Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1518689 times)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2150 on: November 09, 2017, 09:58:17 PM »
People are going to want at least some minimal battery storage.  Enough for a couple of lights and to power laptops/whatever.


Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2151 on: November 10, 2017, 03:33:38 AM »
People are going to want at least some minimal battery storage.  Enough for a couple of lights and to power laptops/whatever.

Yes, but in the meantime, the folks who have installed solar now have a way to make use of their existing panels for at least partial power, at a time when they need it the most.  It's ridiculous that if the grid goes down they can't make use of the technology they have invested in.
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2152 on: November 10, 2017, 02:06:22 PM »
Yes, but in the meantime, the folks who have installed solar now have a way to make use of their existing panels for at least partial power, at a time when they need it the most.  It's ridiculous that if the grid goes down they can't make use of the technology they have invested in.

The problem is syncronisation between PV and network when the network comes back. The cheap way to do it is to turn off everything again when the netwok comes back, and restart everything using the network as reference. Some additional technology is needed and damages are possible if it doesn't work properly. With a network that is in most industrial countries very stable, it makes no sense to invest in this additional package.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2153 on: November 10, 2017, 09:35:28 PM »
Grid tie inverters automatically 'island' themselves when grid feed is lost.  And lock back on to grid frequency when the grid comes back up.

Grid tie inverters with battery backup have been available for a long time. 

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2154 on: November 11, 2017, 11:24:15 AM »
Grid tie inverters automatically 'island' themselves when grid feed is lost.  And lock back on to grid frequency when the grid comes back up.

Grid tie inverters with battery backup have been available for a long time.

I fully agree, but this is not the standard configuration in Luxembourg. This is only done when a no break electricity supply is needed because there are some extra cost.
  • First, you need to disconnect yourself of the network, otherwise your electricity will just leave your home to supply a network that is like a bottomless hole. Voltage would go down and the inverter would stop.
  • Secondly you can only reconnect to the network when it is syncronised with your inverter. For diesel generators, the cheap solution was to first stop the generator than to reconnect to the network.
In Luxembourg, inverter are simply connected to the network, and only work when the network is present. I guess that we have a few microcuts per year, but only on limited parts of the network. Cuts over 10 minutes probably don't happen more than once every 5 to 10 years and usually not on all the network. I remember myself of only one general cut above 1 hour in 22 years of professional life.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2155 on: November 13, 2017, 01:34:20 AM »
People are going to want at least some minimal battery storage.  Enough for a couple of lights and to power laptops/whatever.

Water pump first, fridge second, lights third. My laptop though? It already has a battery!

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2156 on: November 14, 2017, 03:55:30 PM »
California may reach 50% renewable power goal by 2020 — 10 years early
Quote
Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed an ambitious law ordering California utility companies to get 50 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2030.

It looks like they may hit that goal a decade ahead of schedule.

An annual report issued Monday by California regulators found that the state’s three big, investor-owned utilities — Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. — are collectively on track to reach the 50 percent milestone by 2020, although individual companies could exceed the mark or fall just short of it. ...
http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-may-reach-50-renewable-power-goal-by-12354313.php
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2157 on: November 14, 2017, 04:03:49 PM »
How solar-energy sites can provide habitat for our Minnesota monarchs
When you see a facility blooming with native plants, it's helping the birds and butterflies.
Quote
This month — while the monarchs are gathering in their overwintering groves in the mountains of Mexico — Carver County, Ramsey and Blaine are considering proposals to use private funds to create more than 90 acres of high-quality habitat for monarchs and other pollinators over seven sites. The proposals, like others, are financed by the solar panels that sit above the diverse mix of deep-rooted plants. Once complete, these sites will provide habitat equivalent to more than 54,000 homes each planting and maintaining 6- by 12-foot pollinator gardens.
http://www.startribune.com/how-solar-energy-sites-can-provide-habitat-for-our-minnesota-monarchs/456220783/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2158 on: November 14, 2017, 04:26:25 PM »
THE SOLAR INDUSTRY IS CREATING JOBS NEARLY 17 TIMES FASTER THAN THE REST OF THE US ECONOMY
Quote
The data shows it: We don’t have to choose between good jobs and the future of our planet. A new report released by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) reveals that solar jobs in the US (and around the world) are expanding rapidly.

