74 per megawatt-hour in the first year and then increases 2.5 percent each subsequent year of the 20-year deal.

“I don’t know anyone who was expecting prices to be this low,” said Michael O’Boyle, electricity policy manager for Energy Innovation, a think tank. “I was extremely excited.”
...
Companies have stepped up their purchases of wind, solar and other clean energy this year, at a pace that far outstrips 2017.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported this week that corporate purchases of clean energy so far this year are at 7.2 gigawatts worldwide, up from 5.4 gigawatts in all of last year.

Of that total, 4.2 gigawatts is in the United States. That’s already a record. (The report is not available to the public.)

The Rocky Mountain Institute’s Business Renewables Center came to similar conclusions this week, finding that U.S. corporate purchases of clean energy by non-utility companies are at a record-breaking 3.86 gigawatts for the year.

The two reports use different frameworks for what gets counted, but they agree that the top U.S. purchaser is Facebook, which bought 1.1 gigawatts according to BNEF. AT&T was next with 820 megawatts.

The growth is because of a combination of falling prices for clean energy contracts and the growing popularity of corporate policies that call for 100 percent clean energy. It’s not new to say that large corporations are driving the market in a way that rivals the clean power investment happening because of state and national laws.

What is new is the sheer volume of these deals. We are in uncharted territory, as the world’s biggest consumers of energy take their interest in renewable energy into their own hands.

https://insideclimatenews.org/campaign-archive/clean-economy-weekly

[oren]

Pardon me for being a skeptic, but is $74 per mWh actually considered cheap for wind/solar?
Worse than that, I know many contracts are in nominal prices,  while this one grows to 121 $/mWh after 20 years. Doesn't sound cheap at all. Or maybe I just got used to thinking low because of Bob Wallace?
(And where has he gone?!)

[James Lovejoy]

$74 per mWh isn't considered cheap for wind/solar, but is very cheap for offshore wind.

So why build offshore wind if it's much more expensive than onshore?  Because it can be built close to where the demand is.

[oren]

Thanks for the response JL. You answered my follow-up question...

[Yuha]

So why build offshore wind if it's much more expensive than onshore?  Because it can be built close to where the demand is.

Also offshore wind is probably more constant with fewer windless periods.

[sidd]

Solar projects good for the poor:

"In all cases explored, mega-solar deployment leads to an improvement in social equity levels, with desirable burden distribution which closes the gap between rich and poor."

DOI: 10.1007/s11625-018-0613-y

sidd

[Archimid]

First new all-electric mine dumps diesel; cuts costs, pollution

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mining-electric-goldcorp/first-new-all-electric-mine-dumps-diesel-cuts-costs-pollution-idUSKBN1JH2FI

Hundreds of feet below thick boreal forest blanketing the Canadian Shield, a squad of near-silent, battery-powered machines are tunneling toward gold in a multimillion-dollar mining experiment to ditch diesel.

Goldcorp Inc (G.TO) (GG.N) is building the world’s first new all-electric mine, a high-stakes gambit to replace noisy, fume-belching equipment being closely watched by a diesel-dependent industry.

A rough-hewn tunnel, some 800 feet underground, seems an incongruous setting for revolutionary technology, but front-line workers call it a game changer.

“It would be a challenge to go back,” said jumbo drill operator Adam Ladouceur, noting the air quality and lack of noise at the Borden project, northwest of Toronto, is “amazing” compared to the 23 mines where he previously worked.

[ghoti]

The community of Bruck in Austria decided they wanted to invest in renewable energy for the area years ago. They started small but now have a huge stake in renewable generation. The Fully Charged Show produced a video explaining it all:

[jacksmith4tx]

"The sudden and serious changes to PV deployment in China is expected to have a major effect on total deployments in 2018 and beyond. According to AECEA, it has lowered its previous deployment forecast for China in 2018 from a range of 40GW to 45GW to 30GW to 35GW."

