Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Renewable Energy  (Read 1518978 times)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2400 on: January 15, 2018, 11:10:36 PM »
Beautiful!

4+ MW solar PV system on the roof of Rhenus Logistics’ new distribution center near Eindhoven-NL. Looks sharp!
Photo: @KiesZonNu
https://mobile.twitter.com/Sustainable2050/status/952445675119267841

I'd like to think that the job was engineered such that they created a 50 to 100 year leak proof roof.  Water is not going through a panel.  Make the racking system as waterproof and Bob's your uncle.


numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2401 on: January 16, 2018, 02:19:32 AM »
You must have an awful lot of nieces and nephews!

I’m presuming the roof is good for a bit longer than the panels. Particularly as the panels shade the roof and reduce damage from UV and hail. They might also reduce thermal cycling?

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2402 on: January 16, 2018, 04:04:31 AM »
Commercial roofs have limited lifetimes.  They have to be recovered from time to time.

The glass on the panels will last for (I suspect) hundreds of years.  The panels should be producing significant electricity 50 to 100 years from now (except in the most harsh environments).  Why not design the roof so that the panels form a 50+ year skin?

 

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2046
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2403 on: January 16, 2018, 05:40:03 AM »
It's surprising that there is more wind in the summer than in the winter. I would have expected the opposite. Is this a standard ? My feeling in Europe is that we have more wind in summer.
The bad news would be that sun and wind come together.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2404 on: January 16, 2018, 05:19:05 PM »
I just noticed this:
Quote
The city of Tallahassee is proposing to shut down its hydroelectric generating station on the Ochlockonee River in favor of cheaper solar power.
...
The plant power costs $85 per megawatt hour to produce compared to $50 per megawatt hour for power from a solar project being built to serve city customers ...
Politico, 2017-07-20
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: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2405 on: January 16, 2018, 05:28:42 PM »
The Tesla final assembly factory for Europe is now home to one of the largest rooftop solar arrays in the Netherlands.  The panels are extremely densely packed on the roof and the system is estimated to have a capacity of about 3 MW.

Tesla’s Tilburg factory gets a new massive solar array
https://electrek.co/2018/01/16/tesla-tilburg-factory-new-massive-solar-array/
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 #2406 on: January 16, 2018, 05:43:46 PM »
Years and years ago I used to go fishing in Lake Talquin in a canoe among the alligators and water moccasins.  I had no idea that there was a dam on the lake.

And I had no idea that Lake Talquin was part of the Ochlockonee River.  At other times we would go flounder gigging where the Ochlockonee emptied into the Apalachee Bay.

Got to love the place names around there.  Sopchoppy.  Panacea. Two Eggs.  Apalachicola.  Tate's Hell.

Very surprising that the cost of hydro is so high.  Must be a low power producer with relatively high staff costs.  The dam has been there a long time so it has to be paid off.   

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2407 on: January 16, 2018, 06:33:19 PM »
To catch some people up: Tate's Hell () ()
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: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2408 on: January 16, 2018, 08:12:44 PM »
I just noticed this:
Quote
The city of Tallahassee is proposing to shut down its hydroelectric generating station on the Ochlockonee River in favor of cheaper solar power.
...
The plant power costs $85 per megawatt hour to produce compared to $50 per megawatt hour for power from a solar project being built to serve city customers ...
Politico, 2017-07-20

“Tallahassee broke ground on May 30 on a 120-acre solar project at the city's international airport ...”

Great use of space.  Airports are required to maintain a large open area to buffer the landing zones.  Use it!
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

etienne

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2046
    • View Profile
    • About energy
  • Liked: 309
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2409 on: January 16, 2018, 09:23:05 PM »
I just noticed this:
Quote
The city of Tallahassee is proposing to shut down its hydroelectric generating station on the Ochlockonee River in favor of cheaper solar power.
...
The plant power costs $85 per megawatt hour to produce compared to $50 per megawatt hour for power from a solar project being built to serve city customers ...
Politico, 2017-07-20
I guess that there is not much height difference, or not enough volume and that this explain the high cost of electricity. We have such a situation in Luxembourg, a lake was created for drinking water mainly, but an electrical generator has been installed. The generator is still working, but the power is 2x 5500 kW for 55 millions m3 water.
http://www.seo.lu/fr/Hauptaktivitaeten/Laufwasserkraftwerke/SOLER-Kraftwerke/Esch-Sauer

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2410 on: January 16, 2018, 09:55:04 PM »
Public Service Company of Colorado issued an “all-source solicitation,” which amounts to the utility saying to private developers: “Here’s how much new power by 2023 we need. Whatcha got?”
They received received 430 individual bids, for 238 separate projects!

