Wind, solar to be cheapest form of power generation by 2030: Study

The study was done by Greenpeace, so I'm skeptical of its truthfullness.  Solar has an average capacity factor of around 20% while wind is around 30%, compared to nuclear being over 90% and coal around 75%.

No amount of technology can make the sun shine longer or the wind blow harder, it's up to nature if she wants green electricity to be made. 

Sure, they say it's cheaper megawatt to megawatt, however, what they don't tell you is they have to produce 5 times more solar to equal that one megawatt of nuclear.  Rated output means nothing when you can only produce 20% of it over the course of an average day.

The study was commissioned by Greenpeace, and performed and reported by the Finnish Lappeenranta University of Technology. 

  The only difference between a megawatt of electricity produced by nuclear energy and solar or wind is the foot print.  Solar and wind requires many more acres of land.  But, a megawatt is a megawatt no matter how its produced.  Yes, solar panels can't produce when the sun doesn't shine, and wind turbines can't produce when the wind doesn't blow.  But, there are storage systems for that:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-en...e-works#.WWQSoOndmUk

You need a 500 megawatt solar plant to replace a 100 megawatt nuke plant.  It's not cheaper and will never be cheaper than nuclear.  That 1 square mile solar plant in Oakland rated at 75 MW is equivalent to a 15 MW Nuke plant.  I'm not anti solar, it will not affect my way of life,  I'm just realistic.

A nuke can make a megawatt for under 5 bucks.  Solar is currently over 30 bucks for the same megawatt.  Any article that says solar can compete with a Nuke is fake news. 

OldSalt posted:

You got a credible source for those figures or are you just making them up?

You can look up the solar yourself.  I work in the power industry and am acutely aware of what a nuke can make a MW/h for.  An average coal plant in the Valley is around 20 bucks.  Been doing this for 20 years.

Nukes make billions of watts,  steady state every hour of every day.  To put in perspective, a 1 gigawatt nuke plant only consumes about 6 pounds of fuel per day.  The fuel cost is a round off number subtracted from revenue made, it's essentially free.  Solar can't compete because it will never have the mass volume electrons that nukes enjoy.  They can say or print whatever they want, solar will never be as cheap as a nuke.

giftedamateur posted:
OldSalt posted:

Any one an make any claim about themselves on an anonymous forum.  And, "You can look up solar yourself" is the type cop-out used by those who can't backup their claim with a reliabe source.   

 

Why would you think Hoob would lie?

Hoob may well have made a career in the power industry, and he may believe the claims he has made are true.  But that does not make his claims factual.  I just ask for a reliable source to support his claims. Telling me to look it up myself is a cop-out and only indicates to me that he doesn't have any source that supports his claim. 

I believe the Brookings Institution would disagree:

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog...wind-or-solar-power/

I believe Germany is in the process of leveling several old villages dating to medieval  times to get to the brown coal underneath those villages because solar and wind power have been a complete bust at suppling a reliable base load; even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the coal plants are churning out plant food. The sun doesn't shine at night and until someone couples a gigantic fan to a perpetual motion machine, wind power will be intermittent. Unless one has a lot of cheap land that can be inundated for hydropower, there is no way to supplant fossil or fission power yet.

Stanky posted:

I believe the Brookings Institution would disagree:

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog...wind-or-solar-power/

I believe Germany is in the process of leveling several old villages dating to medieval  times to get to the brown coal underneath those villages because solar and wind power have been a complete bust at suppling a reliable base load; even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the coal plants are churning out plant food. The sun doesn't shine at night and until someone couples a gigantic fan to a perpetual motion machine, wind power will be intermittent. Unless one has a lot of cheap land that can be inundated for hydropower, there is no way to supplant fossil or fission power yet.

The Germans have done this for most of the latter part of the 20th century.  Buildings with historic significance are either relocated, or dug around (filled in later).  They also import US coal as its cleaner burning. 

They also import US coal as its cleaner burning. - Dire

All you ever hear is of US coal mines which have been closed, where are the mines still operating and producing enough to export?

Is the coal we produce clean enough for picky Germany but too dirty for us?