It's worse than we thought.
JA Solar is one of the biggest PV manufactures in the world and if it serves as a bell-weather/canary-in-the-coal-mine the future is not looking good.
After reporting earnings today (8/13/2018) it's stock plunged around 20%.

Maybe all our assumptions that renewable energy would displace fossil fuels and bend the CO2 curve down were wrong. Sadly, the odds of trying to geoengineer our way out of this have gone way up.
 

[Sciguy]

Solar growth in India has been strong:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/13/62-of-capacity-added-in-q2-2018-in-india-came-from-solar/

For a fourth consecutive quarter, India added more renewable energy and solar capacity than thermal and coal-based capacity. A net capacity of 2.2 gigawatts was added across India, across technologies with solar grabbing a share of 62%.

According to latest data released by various agencies of the Indian government, India added more solar power capacity in Q2 2018 than in any second quarter. A total of 1,372 megawatts of solar power capacity was added during the April-June 2018 quarter. It was the fourth consecutive quarter when solar power capacity addition was more than coal and thermal power capacity addition.

[Sciguy]

Global solar capacity is expected to reach 1TW by 2023, even with the reduction in Chinese growth:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Worlds-Solar-Power-Capacity-To-Hit-Major-Milestone-By-2023.html

China is now likely to install 141 GW of solar capacity between now and 2023, compared to previous estimates of 206 GW, according to the report.

“Annual installations of 20-25GW will be the new normal for China, rather than 30-40GW,” it says.

After 2019, however, global solar capacity additions will be around 120 GW each year, with total solar capacity expected to cross the 1 TW mark by 2023.

Last week, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) said its data indicated that there were 1,013 GW—crossing the 1-TW milestone—of combined wind and solar PV generating capacity installed worldwide as of June 30, 2018. According to BNEF estimates, the second terawatt of wind and solar will arrive by the middle of 2023 and cost 46 percent less than the first.

[jacksmith4tx]

Solar growth in India has been strong:

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/13/62-of-capacity-added-in-q2-2018-in-india-came-from-solar/

For a fourth consecutive quarter, India added more renewable energy and solar capacity than thermal and coal-based capacity. A net capacity of 2.2 gigawatts was added across India, across technologies with solar grabbing a share of 62%.

According to latest data released by various agencies of the Indian government, India added more solar power capacity in Q2 2018 than in any second quarter. A total of 1,372 megawatts of solar power capacity was added during the April-June 2018 quarter. It was the fourth consecutive quarter when solar power capacity addition was more than coal and thermal power capacity addition.

From the same source & the same day!:
"India Cancels 2.4 Gigawatt Solar Capacity"
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/08/13/india-cancels-2-4-gigawatt-solar-capacity-awarded-in-largest-tender/

This partial cancellation adds to the growing trend of cancelling solar and wind energy tenders by government agencies citing high price bids. States like Gujarat, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Jharkhand have either cancelled tenders after allocation, or renegotiated tariff bids with successful bidders.

How in the world can anybody make plans with all this confusion?

[jacksmith4tx]

Canadian Solar, another warning sign that things are tough in the solar panel market:
"Canadian Solar misses revenue target in Q2"
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/canadian-solar-misses-revenue-target-in-q2

Net revenue in the second quarter was US$650.6 million, down 54.3% when compared to US$1.42 billion in the first quarter of 2018. The company had previously guided revenue to be in the range of US$690 million to US$730 million.

 "Our second quarter revenue was affected by the deferral of several project sales as well as an industrywide lower average module selling price. The solar policy change in China effective on May 31, 2018 has caused a significant disruption in China, and the global solar industry. We also incurred a relatively large foreign exchange loss due to the depreciation of currencies in certain developing countries against US dollar during the quarter.”

"The revision of our annual guidance is in-line with the boarder industry and mainly reflects the expected reduction of shipment volumes to the Chinese market in the second half of the year, as well as the expected lower solar module average selling price." 