In Colorado, a glimpse of renewable energy’s insanely cheap future
Even with storage, new renewables beat existing coal.
Quote
...
The median bid for a wind project was $18.10/MWh; the median for wind+storage was $21, just three dollars higher. The median bid for a solar PV project was $29.50/MWh; the median bid for solar+storage was $36, just seven dollars higher. (Keep in mind what median means: Half the projects bid cheaper than this.)
...
According to Carbon Tracker, based on these bids, new wind+storage energy in Colorado is cheaper than energy from the state’s existing coal plants; solar+storage energy is cheaper than 75 percent of the state’s coal energy. This is worth repeating, because it’s a significant milestone: In Colorado, getting energy from new renewable energy projects with storage is cheaper getting it from existing coal plants. Coal is dead.

The cheapest previously known solar+storage price in the US was $45/MWh, in a PPA signed by Tucson Electric last year. The median Xcel bid for solar+storage beats that by $9.

For the Tucson project, storage added about $15/MWh to the cost of the solar. Compare that to the $3 to $7 added by storage in the Xcel bids. Storage prices are plunging, and as they do, renewables become more competitive.

The financial advisory firm Lazard issues a much-watched analysis each year of the “levelized cost of energy (LCOE),” a measure that purports to directly compare energy sources based on total costs. Its 2017 analysis estimated that solar+batteries has an LCOE of $82/MWh. You might notice that the median Xcel bid for solar+storage is less than half that. (Important caveat: The Lazard LCOE is for solar with 10 hours of storage; we do not yet know how much storage is involved in the Xcel bids, so direct comparison is impossible for now.) ...
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/1/16/16895594/colorado-renewable-energy-future
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 #2411 on: January 17, 2018, 04:36:10 AM »
https://about.bnef.com/blog/runaway-53gw-solar-boom-in-china-pushed-global-clean-energy-investment-ahead-in-2017/

Quote
BNEF’s preliminary estimates are that a record 160GW of clean energy generating capacity (excluding large hydro) were commissioned in 2017, with solar providing 98GW of that, wind 56GW, biomass and waste-to-energy 3GW, small hydro 2.7GW, geothermal 700MW and marine less than 10MW.

China is at 56 GW of solar — well over half the world total. It’s about double what the US invested or the amount of capacity the US installed.

This is a record amount of capacity, but not a record investment: it’s slightly more than last year, both years rather less than 2015. Prices continue to dive, so we’ll keep smashing record capacity additions even if the amount of cash invested stays the same.

BenB

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 51
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2412 on: January 17, 2018, 08:56:46 AM »
Just a few months after reporting that UK wind power generation was going off the Gridwatch scale,
it is now going off the new scale introduced to deal with that problem, which goes 25% higher (10 GW vs 8GW):

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Including embedded wind, we're talking about around 13 GW of wind power. Even ignoring the embedded component, wind power has been the biggest single source of power during the night on several occasions in the last few days.

For the full year 2017, wind power probably produced around 15% of electricity, and with new wind farms coming online, and grid upgrades, it's likely to do significantly better this year.

solartim27

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 599
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 75
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2413 on: January 17, 2018, 04:49:56 PM »
Due to land-use changes.

"Today EU biodiesel produces, on avg, 80% more CO2 than fossil diesel. The cure is worse than the disease!
Learn why #Deforestation #PalmOil "
Short video at the link:  https://twitter.com/transenv/status/879271385675247619
EU has voted to remove Palm Oil from there biofuel sources, but has increased the biofuel target level.
https://twitter.com/rolfschipper/status/953608399148679168?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E2
FNORD

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2414 on: January 18, 2018, 06:30:39 PM »
Powering up: rooftop solar installations jump by half to hit record 1GW in 2017
Quote
Australians exceeded 1 gigawatts of rooftop solar panels for the first time last year, with the market set to expand further in 2018 amid ongoing worries about electricity prices, according to Green Energy Markets.

