California growing solar (and wind) production thru proposed 2045

Status
Not open for further replies.

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
What is the chance that it will happen again within the next ten years? One in a thousand? One in a million? I don't think we have any good way to quantify the odds of those kinds of things happening but it is pretty low. Most people are unwilling to spend a ton of money on preparing for something with such a low probability of occurrence. That is just human nature.
We spend a lot of money on car insurance and homeowner's insurance despite the fact that the from the individual's perspective the probability of needing it is low.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
We spend a lot of money on car insurance and homeowner's insurance despite the fact that the from the individual's perspective the probability of needing it is low.

But figuring the insurance rates depends heavily on having good estimates of that low probability.

-Jon
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
We spend a lot of money on car insurance and homeowner's insurance despite the fact that the from the individual's perspective the probability of needing it is low.
A lot of people would not buy homeowner's or car insurance except for the coercion from third parties like governments and mortgage lenders. It has little to do with the perceived risk from the buyer's perspective.
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
A lot of people would not buy homeowner's or car insurance except for the coercion from third parties like governments and mortgage lenders. It has little to do with the perceived risk from the buyer's perspective.
Even mortgage lenders will let you off the hook for mortgage insurance if your equity is over 20%. As for contents, they don't care what you lose. And they still expect you to pay the mortgage, even if it burns to the foundation. It's surely your choice, but I wouldn't go without it.
 

petersonra

Senior Member
Location
Northern illinois
Occupation
engineer
They are more practical than any other option. Economics is indeed the key issue, but it wasn't a criteria in the question you posed, which was only about timescale for bringing generation online. Stop moving the goalposts.
Since they are economically impossible, they don't seem real practical. Why not just make up de fake solution and advocate it?
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
Since they are economically impossible
It's not economically impossible. Economically impossible would be something like "it would cost more than the GDP expected between now and 2045, even allowing for plausible future R+D and economies of scale." It's way less than that.

A rational approach would be to look at the various options, come up with their costs, and compare them. Lots of battery storage is an option, it looks expensive now, it's hard to predict how much cheaper it will get between now and 2045. Doing nothing is an option, it's extremely expensive, it's hard to predict exactly how expensive or how bad.

A difficult question but one that we need to address.

Cheers, Wayne
 

ggunn

PE (Electrical), NABCEP certified
Location
Austin, TX, USA
Occupation
Consulting Electrical Engineer - Photovoltaic Systems
A lot of people would not buy homeowner's or car insurance except for the coercion from third parties like governments and mortgage lenders. It has little to do with the perceived risk from the buyer's perspective.
And that is my point, actually. Left to themselves the providers of natural gas will never protect their wells from the cold because they are willing to take the risk and it's only their own risk they are concerned about. We are "coerced" into buying car insurance not for our own personal protection but for the economic protection of everyone else on the road.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Since they are economically impossible, they don't seem real practical. Why not just make up de fake solution and advocate it?
The graph I shared post 25 proves it's not only possible, it's being done. Why make statements that are so obviously hyberbolic? Frankly, I think you're just trolling.
 

winnie

Senior Member
Location
Springfield, MA, USA
Occupation
Electric motor research
There is enough grid scale battery capacity currently online that we can make reasonable projections as to the costs of a grid supplied by non-dispatchable sources such as solar and wind. Not cheap but not impossible.

Not doing deep checking and just grabbing numbers that look reasonable off the internet (eg. lower quality than WikiPedia :) ):

4 hour rated grid scale battery storage costs $1400 per kW capacity https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

natural gas costs between $700 and $1200 per kW capacity
solar PV costs about $2600 per kW capacity
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf

So a battery is more expensive than natural gas, and can only run for a few hours before it is depleted. PV is also more expensive than natural gas, and has much lower capacity utilization. But now we have enough information for round numbers.

Assume that to supply enough PV energy you need 4x the capacity of your natural gas system, and that to load shift you need 12 hours of battery capacity. So for each kW of natural gas you would need 4 kW of solar capacity and 3kW of battery storage.