As of November 2016, the American solar industry employed 260,077 workers – an increase of 24.5 percent from 2015. When you crunch the numbers, that means the solar industry is growing just shy of 17 times faster than the American economy as a whole. That’s incredible progress. ...
https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/solar-industry-creating-jobs-nearly-17-times-faster-rest-us-economy
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2159 on: November 14, 2017, 07:24:11 PM »
The only state that surprises me is Kansas.  (I drove across Kansas once, and marveled that a significant portion of my passage wasn't the expected flat cornfields (which certainly do exist), but had gently rolling grass-covered hills.)

An internet search teaches me "In 2015 Kansas ranked 10th in crude oil production among the 50 states".  Also, "wind energy has grown from less than 1% of net electricity generation in 2005 to 24% in 2015, making wind the state's second largest power provider, after coal."
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2160 on: November 14, 2017, 10:35:30 PM »
The only state that surprises me is Kansas.  (I drove across Kansas once, and marveled that a significant portion of my passage wasn't the expected flat cornfields (which certainly do exist), but had gently rolling grass-covered hills.)

An internet search teaches me "In 2015 Kansas ranked 10th in crude oil production among the 50 states".  Also, "wind energy has grown from less than 1% of net electricity generation in 2005 to 24% in 2015, making wind the state's second largest power provider, after coal."

Kansas had a problem with earthquakes due to fracking — like Oklahoma — but Kansas was able to rein in the industry and mostly eradicate the problem — unlike Oklahoma.  Per your data, they seem to be on the right track!
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2161 on: November 14, 2017, 10:44:28 PM »
Missed it by that much!  :o
Seriously, there is a huge psychological component surrounding the adoption of new technology, so underpredicting this vital trend is actually quite damaging.

Solar power underestimated by 4,813% in the USA – don’t lose hope though!
Quote
The US Government is terrible at projecting the total amount of solar electricity that will be installed. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in 2006, predicted that 0.8 gigawatts (GW) of solar power would be installed in the USA by the end of 2016. The actual number was closer to 40GW – 4,813% greater.

Of course prediction is very difficult, especially if it’s about the future – but this type of mistake should not be ignored. This inability to properly project data harms our economy, health, environment, and planet because public policy is designed off of these expectations of the future. ...
https://electrek.co/2017/11/14/solar-power-underestimated-4813-percent/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2162 on: November 14, 2017, 11:12:33 PM »
Solar manufacturers – along with Apple, Samsung, and Nintendo – are under siege from component shortages
Quote
The solar power manufacturing industry is having to deal with two component shortages that are affecting margins today and possibly influencing volume availability.

Solar panel manufacturers are seeing a shortage of polysilicon that has driven solar cell pricing up, even while panel pricing is moving down. Solar inverter manufacturers are seeing the consequences of a tight global market in memory chips, driven partially by iPhone demand. ...
https://electrek.co/2017/11/14/solar-manufacturers-along-with-apple-samsung-component-shortages/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2163 on: November 18, 2017, 01:45:04 PM »
World’s largest building integrated ‘organic’ solar power installation completed
Quote
Heliatek installed the ‘world’s largest building integrated organic photovoltaic’ (BIOPV) system on top of a school in La Rochelle, France. 22kW of their ‘HeliaSol’ product was installed in one day by six people.

The ultra-environmentalist solar installation is seemingly 7-8% efficient, weighs 1/10th the weight of a standard solar panel and is held to the roof via an adhesive sticker on the backside of the panel.

Heliatek touts HeliaSol’s benefits due to it’s environmentally friendly ease of manufacturing. When producing the product: no clean room is required, very little energy is consumed, no extreme temperatures are needed, no toxic materials are used, and minimal use of raw materials are actually consumed. The resulting product is cheap, with almost infinitely available material needs and needs no expensive recycling processes through end of life. ...
https://electrek.co/2017/11/17/worlds-largest-building-integrated-organic-solar-power-installation-completed/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2164 on: November 21, 2017, 01:07:31 PM »
Seems like old news, from all I’ve been reading here at the Forum. :)  But it’s great to see this finding confirmed and announced more widely.