The SMSL noted that it had lowered full-year PV module shipments to 6GW to 6.2GW, compared to previous guidance of 6.6GW to 7.1GW.

Full-year revenue was lowered to US$4.0billion to US$4.2 billion, down from US$4.4 billion to US$4.6 billion, previously guided.

The company also lowered its manufacturing capacity expansion plans for the year.

Looking at the global demand forecast provided by the major manufactures points to a industry bottom sometime in 2021-2022 time frame assuming there is no international financial crisis.

It seems PV prices are dropping for the wrong reason. It's not the cutting costs of production, it's the falling demand that is squeezing profits.

[Sciguy]

It seems PV prices are dropping for the wrong reason. It's not the cutting costs of production, it's the falling demand that is squeezing profits.

Actually, it's the glut of solar panels caused by China's cut back in new solar installations.  Many installations are being delayed to see how low the prices go:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-20/solar-prices-nosedive-after-china-pullback-floods-global-market

Solar panels were already getting cheaper this year, and then China pulled the plug this month on about 20 gigawatts of domestic installations. The result was a glut of global inventories, and now prices are plunging even faster.

China, the world’s biggest solar market, on June 1 slammed the brakes on new projects that would have had as much capacity as about 20 nuclear power plants. With a global panel glut it’s a buyer’s market and developers in other countries are delaying purchases, holding out for even lower prices.

The average price for a polysilicon module slumped 4.79 percent since May 30, reaching a record low of 27.8 cents a watt Wednesday, according to PVInsights. That’s on track to be the biggest monthly decline since December 2016, the last time the industry was facing a global oversupply. China manufactures about 70 percent of the world’s solar components.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the stock prices of individual companies, as those will always bounce up and down.  Watch the total installed capacity wind, solar and battery power plants and how they compare to new installations of fossil fuel and nuclear plants to get a better idea of how quickly the share of renewable energy sources is displacing more dangerous forms of power production.

[jacksmith4tx]

It seems PV prices are dropping for the wrong reason. It's not the cutting costs of production, it's the falling demand that is squeezing profits.

Actually, it's the glut of solar panels caused by China's cut back in new solar installations.  Many installations are being delayed to see how low the prices go:
...

China, the world’s biggest solar market, on June 1 slammed the brakes on new projects that would have had as much capacity as about 20 nuclear power plants. With a global panel glut it’s a buyer’s market and developers in other countries are delaying purchases, holding out for even lower prices.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the stock prices of individual companies, as those will always bounce up and down.  Watch the total installed capacity wind, solar and battery power plants and how they compare to new installations of fossil fuel and nuclear plants to get a better idea of how quickly the share of renewable energy sources is displacing more dangerous forms of power production.

RE: Solar company stock prices
We have made the choice to use a capitalist economic model to solve a physics problem.
The end game is; Can our technology prevent the ecological disasters it created? I say maybe not. Until we can modify human behavior we fooling ourselves.

What this guy thinks about is why we do what we do.

Daniel Kahneman is the world’s most influential psychologist because he has, based on empirical research, figured out how we can notice when we are not thinking rationally. That knowledge gives us the choice to think “slow”---ignore brisk intuition and notional risks---when we decide we really need to get something right. His book, Thinking, Fast and Slow, is an international best-seller in part because the reader (or listener of his lecture) is invited to make cognitive experiments while reading (or listening). You catch your mind in the act of opting for illusion. To engage Kahneman’s work is to experience a delightful carnival ride of one “Busted!” after another. Your own brain becomes a co-instructor in how to use it better. Kahneman received the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 02002 for his work (with Amos Tversky) in “prospect theory” that founded the new discipline of behavioral economics.

http://podcast.longnow.org/salt/redirect/salt-020130813-kahneman-podcast.mp3

[Tunnelforce9]

If Germany can’t succeed after all its efforts, it would be a signal the world must adopt more costly strategies to rein in emissions—like capturing carbon pollution directly from the smokestacks of factories and utilities.