The country added about 1.078 gigawatts of new rooftop solar capacity last year, beating the previous record set in 2012 by 14 per cent, the consultancy said. ...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/powering-up-rooftop-solar-installations-jump-by-half-to-hit-record-1gw-in-2017-20180115-h0ifrk.html
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2415 on: January 19, 2018, 09:39:36 PM »
Perovskite solar cells.  Only about 10% efficient, but cheap as heck because they can be printed out and mounted without racking or panels.  Can be applied to windows, laptop covers, phones....
See video links in this article:

Next-gen solar power wonder material signs first commercial distribution contract
Quote
Saule Technologies has been working on perovskite since 2014. The solar panel is printed in an ink jet like process.... This technique gives significant production freedom.

Olga Malinkiewicz, co-founder and CTO at Saule Technologies, said,

“We may customize the shape, color and size of the module depending on the needs of the customer and install them wherever there is a free area of the building. This also means not being limited to the roof.” ...
https://electrek.co/2018/01/18/next-gen-solar-power-wonder-material-perovskite/
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 #2416 on: January 19, 2018, 11:42:38 PM »
Electricity producing windows that cost only a little more than plain glass would be a major development.

Think of all those buildings that are basically glass skinned.  Imagine the east, south, and west facing windows as solar panels.  Even at only 10% efficiency.

Long solar days as the rising Sun hits east facing windows and the setting Sun shines right at west facing windows.

We could 'overbuild' solar with little economic consequence. 

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6268
  • Don't Vote NatC or PopCon, Save Lives!
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2417 on: January 19, 2018, 11:47:08 PM »
A new Great British offering from "Nissan Energy, Nissan Europe":

http://www.V2G.co.uk/2018/01/nissan-launches-nissan-energy-solar-for-the-uk/

Quote
Nissan Energy Solar is the all-in-one solution that combines world-class residential solar panels with energy storage system to make the most of UK homes.

The solution has been designed to allow UK homeowners to reduce their energy bills and get more independence from the grid, allowing them to live more sustainably.

Traditionally, solar energy has been used to power home appliances during the day, but now with Nissan Energy Solar householders can collect and store the excess energy from their solar panels and use it during the night – even to charge their Nissan LEAF and e-NV200 – and on cloudy days.

Prices start from 3881 GBP, including a "home energy management system" but no storage.
"The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening" - Rosa Luxemburg

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6268
  • Don't Vote NatC or PopCon, Save Lives!
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2418 on: January 19, 2018, 11:54:47 PM »
Electricity producing windows that cost only a little more than plain glass would be a major development.

Freshly spun out of the University of Exeter:

https://www.exeter.ac.uk/business/expertise/aedm/engineering/solar/

Quote
Solar Squared’s patent-pending design consists of an array of optical elements that focus sunlight on small-sized solar cells. These are incorporated within the glass block during their manufacture and collect a large fraction of diffuse components of sunlight, even when placed on the vertical plan, making it particularly useful for capturing solar energy in urban areas. The modular design is completely scalable, and allows for seamless architectural integration. The streamlined nature of the technology enables it to be embedded in conventional construction materials, meaning that its applications are myriad.

Somehow I doubt that these "cost only a little more than plain glass" though.

"The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening" - Rosa Luxemburg

Jim Hunt

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6268
  • Don't Vote NatC or PopCon, Save Lives!
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 87
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2419 on: January 20, 2018, 12:04:29 AM »
Meanwhile on the "cheap as chips" front:

http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/research/title_431507_en.html

Quote
Current, widely-used commercial methods employed to generate PV energy, such as using silicon or thin film based technologies, are still expensive as they are processed through vacuum-based techniques. The development of technologies and the invention of new materials could lead to the reduction of PV energy generation costs.

Now, the team of scientists from Exeter has examined that one such material, a mineral called perovskite, could hold the key to cheaper PV energy generation in wider climates.