OldSalt, its "gonna take a bigger boat" = a large land footprint  to generate the kind of solar energy to compete with a nuke.  The kind of land you only find around here in rural farms

Pick all the sites you want or phrase the question a different way  @

 https://www.google.com/webhp?h...mp;spf=1499749794619

Sure to make us farmers happy.  Some of us will advantage of the payouts instead of crop rotation.  Some have already done so selling out to surface oil.  Others will raise the prices of the increased demand on their limited produce which you will pay for.  Both have to be factored into the overall cost of solar production, yes? 

Hoop, is hydroelectric dead?

 

Earth Wind &  Fire

Electric Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7SrQvrBPQ

We're living by computer
The sound is rushing through ya
Believe in what your eyes see
You're in touch with the energy
The rhythm of the heartbeat
You can hear it down on Main Street
The music of a new breed
It's gonna bring the world to life

Turn it on, come alive
And let the power flow
When you turn it on, you're alive
You're energized inside your mind

Turn on electric nation
The kids will make the world turn around
Turn on electric nation
Everybody's wired for sound

Now we're making progress
The feeling is the process
When science meets emotion
Well then you've found the formula
Experience the fusion
Create your own illusion
Electric celebration
We're gonna bring the world to life

Turn it on, come alive
And let the power flow
When you turn it on, you're alive
You're energized inside your mind

Make the body generate
Make it dance
Switch it on and activate
Take a chance
When you feel the chemistry
Let it go
Automatic memory
Take control
Can you feel what a thrill
When you dance into another world

Turn it on electric nation
The kids will make the world turn around
Turn it on electric nation
Everybody's wired for sound
 
 

I'm not at liberty to post business sensitive info on a forum.  Really don't care if you don't believe me, doesn't make it any less true.  You can easily google production costs for nukes, coal, and solar and get a US average, I'm sure.  I'm not going to spend time looking up facts I already know firsthand.

As far as solar and nukes go, you are literally comparing the prices at a 7-11 convienence store to prices at Costco.  The amount of energy produced from just one unit of Uranium is staggering, it's equal to around 3 million units of coal.  With solar having an average capacity factor of 20%, can you imagine how much land would be required to generate 3600 megawatts (like a local nuke plant) of electricity considering the solar plant in Oakland occupies one square mile and only replaces 15 megawatts of conventional sources?  Remember, it's not about rated output, it's all about how many megawatt-hours can be produced in a day.

Again, I'm not anti solar, I'm just accepting the reality of the matter.

budsfarm posted:

They also import US coal as its cleaner burning. - Dire

All you ever hear is of US coal mines which have been closed, where are the mines still operating and producing enough to export?

Is the coal we produce clean enough for picky Germany but too dirty for us?

OldSalt, its "gonna take a bigger boat" = a large land footprint  to generate the kind of solar energy to compete with a nuke.  The kind of land you only find around here in rural farms

Pick all the sites you want or phrase the question a different way  @

 https://www.google.com/webhp?h...mp;spf=1499749794619

Sure to make us farmers happy.  Some of us will advantage of the payouts instead of crop rotation.  Some have already done so selling out to surface oil.  Others will raise the prices of the increased demand on their limited produce which you will pay for.  Both have to be factored into the overall cost of solar production, yes? 

Hoop, is hydroelectric dead?

 

Hydro electric? As far as TVA is concerned, yes.  There is no more capacity to be made on the Tenn. River.  Maybe efficiency improvements on the generators/turbines to get a few more watts, but they don't plan to build anymore dams as it would not result in any gains. Not sure of the average capacity factor for hydro in this area as that is not my area of expertise and I'm not privy to that info.

direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe the Brookings Institution would disagree:

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog...wind-or-solar-power/

I believe Germany is in the process of leveling several old villages dating to medieval  times to get to the brown coal underneath those villages because solar and wind power have been a complete bust at suppling a reliable base load; even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the coal plants are churning out plant food. The sun doesn't shine at night and until someone couples a gigantic fan to a perpetual motion machine, wind power will be intermittent. Unless one has a lot of cheap land that can be inundated for hydropower, there is no way to supplant fossil or fission power yet.