“Truly stunning.
  Building and then running new wind and solar energy is now cheaper than continuing to run existing coal and nuclear power plants, study says.
  Beyond grid parity price, to disruption price.
  If it holds true, fantastic for humanity.”
https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/932778189914488833

Quote
In one of the fastest and most astonishing turnarounds in the history of energy, building and running new renewable energy is now cheaper than just running existing coal and nuclear plants in many areas.

A widely-used yearly benchmarking study — the Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE) from the financial firm Lazard Ltd. — reached this stunning conclusion: In many regions “the full-lifecycle costs of building and operating renewables-based projects have dropped below the operating costs alone of conventional generation technologies such as coal or nuclear.”

Lazard focused on the cost of a power for a plant over its entire lifetime in North America, and how the “increasing economic advantage of renewables in the U.S.” will drive even deeper penetration of solar and wind here.

But Lazard also makes a key global point: It’s more expensive to operate conventional energy sources in the developing world than it is in the United States. So the advantage renewables have over conventional sources is even larger in the rapidly growing electricity markets like India and China.

Since power from new renewables is cheaper than power from existing coal and nuclear, it’s no surprise that the lifetime cost of new renewables is much cheaper than new coal and nuclear power. And that gap is growing.

Lazard notes that in North America, the cost for utility scale solar and wind power dropped 6 percent last year, while the price for coal remained flat and the cost of nuclear soared. “The estimated levelized cost of energy for nuclear generation increased ~35 percent versus prior estimates, reflecting increased capital costs at various nuclear facilities currently in development,” the analysis found.

Indeed, as Lazard shows in this remarkable chart, while solar and wind have dropped dramatically in price since 2009, nuclear power has simply priced itself out of the market for new power.

The lifecycle cost of electricity from new nuclear plants is now $148 per megawatt-hour, or 14.8 cents per kilowatt-hour, while it is 5 c/kwh for utility scale solar and 4.5 c/kwh for wind. By comparison, the average price for electricity in United States is 11 cents per kWh.

So it’s no big shock that there’s only one new nuclear power plant still being built in the United States — or that even existing power plants are struggling to stay competitive.

Indeed, over half of all existing U.S. nuclear power plants are “bleeding cash,” according to a Bloomberg New Energy Finance report released earlier this summer. Even the draft report from the U.S. Department of Energy staff for Secretary Rick Perry conceded that coal and nuclear are simply no longer economic.

Right now, as the chart [below] shows, new solar and wind are actually cheaper than new gas plants. The variability of solar and wind still give new gas power an edge in some markets. But with the price of electricity storage, especially lithium-ion batteries, coming down sharply, the future of renewable energy is sunnier than ever.
https://thinkprogress.org/solar-wind-keep-getting-cheaper-33c38350fb95/amp/
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 01:29:15 PM by Sigmetnow »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2165 on: November 21, 2017, 06:24:36 PM »
Let's look at some astounding history.  We need only go back ten years to find a time at which solar was vastly more expensive than coal and natural gas.  If you were concerned about climate change it was worrying because replacing fossil fuels would have meant switching to nuclear which would have cause the price of electricity to rise and along with opposition to nuclear plants a switch to nuclear would have been difficult to sell.  But then the price of solar simply plunged.



The reason?  Look back further to see how expensive solar panels were.  In 1977 solar cost $76.67/watt.  By the time the solar line appears in the first graph solar panels had dropped to around $8/watt.  10% of what they had cost 30 years earlier.  And they kept dropping in price.  This graph cuts off at 2013 with the cost at $0.74/watt.  That's 1/100th of the 1977 cost and 1/10th the 2007 cost.  Last week solar panel prices averaged $0.32/watt. 

76.67 / .32 = 240.  A 240x price drop from 1977 to 2017.

Solar panels now cost 0.4% of what they did in 1977.