Crucially, the team conducted studies with perovskite in Alta Floresta (Brazil), Frenchman Flat, (USA) , Granada (Spain), Beijing (China), Edinburgh (UK) and Solar Village (Saudi Arabia), and confirmed its efficiency in converting light to power in a range of atmospheric conditions, rather than just under direct sunlight.
"The most revolutionary thing one can do always is to proclaim loudly what is happening" - Rosa Luxemburg

Andreas T

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1149
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2420 on: January 20, 2018, 06:11:34 PM »
This press release gives some "real world" numbers for combining photovoltaic panels with agriculture. The spacing of the panels clearly is wider which, together with the height to allow for large farm machinery to pass underneath, means more steel goes into the support structure.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/press-media/press-releases/2017/harvesting-the-sun-for-power-and-produce-agrophotovoltaics-increases-the-land-use-efficiency-by-over-60-percent.html
The output graph shows that allignment is facing south westerly (mentioned in the text) but also is offset by the local time in the south west corner of Germany being over half an hour later than CET.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2357
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2421 on: January 20, 2018, 07:19:33 PM »
https://cop23.unfccc.int/news/onshore-wind-power-now-as-affordable-as-any-other-source-solar-to-halve-by-2020


Report / 15 Jan, 2018
Onshore Wind Power Now as Affordable as Any Other Source, Solar to Halve by 2020


Quote
The cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around a quarter since 2010, with solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity costs falling by 73 per cent in that time, according to new cost analysis from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The report also highlights that solar PV costs are expected to halve by 2020. The best onshore wind and solar PV projects could be delivering electricity for an equivalent of USD 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), or less within the next two years.

Global weighted average costs over the last 12 months for onshore wind and solar PV now stand at USD 6 cents and USD 10 cents per kWh respectively, with recent auction results suggesting future projects will significantly undercut these averages. The report highlights that onshore wind is now routinely commissioned for USD 4 cents per kWh. The current cost spectrum for fossil fuel power generation ranges from USD 5-17 cents per kWh.

The report also shows that the cost of generating power from renewable energy sources continues to fall significantly, to the extent that that all renewable technologies will become competitive by 2020 compared to fossil fuels to meet new power generation needs.
Haiku of Futures Passed
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2422 on: January 20, 2018, 07:35:30 PM »
Quote
The best onshore wind and solar PV projects could be delivering electricity for an equivalent of USD 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), or less within the next two years.

Most US onshore wind PPAs are now under $0.02/kWh.  Once you tease out the federal tax credit subsidy the unsubsidized price is under $0.03/kWh. 

A new wind farm has been contracted in Alberta, CA for $0.025/kWh.  No subsidies involved.

Wind is there. There are solar farms which have bid in at about $0.03/kWh in Chile and Mexico.  Solar is there.  IRENA is not up to date.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2423 on: January 20, 2018, 09:23:00 PM »
Is IRENA counting projects when they come online, while you’re counting when they’re contracted? That would account for the difference.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2424 on: January 20, 2018, 09:31:46 PM »
Is IRENA counting projects when they come online, while you’re counting when they’re contracted? That would account for the difference.

US 'best price' wind has been at or below $0.03/kWh since 2013.  (Under $0.02/kWh with federal subsidy.)


Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2425 on: January 20, 2018, 11:01:07 PM »
Quote
The best onshore wind and solar PV projects could be delivering electricity for an equivalent of USD 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), or less within the next two years.

Most US onshore wind PPAs are now under $0.02/kWh.  Once you tease out the federal tax credit subsidy the unsubsidized price is under $0.03/kWh. 

A new wind farm has been contracted in Alberta, CA for $0.025/kWh.  No subsidies involved.

Wind is there. There are solar farms which have bid in at about $0.03/kWh in Chile and Mexico.  Solar is there.  IRENA is not up to date.

This is going to have big implications. Not far from here a company placed 3 big windturbins. And the total price they have to pay for their electricity normaly is above 25 cent/kWh. Only 1/3 of that price is for the electricity , the rest is 1/3 for distribution and 1/3 for taxes. Lets say that they still have to pay for the distribution. Than they will still have a very big competitive advantage over the companies that still use the fossil fuel grid. Especially for companies that use plenty of electricity it will make a big differance. Normaly that will push everybody in the direction of windenergy.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2018, 08:36:27 AM by Alexander555 »

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2426 on: January 20, 2018, 11:06:29 PM »
You’re comparing apples and oranges. They’re both fruit, and both tasty, but they’re not the same.