“Germany’s miss has bigger implications,” said Myles Allen, a climate change expert at Imperial College London. “The only thing that matters now is what we’re going to do on carbon capture. Without it, we won’t meet climate goals.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/

[gerontocrat]

If Germany can’t succeed after all its efforts, it would be a signal the world must adopt more costly strategies to rein in emissions—like capturing carbon pollution directly from the smokestacks of factories and utilities.

“Germany’s miss has bigger implications,” said Myles Allen, a climate change expert at Imperial College London. “The only thing that matters now is what we’re going to do on carbon capture. Without it, we won’t meet climate goals.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/

Another quote from the article....

Germany’s emissions miss should act as a “wake-up” call to all countries, said Gail Whiteman, professor of environment sustainability at the U.K.’s Lancaster University. “It does not necessarily mean that China or India or even the U.S.A. can’t cut their emissions. The key point is that we need a new kind of climate leadership, both at the nation-state level and across all other actors including companies and mayors.”

Some will use the lack of sufficient progress on renewables as ammunition to promote geo-engineering and CCS. Politicians will seize on these options to avoid facing the necessity of humans having to change the way lives are lived.

[GoSouthYoungins]

It is increasingly obvious that every attempt to live the same lifestyle in a sustainable way is a bad joke. Renewable energy isn't green. Every product run on electricity isn't green. The only real option is to significantly change lifestyle. Luckily the internet is the necessary tool to figure that all out. Some transport of durable goods makes sense, and a global communication system makes sense. Everything else is stupendously wasteful.

Food and shelter do not require vast energy inputs. Earthen shelters aren't novel. Growing food isn't complicated.  These things are what humans have evolved to do and the endeavor matches us with our biological needs. Conveniently, a permaculture lifestyle prepares individuals for the societal breakdown that is increasingly likely due to climate change. Installing solar may be sexy, but it's a garden, chickens, and some goats that can actually reduce emissions, make individuals more resilient, and undo the mental and physical health degradation synonymous with a modern industrial life.

[oren]

It is also becoming increasingly obvious that every attempt to convince half a billion humans living an advanced lifestyle (middle class and up in developed countries + the rich in other countries) to give it up or significantly change it has ended in abject failure. Instead, we have billions more who are actively trying to improve their lifestyle and aspire to the grand lifestyle enjoyed by these "developed" humans. And we have 70 million net new humans added each year, born into the same grand aspirations.
It seems humanity made a choice and it chose the coming catastrophe. For most it is an implicit choice, for some it is explicit. I agree with the second quote from the article, "The key point is that we need a new kind of climate leadership, both at the nation-state level and across all other actors including companies and mayors." But I don't think we will get it. Leaders are too afraid of making changes to their constituents' lifestyle and/or aspirations, knowing the constituents will object and rebel.
IMHO, renewable energy IS green, but by far there isn't enough of it. Leaders could choose a middle path of investing vast sums of money into renewables+storage+all other required greening changes, much more than Germany did, on a WWII-style basis, hurting their constituents' current lifestyle but with the promise of a bright future with both (some) lifestyle AND green. With the promise of a future, period. I believe it IS doable, but I don't think we will get it either.
Even the Chinese who are best-placed to make long-term hard decisions thanks to their party-dictatorial regime are dialing back their efforts (child policy, solar tariffs etc.) and not pushing as hard as they can.
So what we are left here is the "market-based approach", way too slow to solve the problem in the given time, and the slim hope that at some point in the next few years humans will suddenly change their attitudes and support the needed changes. If they do, the developed technologies could help achieve the change, if they don't it was all for nothing.
Societal collapse, here we come.