How low will things go?  Here's a graph of the record lowest price for installed solar for each year from 2013 through this year when we've just seen a contract for solar in Mexico at $0.0177/watt.  Under two cents per kWh. 

And what really astounds me about this graph is the fact that the curve shows no signs of flattening.  Year to year drop remains roughly constant and steep.  At some point the curve has to flatten and any further drops would be small as little tweeks make small reductions.  But we haven't arrived there yet.  Maybe next year.  Maybe later.




I checked solar insolation for a couple of sunny places in Mexico.  Not much different than Arizona.  Land and labor costs might be higher in the US but even so land and labor are not major cost factors for solar.  It looks to me that the US will have no problem generating electricity with solar for less than $0.03/kWh in sunny parts which would mean about $0.05 in less sunny parts.

Along with onshore wind now under $0.03/kwh in places with good wind resources we're looking at being able to eliminate fossil fuels from our grids and at the same time making electricity cheaper.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2166 on: November 21, 2017, 07:56:22 PM »
Quote
A new report from the California Public Utilities Commission has concluded that the state’s major utilities have already met or will all soon exceed the state’s 2020 renewable energy target of 33%, and will likely meet the 2030 target of 50% by 2020.

California is well-known as a world leader in clean energy technology deployment, but the California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) annual Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) report published earlier this month shows that the state’s utilities are well ahead of the RPS targets — specifically, to source 33% of retail sales per year from eligible renewable energy sources by 2020 and 50% by 2030.

As can be seen below, California’s investor-owned utilities have already surpassed their interim targets and, according to the CPUC, “have sufficient resources under development to exceed the 33% by 2020 RPS requirement.”

Pacific Gas and Electric Company: 32.9%

Southern California Edison: 28.2%

San Diego Gas & Electric: 43.2%

On top of the fast pace of renewable energy deployment, California’s RPS program has similarly helped reduce the cost of renewable electricity, with the price of utility solar contracts between 2008 and 2016 falling by 77%, while the price of wind contracts between 2007 and 2015 fell by 47%.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/21/california-meet-2030-renewable-energy-targets-2020/

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2167 on: November 21, 2017, 08:05:57 PM »
I put 12 solar panels on my roof in 1989 (3 panels per section).  What a great price I must have gotten!  (Skylights gave access to sweep snow off during the New Hampshire winter.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2168 on: November 21, 2017, 10:07:47 PM »
That house looks pretty awesome, Tor!
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2169 on: November 22, 2017, 02:40:40 PM »
I put 12 solar panels on my roof in 1989 (3 panels per section).  What a great price I must have gotten!  (Skylights gave access to sweep snow off during the New Hampshire winter.)

So you paid about $12k at the time? Based on 3 kW * $8/W * 50% for inflation.

I'm assuming Bob's graph is inflation-adjusted (if not, the savings are even greater).

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2170 on: November 22, 2017, 04:42:27 PM »
We paid about $12 or 13K for the panels plus an engineer-created board (voltage control, circuit breaker boxes [24v DC and 120v AC], etc.) plus inverter plus marine lead-acid batteries, plus cables and wiring.  We sized the system to produce 1kW-hr on a sunny winter day.  I did the on-site instillation (and wiring not on the board).  I'm guessing we had less than "3 kW". (A back-up generator was additional.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2171 on: November 22, 2017, 09:44:12 PM »
I put 12 solar panels on my roof in 1989 (3 panels per section).  What a great price I must have gotten!  (Skylights gave access to sweep snow off during the New Hampshire winter.)

So you paid about $12k at the time? Based on 3 kW * $8/W * 50% for inflation.

I'm assuming Bob's graph is inflation-adjusted (if not, the savings are even greater).

$8/watt was the best retail price I could find around 1991.  I bought some used Arco panels from a test site for $4/watt.

Around 1989 I paid $12 to $15/watt (can't remember the exact number) for a couple of 35 watt panels for my boat. 
--

Buried in the solar for <2 cents/kWh in Mexico news was the news that Mexico has also contracted for new onshore wind for ~2 cents/kWh.  With prices like this we should see a massive increase in solar and wind installations over the next few years. 