The Germans have done this for most of the latter part of the 20th century.  Buildings with historic significance are either relocated, or dug around (filled in later).  They also import US coal as its cleaner burning. 

"Germany has been a forerunner in the promotion of renewable energy over the last decade with the outspoken objective to achieve a share of renewable energy in gross power production of 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050."

Over the last ten years the share of renewable energy in Germany's gross power production has increased from around 11% in 2006 to ca. 32% in 2015 - with rapid expansions especially in wind power, photoboltaic, and biomass."

Energy Journal. 2017 Special Issue 1, Vol. 38, p189-209. 21p.

 

Germany is making excellent progress towards their goal of 35% of electricity production from renewable sources by 2020.

giftedamateur posted:
OldSalt posted:

Since Hooberbloob was unable to find anything to support his claim, here is what I found:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a...icity_generation.pdf

Total System Levelized Cost of Electricity (plants entering service in 2022):

Advance Nuclear - 96.2

Wind (ons****) - 55.8

Solar (photovoltaic) - 73.7

 

 

 

He said he wasn't going to do it, not that he was unable to do it. 

Oh, let me fix that:

Since Hooberbloob did not find anything to support his claim, here is what I found:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/a...icity_generation.pdf

Total System Levelized Cost of Electricity (plants entering service in 2022):

Advance Nuclear - 96.2

Wind (ons****) - 55.8

Solar (photovoltaic) - 73.7

THE ROAD TO COMPETITIVENESS

The economics of renewable energy technologies are critical to understanding their potential role in the energy sector, and how quickly and at what cost we shift the energy sector onto a truly sustainable path. Unfortunately, most Governments have not systematically collected the necessary data to track the trends in the evolution -- many would rightly say revolution -- of renewable energy technology costs. The result is that too often misconceptions about costs or out-of-date data have undermined policy effectiveness.

To fill this gap, and ensure that robust policy can be made based on accurate, timely data from a trusted source, IRENA has developed a world-class database of around 15,000 utility-scale renewable power generation projects and nearly three quarters of a million small-scale solar PV systems.

The trends emerging from this data show not only the success of deployment policies in driving down costs, but also what will underpin the transformation of the energy sector in the future.

The cost-competitiveness of renewable power generation has reached historic levels. Biomass for power, hydropower, geothermal and ons**** wind can all now provide electricity competitively compared to fossil fuel-fired power generation where good resources and cost structures exist (Figure 1).

Solar PV module prices in 2015 are 75 per cent to 80 per cent lower than their levels at the end of 2009. Between 2010 and 2014 the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of utility-scale solar PV has fallen by half. The most competitive utility-scale solar PV projects are now regularly delivering electricity for just US $0.08 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) without financial support, compared to a range of US $0.045 to US $0.14/kWh for fossil fuel power. But even lower costs are being contracted for 2017 and beyond. A recent tender in Dubai of US $0.06/kWh ably demonstrates this shift, even in a region with abundant fossil fuels.

Ons**** wind is now one of the most competitive sources of electricity available. Technology improvements, occurring at the same time as installed costs have continued to decline, mean that the cost of ons**** wind is now within the same cost range, or even lower, than for fossil fuels. Wind projects around the world are consistently delivering electricity for US $0.05 to US $0.09/ kWh without financial support, with the best projects costing even less.

Concentrated solar power (CSP) and offs**** wind are still typically more expensive than fossil fuel-fired power generation options today, with the exception of offs**** wind in tidal flats. But these technologies are in their infancy in terms of deployment. Both represent important renewable power sources that will play an increasing role in the future energy mix, as their costs will continue to come down.

Costs for the more mature renewable power generation technologies -- biomass for power, geothermal and hydropower -- have been broadly stable since 2010. However, where untapped economic resources remain, these mature technologies can provide some of the cheapest electricity of any source.

Given the installed costs and the performance of today's renewable technologies, and the costs of conventional technologies, the fact is this: renewable power generation is increasingly competing head-to-head with fossil fuels, without financial support.