[jacksmith4tx]

It is increasingly obvious that every attempt to live the same lifestyle in a sustainable way is a bad joke. Renewable energy isn't green. Every product run on electricity isn't green. The only real option is to significantly change lifestyle. Luckily the internet is the necessary tool to figure that all out. Some transport of durable goods makes sense, and a global communication system makes sense. Everything else is stupendously wasteful.

Food and shelter do not require vast energy inputs. Earthen shelters aren't novel. Growing food isn't complicated.  These things are what humans have evolved to do and the endeavor matches us with our biological needs. Conveniently, a permaculture lifestyle prepares individuals for the societal breakdown that is increasingly likely due to climate change. Installing solar may be sexy, but it's a garden, chickens, and some goats that can actually reduce emissions, make individuals more resilient, and undo the mental and physical health degradation synonymous with a modern industrial life.

You have correctly identified the problem. We can't change human behavior.

I only have a minor disagreement with you claims about solar power. I have seen this 'solar isn't green' argument many times in the last 15 years. I would like to see a current research paper that backs up that claim.
http://astro1.panet.utoledo.edu/~relling2/PDF/pubs/life_cycle_assesment_ellingson_apul_(2015)_ren_and_sustain._energy_revs.pdf

I think most numbers are a bit optimistic since the typical residential installation is rarely ideal considering location, shading, ease of cleaning ect.. When you evaluate a commercial or grid scale installation they always maximize all the variables so they have the best EROI by leveraging location, multi-axis tracking, maintenance along with a long term recycling plan.

As someone who did the math before I installed my PV system I can only say I have exceeded my original calculations by about 10%. I used 100% my own cash - no subsidies, tax credits or grants - and it cost about $24,000 all in. My baseline to compare ROI was the 10yr US Treasury, a 2% electricity inflation rate and a 20 year service lifetime. I haven't had an electric bill since June 2012 and I have a $1,700 credit on my account with Green Mountain Energy as of July 2018.

What the above doesn't show is how I actually did change my life style when I went solar. I cut my energy use by 60% compared to my previous 10yr average. I closed my pool, landscaped for low water use and bought a used Chevy Volt. All this proves is that I am a extreme outlier.
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/3Fzt45951/overview

One final comment. Without a energy storage solution for renewable energy we are at best fighting a rear guard action.

[GoSouthYoungins]

We can't change human nature; we can change human behavior. 

If "green" means less bad, then sure wind and solar are green. However, they take a ton of energy to create and have a limited life cycle and they only provide intermittent electricity. Dense and stable energy inputs, irregular and feeble outputs

Solar and wind are the types of durable goods that I think make sense to continue manufacturing. Some electricity is necessary for global communication. Electricity generation for dishwashers, clothes washers, heaters, coolers, etc is absurdly wasteful.

"Solar and wind aren't green" really comes down to defining "green".  My point is the manufacturing process for these "renewables" are extremely fossil fuel dependent. Every inch of of everything in the following videos is a fossil fuel derivative. Last time I checked fossil fuels aren't renewable. The argument that its only an upfront cost and then its renewable doesn't sit well with me...from that perspective my refrigerator is renewable.

 







Most people don't actually understand the problem. I am bothered that those who do (ostensibly ppl on this forum) aren't willing to take the steps and be an example of how to live a lifestyle which actual is sustainable. There need to be examples. If not us, who? Hiding behind the fact that currently most people aren't aware or interested in pursuing anything which deviates from an energy-intensive western lifestyle, isn't good enough.  At the very least we could talk the talk (not talk the "only 60% as bad" talk).

Being abrasive/offensive isn't typically constructive, but at some point the destruction of earth's habitability has to take precedence over cordiality.