Also there's a new thermal solar facility with 15 hours of storage under construction which will deliver electricity at 7 cents/kWh.  That's essentially 5 cent storage and a great price.

https://cleantechnica.com/2017/11/21/csp-prices-now-7-cents-mena-says-acwa-power/

Now we need one or two more non-Chinese companies getting serious about affordable long range EVs and we should see a distinctive brightening of the light at the end of the tunnel.  And not light from the train threatening to crush us.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2172 on: November 28, 2017, 05:19:49 PM »
India sets plans for bidding off 20GW-30GW of solar power per year – starts with 3-6GW/month
Quote
This volume is part of a 100GW goal of solar power to be built by 2022 as part of the country’s goal of 175GW of Renewable Energy. ...
https://electrek.co/2017/11/27/india-sets-plans-for-bidding-off-20gw-30gw-of-solar-power-per-year-starts-with-3-6gw-month/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2173 on: November 28, 2017, 07:09:22 PM »
We seem to be arriving at the tipping point at which it becomes cheaper to install wind and solar than to buy fuel for gas and coal plants.  That should be the magic point at which wind and solar installations simply take off like a scalded cat.

Why put up with air pollution make climate change worse when those problems can be dealt with and money saved at the same time.


TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2174 on: November 29, 2017, 10:22:13 PM »
We seem to be arriving at the tipping point at which it becomes cheaper to install wind and solar than to buy fuel for gas and coal plants.  That should be the magic point at which wind and solar installations simply take off like a scalded cat.

Why put up with air pollution make climate change worse when those problems can be dealt with and money saved at the same time.
As well as not having to import fuel from nations that may scoff at the threat of climate change.
Jobs for locals, cut back on imports, Oh, and save lots of money!


The tipping point may already have arrived, if we could just shred the punitive tariffs.
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2175 on: November 30, 2017, 02:47:09 AM »
Quote
The tipping point may already have arrived, if we could just shred the punitive tariffs.

In many (most?) countries I think we're there.  We are having to deal with fossil fuel and nuclear interests fighting to hang on to as much of their revenue stream for as long as they can.  But those battles will end.  Coal has largely lost.  Oil won't really get hurt until we have more companies producing affordable long range EVs (and prices need to drop about 20% which will almost certainly happen).  Natural gas will likely be the last to go but should start losing market share soon.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2176 on: November 30, 2017, 04:12:02 AM »
Will auto-darkening smart windows make the corner office more like a cave?

Solar powered smart windows break 11% efficiency – enough to generate more than 80% of US electricity
https://electrek.co/2017/11/29/solar-smart-windows-11-percent-efficiency/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2177 on: November 30, 2017, 06:26:23 PM »
https://www.facebook.com/NunatsiaqNews/photos/a.114066714441.96954.100174284441/10155527800649442/?type=3&theater

Quote
This aerial view shows the new 20-kilowatt solar panels installed last September on the roof of Makivik Corp.’s head office in Kuujjuaq and 50-Kw panels installed on its Nunavik Research Centre next door.

Makivik received a $557,000 grant through the federal government’s Northern Responsible Energy Approach for Community Heat and Electricity Program (REACHE) to put up the panels, which now represent the largest net-metering project in Nunavik.

(Nunavik is the majority-Inuit region of Northern Quebec, across Hudson Strait from Nunavut.)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2178 on: November 30, 2017, 06:42:30 PM »
$27/watt?

Ouch!

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2179 on: November 30, 2017, 09:17:05 PM »
https://www.facebook.com/NunatsiaqNews/photos/a.114066714441.96954.100174284441/10155527800649442/?type=3&theater

Quote
This aerial view shows the new 20-kilowatt solar panels installed last September on the roof of Makivik Corp.’s head office in Kuujjuaq and 50-Kw panels installed on its Nunavik Research Centre next door.

Makivik received a $557,000 grant through the federal government’s Northern Responsible Energy Approach for Community Heat and Electricity Program (REACHE) to put up the panels, which now represent the largest net-metering project in Nunavik.