Your graph is about someone puts together a project, bids at a certain price, they win; that gets a point on the graph, dated on the day of the auction.

IRENA is calculating the unsubsidized price of commissioned plants. Someone builds a power plant, then the day it’s completed IRENA calculated how much it costs, adding in the subsidy.

Some projects will take a few years to get financing, permits, and construction done. They’ll come in your graph in, say, 2013 at $0.05/kWh. Four years later the project is actually commissioned. It comes into IRENA in 2017 at $0.07/kWh (calculating out the 30% ITC).

Another source of disparity: you’re focused on the best winning auction bids in the US. It’s reporting more about the whole range globally. IRENA recommends competitive auctions as a way to get prices to drop faster, based on its data about both auction prices and non-competitive projects (where a utility decides to build a certain plant in a certain place).

IRENA’s report predicts much lower by 2020 because it’s kerping track of the recent auction prices. Presumably, auction prices in 2020 will still be a fair bit below commissioned prices in 2020.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2427 on: January 20, 2018, 11:11:09 PM »
I don’t know how IRENA handles solar plants that start feeding the grid almost right away, and keep adding solar panels onto the plant for another two years. Likely that just hasn’t been something to worry about so far, because plants have been small so they generally all get built in the same year.

Big coal or nuclear plants are built similarly: one plant has multiple units, they finish one unit, plug it in and fire it up, then move on to complete more units over the subsequent decades.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2428 on: January 21, 2018, 01:18:23 AM »
You’re comparing apples and oranges. They’re both fruit, and both tasty, but they’re not the same.

Your graph is about someone puts together a project, bids at a certain price, they win; that gets a point on the graph, dated on the day of the auction.

IRENA is calculating the unsubsidized price of commissioned plants. Someone builds a power plant, then the day it’s completed IRENA calculated how much it costs, adding in the subsidy.

Some projects will take a few years to get financing, permits, and construction done. They’ll come in your graph in, say, 2013 at $0.05/kWh. Four years later the project is actually commissioned. It comes into IRENA in 2017 at $0.07/kWh (calculating out the 30% ITC).

Another source of disparity: you’re focused on the best winning auction bids in the US. It’s reporting more about the whole range globally. IRENA recommends competitive auctions as a way to get prices to drop faster, based on its data about both auction prices and non-competitive projects (where a utility decides to build a certain plant in a certain place).

IRENA’s report predicts much lower by 2020 because it’s kerping track of the recent auction prices. Presumably, auction prices in 2020 will still be a fair bit below commissioned prices in 2020.

Here's where we started -

Quote
The best onshore wind and solar PV projects could be delivering electricity for an equivalent of USD 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), or less within the next two years.

I gave you a graph from the DOE showing that new wind farms have been contracting, best case for  under $0.02/kWh for the last five years.  In fact, there were $0.02/kWh PPA 15 years ago. 

(There was a temporary increase in onshore wind costs due to a shortage of wind turbines as demand exceeded supply.)

Start with the <2 cents for the best PPAs.  Either take the 2.3 cents PTC paid for the first ten years of production.  That works out ot 1.15 cents per kWh for the life of a 20 year PPA and 3 cents per kWh.  Or use the 30% ITC which drive a <2 cent per kWh to 2.9 cents per kWh.

Either way wind has been at 3 cents per kWh, best case for a long time. 