HOW RENEWABLE ENERGY CAN BE COST-COMPETITIVE. By: AMIN, ADNAN Z., UN Chronicle, 02517329, 2015, Vol. 52, Issue 3

US Coal Exports

  • First quarter 2017 U.S. coal exports (22.3 million short tons) increased 15.3% from fourth quarter 2016 and increased 57.6% from first quarter 2016. The average price of U.S. coal exports during the first quarter 2017 was $110.44 per short ton.

 

  • The United States continued to import coal primarily from Colombia (86.1%), Canada (10.7%), and Indonesia (3.1%). No imports were recorded from Australia for first quarter 2017. U.S. coal imports in first quarter 2017 totaled 1.9 million short tons. The average price of U.S. coal imports during the first quarter 2017 was $74.81 per short ton.

 

  • Steam coal exports totaled 10.1 million short tons (31.6% higher than fourth quarter 2016); metallurgical coal exports totaled 12.2 million short tons (4.6% higher than fourth quarter 2016).

https://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/

 German coal use

"COAL

Germany's largest share of domestic fossil fuels is in the form of coal. It still mines lignite (or brown coal) in open cast mines on a large scale for power production - 183 million tonnes in 2013 - and therefore does not import any brown coal. This makes it the world's largest consumer of brown coal, even though this fuel leads to particularly high amounts of CO2 emissions. It also still has extensive deposits.

At present, Germany also still mines some of the more efficient hard coal it uses. But it needs to cover almost 90 percent of its demand with supplies from abroad. Germany imported 53 million tonnes in 2013. Its leading coal suppliers are Russia (29 percent), Columbia (21 percent), and the United States (20 per cent). Germany's last hard coal mines are slated to close in 2019 - after that, Germany will have to import all the hard coal it uses. (See the CLEW factsheet on coal for more details)

Hard coal amounted to about 13 percent of Germany’s primary energy use in 2013. Most of it is burned for power generation, producing 18 percent of Germany's electricity.

What impact will the Energiewende have on coal imports?

Germany's exit from nuclear power and low wholesale electricity prices have boosted the comparatively cheap generation of electricity from coal, leading to a marked increase in imports of hard coal. 

Long-term climate targets clearly imply Germany will have to abandon coal entirely by 2050 unless an affordable technology can be found to make coal clean. But exiting coal alone will not help supply security, as Germany will initially have to import more gas to compensate, concedes Juergen Nitsch, a former scientist from the German Aerospace Centre at Stuttgart, and an expert on energy scenarios.

Many critics of Germany's current push to reduce the use of CO2-intensive brown coal say that Germany should not abandon its only sizeable domestic energy source. Mining union IG BCE, for example, warns the Energiewende can only become a success if Germany doesn't play Russian roulette with its supply security. It argues that domestic energy sources ensure German companies don't become even more dependent on price and supply fluctuations on world markets. Our lignite can guarantee this in a balanced energy mix.

https://www.cleanenergywire.or...mported-fossil-fuels 

Your levelized cost includes constructing new nuclear plants and does not take into account the actual production cost of an existing nuclear plant.  In other words, you googled and copy pasted the first thing you could find that had a number attached to it with no idea what the number meant.   You will not find any actual production cost numbers for running nuke plants because it is protected information that is not available to the public. 

All you've proven is the cost to build solar is cheaper, and I've never disputed that fact.  However, in the long run, nukes, especially those already built will win because they make a crap load of megawatt-hrs in a short period of time.  

As I've said before, rated capacity and actual production are two different things.  When the sun's not shining, solar's not making a dime.  Can you imagine life in Germany using only solar in January as observed by the chart?  You'd have electricity for just a few hours a day, IF you were lucky enough to be able to afford it.

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

As I've said before, rated capacity and actual production are two different things.  When the sun's not shining, solar's not making a dime.  Can you imagine life in Germany using only solar in January as observed by the chart?  You'd have electricity for just a few hours a day, IF you were lucky enough to be able to afford it.