(Nunavik is the majority-Inuit region of Northern Quebec, across Hudson Strait from Nunavut.)


How many months without sunlight?
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2180 on: November 30, 2017, 09:24:27 PM »
How many months with extremely long sunny days?

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2181 on: November 30, 2017, 11:54:41 PM »
It's a 70 kW project between the two buildings. That's more like CAD 8/W, USD 6.20/W.

I'm pretty sure that included an educational component (going by the other projects the same group has done).

Kuujjuaq gets zero days without sun. It's South of Stockholm or Oslo, or even Juneau (just barely). The generation they cite in October is pretty pathetic: from 70 kW they got 1136 kWh in a month, which is like 2% capacity factor. But October was quite cloudy if it's anything like here; check again in April.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2182 on: December 01, 2017, 12:07:27 AM »
$6.20/watt isn't bad considering that it's a place without a solar installation  industry.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2183 on: December 01, 2017, 12:45:55 AM »

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2184 on: December 01, 2017, 02:42:38 AM »
$6.20/watt isn't bad considering that it's a place without a solar installation industry.

The excess charges would basically be:
* Shipping. I'm not sure how panels are packaged, or how big 70 kW is when packed, but basically it's $300 per shipping tonne (either 1000 kg or 2.5 m^3).
* Flying the project manager out. $3k.
* Lodging for the project manager. $200/night.
* Braces for the wall-mounted panels.

In prior installations this group has hired local workers, which involves teaching them to work at heights without dying or dropping the panels. He'd have charged for that teaching time.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2185 on: December 01, 2017, 03:34:44 AM »
“Google’s energy infrastructure investments have totaled over $3.5 billion globally, with about two-thirds being in the US.”

Google is officially 100% sun and wind powered – 3.0 gigawatts worth
Quote
Citing a cost decrease of 60%-80% in wind and solar as the driving factor, Google has been investing heavily in renewables. They first signed an agreement in 2010 to purchase all of the production per year from a 114MW wind farm in Iowa. As of November of 2016, they’d participated in 20 renewable energy projects. The company announced that they’d break 100% renewable back in December of 2016.
https://electrek.co/2017/11/30/google-is-officially-100-sun-and-wind-powered-3-0-gigawatts-worth/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2186 on: December 01, 2017, 05:40:45 AM »
$6.20/watt isn't bad considering that it's a place without a solar installation industry.

The excess charges would basically be:
* Shipping. I'm not sure how panels are packaged, or how big 70 kW is when packed, but basically it's $300 per shipping tonne (either 1000 kg or 2.5 m^3).
* Flying the project manager out. $3k.
* Lodging for the project manager. $200/night.
* Braces for the wall-mounted panels.

In prior installations this group has hired local workers, which involves teaching them to work at heights without dying or dropping the panels. He'd have charged for that teaching time.

For large projects panels are generally purchased and shipped by "pallet load".  Watts per pallet would depend on panel size, efficiency sorts of stuff.

Those rooftops in the pics are just the sort of stuff roof gorillas work on all the time.  Pretty low sloped.  Just normal 'keep you on the roof' safety gear.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2187 on: December 01, 2017, 05:47:39 AM »
Quote
Pallets of solar panels in stock and ready to ship! Bulk discounts available for containers and multiple pallets.

The pallets listed have about 30 panels per pallet.  Watts per pallet run from
6,080 to 8,050.  About 6kW to 8kW per.

Some pictures I've seen show the individual panels being lifted onto the roof in a sling by a simple 'cherry picker' hoist.  With a couple guys snapping them in place it's pretty unlikely one would get dropped.

Installation these days is pretty much 1) install the rack, 2) snap the panels in place, 3) plug them together to make a string.

If those are raised seam metal roofs they might have used S-5 mounts.  Basically small gripping devices that clamp onto the seam and then the panel gets bolted down to them.  That way there's no roof penetration to leak.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2188 on: December 01, 2017, 03:34:26 PM »
numerobis - or others


What are the primary uses of electricity in the far north?
Is there a seasonal or monthly breakdown that would indicate maximum and minimum usage?