[Sebastian Jones]

Dear GSY,
Your concluding para from your above post:
"Most people don't actually understand the problem. I am bothered that those who do (ostensibly ppl on this forum) aren't willing to take the steps and be an example of how to live a lifestyle which actual is sustainable. There need to be examples. If not us, who?"
You make a good point, however there many of us in this forum that do take the steps and are great examples. This does not take away from the fact that it is too little and probably too late.
So what to do?
This is about the wickedest of all wicked problems and therefore there is no answer to the question; there are only a series of approaches towards addressing it. This probably includes being good examples, and experimenting with ways to achieve a sustainable lifestyle while allowing for some of the aspects of civilization that we cherish to persist (I want to be able to continue to be part of virtual global communities such as this one).
Time will tell....

[GoSouthYoungins]

You make a good point, however there many of us in this forum that do take the steps and are great examples. This does not take away from the fact that it is too little and probably too late.
(I want to be able to continue to be part of virtual global communities such as this one).
Time will tell....

Absolutely. I'm not intending to carte blanche slander this entire community. I simply wish there was more of a consensus around the solutions (at least regarding what is and what is not in the realm of sufficient). I'm of the opinion that we have plenty of technology currently (too much actually). We don't need to invent anything. We need to restructure our society, starting on an individual level. However, I feel that despite the wide range of views expressed here, there is a general agreement that the current goal should be centered around increased renewable and proliferation of climate change related information.

It is too late, but only for saving a civilization based on industrial agriculture and industrial manufacturing. A permaculture based civilization would be much much more resilient to climate change. It also offers the only know robust system for carbon sequestration. It seems so obvious to me.

[Sciguy]

India continues to invest in large solar power projects:

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Solar-Energy/India-Surges-Ahead-In-Global-Solar-Race.html

India’s five largest solar power facilities will see Bhadla Industrial Solar Park gain the most potential with capacity to produce 2,255MW of power once fully constructed by December 2019. Over one million solar panels have already been installed, spread out over 45 square kilometers (17.3 square miles).

Kamuthi Solar Power Station in Tamil Nadu, India, currently runs off 2.5 million solar panels with total power generation capacity of 648MW. It’s estimated to make enough power for 750,000 people. The site was built over eight months and was completed in September 2016. A robotic system has been set up to clean the plant, and it’s powered by its own solar panels.

Kurnool Ultra Mega Solar Park has a total generating capacity of 1,000MW, with capacity to generate more than 8 million kWh of electricity — enough power to virtually meet all the electricity demand in India’s Kurmool district.
Related: LNG: China’s Biggest Weapon In The Trade War

Shakti Sthala Solar Plant started being operational in March of this year, and will eventually reach 2,000MW in total capacity. Pavagada Solar Park will also have 2,000MW of capacity, with 600MW established in January 2018 and a further 1,400MW planned for this year.

[jacksmith4tx]

Spoiler alert. The US is falling farther behind in the race to win the ultimate battery war.

Being the first country to unlock the super battery could have a revolutionary impact on that economy.

Huge difference: it’ll change economies. Economies that have thrived off of the petroleum age won’t be thriving anymore. Those that are involved in the supply chain of batteries and the technologies they enable, that’s where the wealth will flow. The distribution of wealth and power could change.

You framed your book as an arms race between the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Europeans, and Americans. Three years after publishing your book, who’s winning that race?

The number one leaders are the South Koreans. I think people don’t know that. Just take Samsung and LG.
...
Every few months, it seems as if engineers and scientists are announcing that there’s been a breakthrough either in the development of a solid state battery, one that can hold a remarkable amount of charge, or one that’s cobalt-free. What are the chances we actually see a super battery happening in the near future?

What does “near future” mean?

Within the next five years.

What do you mean by “happening”?