How Energy Storage Works

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-en...e-works#.WWTqb1GQyUk

Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

As I've said before, rated capacity and actual production are two different things.  When the sun's not shining, solar's not making a dime.  Can you imagine life in Germany using only solar in January as observed by the chart?  You'd have electricity for just a few hours a day, IF you were lucky enough to be able to afford it.

I can't imagine life in germany under any circumstances.

OldSalt posted:
Mr. Hooberbloob posted:

As I've said before, rated capacity and actual production are two different things.  When the sun's not shining, solar's not making a dime.  Can you imagine life in Germany using only solar in January as observed by the chart?  You'd have electricity for just a few hours a day, IF you were lucky enough to be able to afford it.

How Energy Storage Works

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean-en...e-works#.WWTqb1GQyUk

I know how energy storage works.   My question to you is, are you going to send the electrons out to the grid to be used now or are you going to store them for later use?  You can't have it both ways without a huge surplus. 

OldSalt posted:
direstraits posted:
Stanky posted:

I believe the Brookings Institution would disagree:

 https://www.brookings.edu/blog...wind-or-solar-power/

I believe Germany is in the process of leveling several old villages dating to medieval  times to get to the brown coal underneath those villages because solar and wind power have been a complete bust at suppling a reliable base load; even when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing, the coal plants are churning out plant food. The sun doesn't shine at night and until someone couples a gigantic fan to a perpetual motion machine, wind power will be intermittent. Unless one has a lot of cheap land that can be inundated for hydropower, there is no way to supplant fossil or fission power yet.

The Germans have done this for most of the latter part of the 20th century.  Buildings with historic significance are either relocated, or dug around (filled in later).  They also import US coal as its cleaner burning. 

"Germany has been a forerunner in the promotion of renewable energy over the last decade with the outspoken objective to achieve a share of renewable energy in gross power production of 35% by 2020 and 80% by 2050."

Over the last ten years the share of renewable energy in Germany's gross power production has increased from around 11% in 2006 to ca. 32% in 2015 - with rapid expansions especially in wind power, photoboltaic, and biomass."

Energy Journal. 2017 Special Issue 1, Vol. 38, p189-209. 21p.

 

Germany is making excellent progress towards their goal of 35% of electricity production from renewable sources by 2020.

And paying through the nose for that energy:

2016 price comparisons

https://www.forbes.com/sites/u...bition/#139720281e98

And Germany might be at the realistic limit that it can grow solar and wind energy:

Sustainable Energy

Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables

Even as Germany adds lots of wind and solar power to the electric grid, the country’s carbon emissions are rising. Will the rest of the world learn from its lesson?

https://www.technologyreview.c...imits-of-renewables/

Why are we importing what kind of Columbian coal and how are we using it?

Why are we exporting what kind of American coal and from what mines.

Why is Germany importing American coal when theirs is better [?] and they're moving toward Green.

And why are coal mines re-opening as we speak in Western Kentucky?  What kind is it and where is it going?

I asked about hydroelectric because coal is a backup at those stations.

I asked about a hydroelectric because we talked about the footprint of a solar farm.  What about the footprint of TVA?

Talked about the finite output of a solar / wind farm being weather dependent.

Talked about the finite output of hydroelectric given no more dams are going to be built but however much power they can continue to squeeze out of those old dams, they still got to pay the maintenance.

So far, no dam catastrophe.

So far no Chernobyl.

 

budsfarm posted:

Why are we importing what kind of Columbian coal and how are we using it?

Why are we exporting what kind of American coal and from what mines.

Why is Germany importing American coal when theirs is better [?] and they're moving toward Green.

And why are coal mines re-opening as we speak in Western Kentucky?  What kind is it and where is it going?

I asked about hydroelectric because coal is a backup at those stations.

I asked about a hydroelectric because we talked about the footprint of a solar farm.  What about the footprint of TVA?

Talked about the finite output of a solar / wind farm being weather dependent.

Talked about the finite output of hydroelectric given no more dams are going to be built but however much power they can continue to squeeze out of those old dams, they still got to pay the maintenance.

So far, no dam catastrophe.

So far no Chernobyl.

 

American idiocy is complicated....

Add Reply


×
×
×
×