I've been north to Chisasibi and Radison where electricity is both prevalent and cheap. One of the unexpected uses there is the 110v outlets on parking meters, apparently for heaters to keep one's engine oil and/or battery warm.
Are there other unusual, (to southerners) uses, or substitutions of other energy sources that might not be seen often in the south?


Ever since numerobis straightened me out re. the prevalence of northern winds I've been wondering why solar would find a niche. If usage is much higher in the summer this could explain a preference for solar, otherwise, and especially if the winter season is when peak load occurs, I'd think wind might make more sense.


Terry

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2189 on: December 01, 2017, 03:42:35 PM »
Bob: Say you could learn it all in a week — how to work on the roof, how to how to install the braces, how to attach the panels, and how to wire them up.

Ten workers for a week is about $10k, and the trainer will want that much also to pay time and materials.

Alternately you fly in ten workers at $3k each and feed and house them.

Either way it’s not cheap. If you trained locals, next project you can just hire them back on for a lot cheaper — but who knows when that will be.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2190 on: December 01, 2017, 04:00:46 PM »
Electricity is for the usual uses (lights, fridges, TV, computers, etc), not for heating and cooling (heating is oil, cooling is opening the window).

There’s more lighting in fall and early winter, and there’s the silly block heaters. On the other hand, the meat freezers get unplugged in winter (you just store them outside).

The main reason for solar over wind is scale.

A house can decide to use some spare cash to plop 4-10 kW on the roof. Wind pretty much has to be utility-scale to be worth it. House-scale towers are noisy and would interfere with each other, and the wind is very turbulent at low elevation off the ground. So now it’s a lot more capital to raise and more complicated environmental assessments and building a road a few km out of town (away from the runway) and the grid connection back etc.

It’s the same reason you’d build wind over hydro.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2191 on: December 01, 2017, 05:13:20 PM »
Thanks
It sounds as though you probably have a slight increase in demand during winter due to the long nights?
You've mentioned in the past the high tides in your area. Perhaps tidal generation will be the permanent solution, when it's closer to perfection.


FWIW there is a nearby farm with a single small wind turbine that's been in use for some time. The blades barely clear the peak of his barn, but I understand Ontario has some incentive program that pays a high rate for owners who push renewables back into the grid. It might make no sense financially in other jurisdictions.

I've a friend with a "home turbine", just south of Waco Texas. He's very happy with his investment, but I know nothing of how it was financed, or what his payoff is. He's on ~1/3 of an acre with the tower quite close to his home. AFAIK he's had no problems with the neighbors or noise, but he is not in an urban setting.


Anything to get off of the oil fired generators.
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2192 on: December 01, 2017, 05:41:27 PM »
Bob: Say you could learn it all in a week — how to work on the roof, how to how to install the braces, how to attach the panels, and how to wire them up.

Ten workers for a week is about $10k, and the trainer will want that much also to pay time and materials.

Alternately you fly in ten workers at $3k each and feed and house them.

Either way it’s not cheap. If you trained locals, next project you can just hire them back on for a lot cheaper — but who knows when that will be.

First, was the project only putting panels on the two roofs in the picture and hooking them up?

Second, who does the building in the community.  Was it necessary to bring in outside construction crews to build those buildings including installing the roof?


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2193 on: December 01, 2017, 05:47:07 PM »
Quote
But, in many remote Alaskan villages, the cost of electricity is the highest in the nation, reaching a wallet-emptying US$1 per kilowatt-hour in some communities (the national average is US$0.12/kwh). The price is due to the cost of hauling fossil fuels (primarily diesel) by plane or barge to these remote areas. For example, the western half of Alaska, where Unalakleet lies, has no highways, no railroad tracks, no power lines. In that big country, the distances between the few scattered communities are daunting. If power can be generated using local renewables, the up-front cost is almost always worth it.
“We are up to 99.7 percent renewable energy,” says Lloyd Shanley, power generation manager at Kodiak Electric Association, Inc., which provides electricity to the area around the town of Kodiak (population 6,400) on Kodiak Island off the southwestern coast of the Alaska Peninsula