Entering the market.
Zero chance. Just practically speaking, the breakthroughs haven’t happened. Solid state, silicon anode, or metallic lithium anode batteries — these are possibilities. But in those three areas, we don’t have any of the breakthroughs. Let’s say that the breakthrough happened today, then you still have to scale it out, and get the manufacturing process down, and get factories, and get those scaled up. That arc is longer than five years. Even if the super battery were made today, you would not have the actual commercial battery on the market in five years.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/8/13/17675708/great-battery-war-steve-levine-powerhouse-book-interview


Another US flame out.

http://www.post-gazette.com/powersource/companies/2018/08/15/New-Castle-Axion-Power-energy-storage-battery-bankruptcy/stories/201808140102

Axion Power, a New Castle-based company that has promised for 15 years to crack the code of large-scale battery storage technology, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy last week. It plans to liquidate its assets.

The company decided to liquidate after a major deal with a Chinese firm it had been pursuing since 2015 fell through, according to its attorney, Michael J. Henny.

Axion Power is the second Pittsburgh-area battery technology company to enter bankruptcy in the past two years.

Last year, Aquion Energy filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to reorganize its finances and find a buyer. Aquion, which was based in Lawrenceville and had a manufacturing facility in Mount Pleasant, emerged from bankruptcy months later with a $9 million sale to a Chinese-American energy investment company.

[rboyd]

Wind turbines, solar and large-scale electric car production from China and the batteries from South Korea. Making South East Asia Great Again.

[Sciguy]

Yep, according to this article, only three of the top 10 lithium-ion battery manufactures in the world are US firms:

https://www.eletimes.com/top-10-lithium-ion-battery-manufacturers-in-the-world

Korea has two, Japan two, China two and Canada one.   So you could say the US has the most companies in the top 10, or you could complain about how few US companies are in the top 10. 

For those of you taking the latter approach, what share of the market should US companies have in order to meet the world's battery needs?

[jacksmith4tx]

Are you sure about those numbers?
Actually only Johnson Controls is an American battery manufacture. The other 2 companies are also Chinese. That makes 1 out of 10.

A123 was an American company but they went bankrupt when their joint venture with Fisker automotive failed due to their faulty batteries. They are now a subsidiary of a Chinese company.
Wikipedia:
"A123 Systems, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of the chinese Wanxiang Group"


Tesla is a partner with Panasonic on their battery and solar factories. Panasonic owns the patents for the batteries and has supplied most of the technology to build the Tesla solar roofs. SolarCity may have had some solar panel manufacturing a long time ago but it was transferred to Panasonic when  they opened the PV plant in New York.

But even that is on shaky ground:
"August 16, 2018

TOKYO—Tesla Inc. has backed away from an agreement to buy all of the output from a solar-panel factory it operates with Panasonic Corp., the Japanese company said Thursday, another sign of the uncertain outlook for Tesla’s SolarCity subsidiary."


When I installed my PV system I was sure that affordable (less than $50 per KWH) battery technology was only a few years away. I was wrong. Seven years has gone by and batteries are still 3-5 times too expensive for solar to displace cheap grid electricity. To go off grid with solar you need enough storage to compensate for extended cloudy conditions that can last up to 8 to 10 days straight.

The answer your question is right there - to get completely off fossil fuel for the grid we are going to need hundreds of gigawatt hours to back up intermittent renewable energy. Years, if not decades away.

[Archimid]

To go off grid with solar you need enough storage to compensate for extended cloudy conditions that can last up to 8 to 10 days straight.

This is true, but it can be nicely complemented by wind. At least in my neck of the woods when it's cloudy it is also windy.

If we are going to have a solar society I think it is a good idea that building have a "low power mode". During times where it is cloudy and the wind is not blowing, the home switches to low power mode.

Tesla is already working in ways to store additional energy in Powerwalls just before storms hit. Maybe they can extend that concept to low solar days.

Tesla's Powerwall can store energy ahead of storms

https://www.engadget.com/2018/08/07/tesla-storm-watch-powerwall-feature/

There's not a lot of other detail; Tesla simply said that "for Powerwall customers with backup and in selected regions,Tesla will automatically detect incoming storms and store energy." One customer noticed that according to the app, after the storm passes, "your system will return to its previous settings." The feature is timely in any case, coming just ahead of hurricane season.