And do remember, it takes less than two years to build and bring online a wind farm.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2429 on: January 21, 2018, 03:54:10 PM »
And if they could go off-grid, they can slash costs with another 1/3. Because why should they pay for distribution, if there is no distribution. A couple weeks ago i made a fast calculation about how long it would take to pay for a turbine. And i used 10 cent/ kWh. And the result was close to 2 years. With 880 000 € fer MW and a average 40 % of capacity use. But if a private player would not have to pay the taxes, because there is no money flow anymore. And not paying for the distribution. And he would use the money flow he pays today, at 25 cent/kWh. Than the turbine is payed back in less than a year. That's like a little earthquake. That could be a strong financial trigger. But would it be good for the grid in general, would the small players be able to keep the grid running? Over here i think the small players are the families with solar panels, and i would think that when they have a shortage, they probably all have a shortage at the same time.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2430 on: January 21, 2018, 03:58:15 PM »
And if they could go off-grid, they can slash costs with another 1/3. Because why should they pay for distribution, if there is no distribution. A couple weeks ago i made a fast calculation about how long it would take to pay for a turbine. And i used 10 cent/ kWh. And the result was close to 2 years. With 880 000 € fer MW and a average 40 % of capacity use. But if a private player would not have to pay the taxes, because there is no money flow anymore. And not paying for the distribution. And he would use the money flow he pays today, at 25 cent/kWh. Than the turbine is payed back in less than a year. That's like a little earthquake. That could be a strong financial trigger. But would it be good for the grid in general, would the small players be able to keep the grid running? Over here i think the small players are the families with solar panels, and i would think that when they have a shortage, they probably all have a shortage at the same time.

I've done the math for a single residence sized wind turbine several times and I've never come up with a payoff time like what you are suggesting.  Are you using real world numbers or something someone made up?

How about showing your math.  Installed system cost, including storage to get through periods of low wind.  MWh produced per year.  That sort of stuff one needs in order to do a cost/payback analysis.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2431 on: January 21, 2018, 04:30:44 PM »
First of all, i used 800 000 €/MW, not 880 000 like a wrote above. I saw on the site from Vestas that the price per MW turbine dropped to 800 000. I remember now. And this is for the situation of a private company over here, that generates it's own energy. That means off-grid. They pay 2,4 million for a 3 MW turbine. And i don't know what it all includes. So i only take what i'm sure of, and that's the turbine. That 3 MW turbins generates 3000 kWh per hour, 40 % of that is 1200 kWh per hours. You have 24 hours per day. And 365 days in a year. That's 10 512 000 mWh per year. Over here they pay like 25 cent per kWh. That's 2 628 000 € they pay per year for that volume of electricity. And the turbine costs 2,4 million. Of course, a windturbine park, only gets the price of the electricity. But the cost for a company over here also includes taxes and distribution. That's the biggest part. So for them it's the most attractive. Their costs drop from 25 cent/kWh to just a few cent. Depending on how long the turbine can operate without having big costs. But i have no idea about things like installation costs. And you told me that to maintain them was only 1 cent /kWh. Can you say something about the other costs, like the fundation, the construction....

oren

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2432 on: January 21, 2018, 07:54:03 PM »
Bob, Alexander is referring to a commercial customer, not a single-family residence.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2433 on: January 21, 2018, 08:30:31 PM »
It could be pretty disruptive. Because for many big players, or a group of smaller players. It's profitable to produce their own energy. That means lower volumes for powerplants that are already not profitable anymore. The only thing that can save them a little longer are lower prices for their coal, gas, uranium....But there they hit the cost of production/mining. Uranium for example, for the moment they still get something like 40 usd for a pound of uranium. These are long term contracts. And they are not making profit. But the spot-price is just above 20 usd for a pound. So normaly new contracts will have a lower price. But if they are not profitable at 40 usd, they want be profitable at 20 usd.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2434 on: January 21, 2018, 09:52:32 PM »
Commercial and industrial electricity costs are in many markets different than residential. Typically the utility figures out the most power (kW) you used in any 5-minute period in the past year, and charges you for that; plus it adds on a charge for the amount of energy (kWh). The bigger your annual energy use, the lower the per-kWh rate, until it approaches the actual cost to the utility, but also the higher per-kW rate, or the rate comes with more requirements (that you can't ramp up or down too fast).

Residential customers often pay on a simpler scale: a fixed amount for distribution (regardless of the demand) plus an energy charge. That energy charge tends to be rather higher than the commercial rates.

Wind towers likely won't reduce your peak -- if you're at your peak demand and the wind goes still, you're screwed on the demand charges. If you use a lot of energy, then in most markets your energy cost will be about the same as what it costs the utility, so you wouldn't expect to save money by putting up your own wind towers.