For many villages on Alaska’s long, exposed coast, that resource is wind.
The turbines I saw from my plane window as I descended into Unalakleet have a capacity of up to 600 kilowatts of power, enough to offset the consumption of tens of thousands of gallons of diesel over the course of a year. Across Alaska, similar projects are popping up. A map of renewable power projects on the REAP website shows wind turbine icons up and down the state’s coast. Gambell, Savoonga, Nome, Wales, Shaktoolik, Emmonak, Chevak and more than a dozen other villages have embraced wind-generated power. Indeed wind turbines surrounding Alaska’s villages are so common as to no longer be remarkable. What is remarkable is that these small, remote, economically challenged communities have successfully integrated renewable energy into their existing, diesel-based power grids with more success than just about anywhere else in the world.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-rural-alaska-can-teach-the-world-about-renewable-energy/

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2045
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2194 on: December 02, 2017, 08:43:02 AM »
Just for information, something that works very well in Luxembourg with PV systems is shared proprierty (or cooperative company, don't know what is the best English word for that).
On this link, you'll see all the ones we manage at work.
http://energiepark.lu/nos-realisations/photovoltaiques
When data is missing, it is most of the time transmission or data management problems.  Inverter are much more stable than the data transmission system. Main fix is plug out, plug in.
By "manage", I mean that we have a contract were we follow up the system to make sure that it works, and take care of all the legal/accounting aspects.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2195 on: December 02, 2017, 08:53:24 AM »
In the US we call it "community solar". 

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2196 on: December 03, 2017, 12:48:21 AM »
New York becomes the fourth US state to have energy storage targets/mandates.

New York state signs law – 20% of USA now has energy storage targets and mandates
Quote
California, Massachusetts, New York, and Oregon represent 69 million people and 21% of the country. These people live in states that have legally defined energy storage to be integrated into the power grid. The politicians see the writing on the wall.
https://electrek.co/2017/12/01/new-york-energy-storage-targets/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25763
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2197 on: December 03, 2017, 03:56:11 AM »
Texas!  Next up: Batteries.

Wind Power Capacity Has Surpassed Coal in Texas
Scientists at UT predict that by 2019, the state will get more energy from wind than coal.
Quote
Wind power capacity edged out coal for the first time in the Texas history last week after a new 155-megawatt wind farm in Scurry County came online. The farm in question is the Fluvanna Wind Energy Project, located on some 32,000 acres leased from more than 130 landowners.

Fluvanna pushed total wind power capacity in the state to more than 20,000 megawatts, while coal capacity stands at 19,800 megawatts and is slated to fall to 14,700 megawatts by the end of 2018 thanks to planned coal powerplant closures. Next year, Luminant will shutter three coal-fired plants—Monticello, Sandow, and Big Brown—and San Antonio’s CPS Energy will close J.T. Deely Station. Wind capacity in the state will reach 24,400 megawatts by the end of 2018, according to projections from Joshua Rhodes, a research fellow at UT Austin’s Energy Institute.

But capacity is one thing, electricity generation is another. In the first ten months of 2017, wind generated 17.2 percent of power in the state, and coal 31.9 percent, according to ERCOT. But wind should soon see large gains there. “By our analysis, in 2019 we’ll have more energy from wind than coal,” Rhodes said. ...
https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/wind-power-capacity-surpassed-coal-texas/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2198 on: December 03, 2017, 01:00:17 PM »
On average windmills run at 30 to 40 % of their maximum capacity. So that 20 000 MW will generate 6000 to 8000 MW on average. With peaks from 0 to 20 000 MW between it.

ghoti

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2199 on: December 03, 2017, 05:38:44 PM »
On average windmills run at 30 to 40 % of their maximum capacity. So that 20 000 MW will generate 6000 to 8000 MW on average. With peaks from 0 to 20 000 MW between it.
Not bad: Accounting for capacity factor then the new wind is roughly the equivalent of adding 7 or so nuclear generators without the decades of construction time, the dangerous material and the radioactive storage requirements.