[oren]

Remember the 90-10 rule. To go completely off fossil fues is hard, but to reduce FFs to less than 10% us much easier. In the private case, keep a diesel generator onsite for those few days a year where your battery runs out. For the general case, keep the natgas plants for those few days when wind and solar don't produce enough.

[oren]

Here is the source
https://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/chapter-one/
At initial read I found it to be an extremely skewed analysis with an agenda of pushing nuclear.

Here is some kind of partial response
https://news.stanford.edu/2018/02/08/avoiding-blackouts-100-renewable-energy/

I will need to go through the material in much more detail to provide more specifics of their assumptions and such, but I am always wary of people with such biased presentation of the material that is obviously not objective from the first sentence.

[Sigmetnow]

”At its new installation site, Array is testing variables like how mounting offsets impact irradiance. In bifacial installations, developers must consider factors including ground albedo, ground cover, irradiance and system design, like trackers, to maximize output.”

As Bifacial Solar Modules Inch Toward the Mainstream, Equipment Makers Prepare
Manufacturers are getting more excited about solar panels that generate electricity on both sides.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/amp/article/bifacial-solar-modules-inch-toward-the-mainstream

[etienne]

My gut feelings tell me there isn't anyone here who'd agree with this conclusion about Renewable energy long term - lots of data points though. Not sure how true or false they are, but these guys are quite fired up and certain of their work. Enjoy.

Well, cheap flight, 4 liters motors and 5 feet wide television screens are not human rights. That might be part of the answer. If you calculate average EU or USA kWh per person and multiply it by the number of humans, you also get a result that can't be produced.

Furthermore they are unfair with methane because even if it is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't last as long as CO2 in the air, and natural gas allows peak production which is not the case with nuclear and with coal. Nuclear doesn't solve the load management problem. Nobody said that renewable is the easy way, but it is a major problem for nuclear because production can't adapt  to the load, and renewable makes the load even more unstable. Natural gas main advantage is flexibility.

Storage is a problem and a solution. Like they said, fuel is storage, I would say long term storage. Batteries can manage peak and bottom loads, but not the base load, same thing for pumped hydro, heat storage... For the base load, you need non-pumping hydro, available renewable and fuel, but fuel can be renewable (hydrogen from solar and wind, wood…), but we have to accept that sustainable means not using more than what nature provides.

[rboyd]

Furthermore they are unfair with methane because even if it is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't last as long as CO2 in the air, and natural gas allows peak production which is not the case with nuclear and with coal.

With a GWP20 of about 100, that means that a given amount of methane will warm the planet 100 times more than the same amount of CO2 over the next 20 years. We also keep replacing the methane by burning natural gas (and we are increasing the amounts of natural gas we use), so the level in the atmosphere doesn't decrease. If we are worried about tipping points in the next two decades we need to be very worried about methane.

When you take into account fugitive methane emissions and the lack of offsetting climate dimming through aerosols, natural gas may very well have a worse CC effect than coal.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Furthermore they are unfair with methane because even if it is a greenhouse gas, it doesn't last as long as CO2 in the air, and natural gas allows peak production which is not the case with nuclear and with coal.

With a GWP20 of about 100, that means that a given amount of methane will warm the planet 100 times more than the same amount of CO2 over the next 20 years. We also keep replacing the methane by burning natural gas (and we are increasing the amounts of natural gas we use), so the level in the atmosphere doesn't decrease. If we are worried about tipping points in the next two decades we need to be very worried about methane.

When you take into account fugitive methane emissions and the lack of offsetting climate dimming through aerosols, natural gas may very well have a worse CC effect than coal.

If the GWP20 of CH4 is 100, and CH4 has a lifespan close to a decade, is the GWP1 closer to 200. Since the CH4 concentration shows no signs of decreasing, isn't the GWP1 what matters? Doesn't GWP20 downplay the warming effect methane has been playing?