Something that can change that logic: if you live in a market where the utility is billing for expensive power plants like coal or nuclear, it might be cheaper to buy renewables. But the utility would also save money if it did that.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2435 on: January 21, 2018, 10:27:33 PM »
Commercial and industrial electricity costs are in many markets different than residential. Typically the utility figures out the most power (kW) you used in any 5-minute period in the past year, and charges you for that; plus it adds on a charge for the amount of energy (kWh). The bigger your annual energy use, the lower the per-kWh rate, until it approaches the actual cost to the utility, but also the higher per-kW rate, or the rate comes with more requirements (that you can't ramp up or down too fast).

Residential customers often pay on a simpler scale: a fixed amount for distribution (regardless of the demand) plus an energy charge. That energy charge tends to be rather higher than the commercial rates.

Wind towers likely won't reduce your peak -- if you're at your peak demand and the wind goes still, you're screwed on the demand charges. If you use a lot of energy, then in most markets your energy cost will be about the same as what it costs the utility, so you wouldn't expect to save money by putting up your own wind towers.

Something that can change that logic: if you live in a market where the utility is billing for expensive power plants like coal or nuclear, it might be cheaper to buy renewables. But the utility would also save money if it did that.

Even if the wind goes still, they will still have a big advantage compared to players that use the grid all the time. They have cheaper ( if they work it out right) electricity when they produce their own energy. And if the price goes up, than it will go up for all players. That will just push other players deeper into costs. And if they add some solar if possible. Or maybe some storage, or even a generator on fossil fuel. It depends on what costs you can avoid. The biggest part of that 25 cent/kWh i was talking about are taxes and distribution costs.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2436 on: January 21, 2018, 10:55:32 PM »
Large industrial consumers are paying $0.25/kWh where you are? That's very high -- high even for residential rates. Do you have a link to this?

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2437 on: January 22, 2018, 04:25:51 AM »
Large industrial consumers are paying $0.25/kWh where you are? That's very high -- high even for residential rates. Do you have a link to this?


You are right, this is for small and medium sized companies. The big ones are far below that.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2438 on: January 22, 2018, 04:44:28 AM »
Anyway , the company is was talking about. I don't think it's in the category "big companies". And they placed 3 windturbines on their land a few weeks ago. And a little further along the canal is a big site from Nike. And they also have several of these windturbines. And Nike is big. But maybe they are not a big consumer. It's mainly logistics. But these turbines are popping up everywhere.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 05:12:52 AM by Alexander555 »

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2439 on: January 22, 2018, 07:13:24 AM »

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2440 on: January 22, 2018, 01:18:07 PM »
This is the kind of rate I’m seeing across Canada:
http://www.hydroquebec.com/business/customer-space/rates/rate-l-industrial-rate-large-power-customers.html

The numbers vary widely, but the basic structure is as I mentioned: a charge for power, plus a charge for energy. In Nova Scotia and BC they want more like $0.08/kWh. I’ve seen tables for some US states that are the same. And according to this sample bill, it looks like EDF bills the same way as well in Britain:
https://www.edfenergy.com/sites/default/files/b2b_understanding_your_bill.pdf

Companies putting up wind towers on their land doesn’t necessarily mean they’re building towers for their own use and unplugging from the grid. More likely they’re letting a wind developer rent their land.

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2441 on: January 22, 2018, 01:31:12 PM »
I think that's the largest part of the market. I also work in a company along the canal. And over here we have 5 pieces of land, with 5 small companies on it. And they asked if they could put a windturbine on this land. So they put 3 turbines in this area, a smal farm. And they sell to the broader market. They generate to much anyway for what we use. And we already have a big part from our energy from solar panels on the roof. And i think for these companies the investment would have been to big to do themself. We invest maybe 500 000 € a year, to replace machinery. So a couple million for a turbine would have been much. But the bigger players that are building now, they build them to use the energy themself. And  they have the money to do it.

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 893
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2442 on: January 22, 2018, 07:22:32 PM »
US tariff on solar panels from india  challenged:

http://www.livemint.com/Politics/mSx6CQUqgyY6Y3h4N0bDXM/WTO-Support-grows-for-India-in-solar-tiff-with-US.html

sidd


From your link:



The European Union, Canada, Brazil, China, and Japan were among those who supported India on Friday in the solar panel dispute with the US at the World Trade Organization (WTO), people familiar with the development said. According to these countries, Washington’s demand for trade retaliatory measures against India is unjustified.
[/size]
[/size]The exceptional one appears ready to again ignore international law, domestic law, and international condemnation in order to have it's own way.
[/size]In Canada we don't need to look any further back than the softwood dispute to see America lose, even in her own courts, then simply ignore the law.

[/size]Again from your link;

[/size]“The US is known for cherry-picking in trade disputes as it had adopted inconsistent positions time and time again depending on its interests without regard to rules,” said a trade delegate from an industrialized country, who asked not to be identified. “Recently, it had asked Canada not to proceed with a trade dispute raised against several “systemic” issues in the US’ anti-dumping and countervailing measures because of the fear that it would expose the inconsistent practices of the US,” the delegate said.
[/size]
[/size]When rule of law is superseded by the rule of exceptions others will play the fixed game only for as long as it is the only game in town. Should others open an honest game, the cheat will find herself isolated, trading only with sycophants unwilling or unable to do what is right for the sake of their own citizenry.

[/size]Terry

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2443 on: January 23, 2018, 02:19:17 AM »
Trump decided to go with the solar tariffs. 30% on all imported cells and modules (from anywhere in the world) this year, declining over time.

I'm hoping this means cheaper panels in Canada as Canadian Solar has to dump a bunch of its production.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2444 on: January 23, 2018, 03:44:47 AM »
“Trump's 30% tariff on imported solar is predatory delay.
For the next 4 years, solar modules will be more expensive than they should be.
Whether that will have a huge impact on short-term deployment rates is still uncertain.
It definitely won't stop the shift to clean energy.”
https://twitter.com/AlexSteffen/status/955566000426049536

“Remember, solar modules - imports of which are now subject to the a 30% tariff - represent only a fraction of the total cost of installing solar panels.”
https://twitter.com/RichardMeyerDC/status/955560933400641536
Image below.

Trump's Solar Tariffs Mark Biggest Blow to Renewables Yet
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-01-22/trump-taxes-solar-imports-in-biggest-blow-to-clean-energy-yet

Edit:
“Move is actually designed to  encourage solar cell development within the US....most have gone defunct thanks to China flooding the market with cheap cells.  A complimentary move would be to extend tax credits towards installations.  Not holding my breath on that one.”
    https://twitter.com/mchesterfield26/status/955565016249520130
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 04:05:08 AM by Sigmetnow »
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

Sigmetnow

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 25764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1153
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2445 on: January 23, 2018, 04:21:18 AM »
Electrek goes into more detail about the effects of the tax on different types of panels, and notes:

Quote
Interestingly – the 30% Federal Tax Rebate – will be applied after the tariff increase is applied. That means, your system will increase in price – not the full 5-7%, but actually more like a 3.5-4.9% because you’ll get a 30% Federal Tax Credit knocked off of your 30% Federal Solar Panel tariff.

Makes total sense./s

Trump tariff on imported solar panels at 30% – residential projects could increase $750-1000, cost up to 23,000 jobs
https://electrek.co/2018/01/22/breaking-trump-taxes-solar-industry-30-tesla/
People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6774
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1047
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2446 on: January 23, 2018, 08:11:37 AM »

Alexander555

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2503
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 185
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2447 on: January 23, 2018, 11:38:28 AM »

Archimid

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 899
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2448 on: January 23, 2018, 01:01:21 PM »
More good news for the world and bad news for the US. These tariffs means lower prices for the world solar market and thousands of jobs lost for the US. But the worst thing will be the stagnation in innovation this will cause. American solar panel manufactures will lose the need to compete, which will eventually result in US panels becoming uncompetitive world wide. Sad.
I am an energy reservoir seemingly intent on lowering entropy for self preservation.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Renewable Energy
« Reply #2449 on: January 23, 2018, 03:00:30 PM »
I wonder how many jobs will be lost, versus simply jobs not created. A roughly 10% increase in install prices sets the industry back to where prices were a year ago.

I wonder also how many jobs will be lost from countervailing tariffs. China imports enough US-made goods to cause some pain. So does Canada -- and our solar manufacturing industry is going to get nailed by this tariff.