In very rough round numbers if you wanted to tear everything down and replace it with solar and battery it would cost perhaps 10x the cost to do the same with natural gas.

The above analysis is _very_ crude, and I am sure any number of this group could rip huge holes in it. I'm just throwing a dart to get a handle on where reality is between 'of course we can do it but it will cost a bit more' to 'so expensive as to be impossible'.

-Jon
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
There is enough grid scale battery capacity currently online that we can make reasonable projections as to the costs of a grid supplied by non-dispatchable sources such as solar and wind. Not cheap but not impossible.

Not doing deep checking and just grabbing numbers that look reasonable off the internet (eg. lower quality than WikiPedia :) ):

4 hour rated grid scale battery storage costs $1400 per kW capacity https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

natural gas costs between $700 and $1200 per kW capacity
solar PV costs about $2600 per kW capacity
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf

So a battery is more expensive than natural gas, and can only run for a few hours before it is depleted. PV is also more expensive than natural gas, and has much lower capacity utilization. But now we have enough information for round numbers.

Assume that to supply enough PV energy you need 4x the capacity of your natural gas system, and that to load shift you need 12 hours of battery capacity. So for each kW of natural gas you would need 4 kW of solar capacity and 3kW of battery storage.

In very rough round numbers if you wanted to tear everything down and replace it with solar and battery it would cost perhaps 10x the cost to do the same with natural gas.

The above analysis is _very_ crude, and I am sure any number of this group could rip huge holes in it. I'm just throwing a dart to get a handle on where reality is between 'of course we can do it but it will cost a bit more' to 'so expensive as to be impossible'.

-Jon
I think it's a pretty fair dart. Now, add in replacement of solar panels at 20-30 years, so double that portion of the infrastructure cost, because you can easily get 60 years out of a combined cycle gas plant.
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
Now, add in replacement of solar panels at 20-30 years, so double that portion of the infrastructure cost, because you can easily get 60 years out of a combined cycle gas plant.
Sure, now subtract the fuel savings, and subtract the climate damage avoided over 60 years.

Cheers, Wayne
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
Sure, now subtract the fuel savings, and subtract the climate damage avoided over 60 years.

Cheers, Wayne
Easy part there, $0. No one can quantify, or even attribute "climate damage" of any sort to burning fossil fuels. And before you start, we are NOT talking about the directly noxious products of combustion like SOx and NOx.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
...

4 hour rated grid scale battery storage costs $1400 per kW capacity https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf

natural gas costs between $700 and $1200 per kW capacity
solar PV costs about $2600 per kW capacity
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost/pdf/capcost_assumption.pdf

...

I'm having trouble downloading the link right now, but I think it's a reasonable assumption that those numbers do not include the cost of fuel. So they speak only to capacity markets and not to energy markets. That is, they do not reflect the total cost of electricity from those sources. Note also that while energy storage competes essentially only in the capacity market, solat competes essentially only in the energy market. But together, they compete in both, if certain media reports can be believed.

To be clear, I'm only a little more sanguine about the economic issues here than anyone else on this thread. It took a hundred years to build the grid we have and it will probably take a hundred years to rebuild it. But the technology to do it is already in the field.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
Easy part there, $0. No one can quantify, or even attribute "climate damage" of any sort to burning fossil fuels. And before you start, we are NOT talking about the directly noxious products of combustion like SOx and NOx.
No one can quantify it except it's zero. Riiiight.🙄
 

wwhitney

Senior Member
Location
Berkeley, CA
Occupation
Retired
Easy part there, $0. No one can quantify, or even attribute "climate damage" of any sort to burning fossil fuels.
That is false, but as the OP was about technical issues, not economics, we can leave that disagreement aside and consider other aspects of the question.

Cheers, Wayne
 

gadfly56

Senior Member
Location
New Jersey
Occupation
Professional Engineer, Fire & Life Safety
That is false, but as the OP was about technical issues, not economics, we can leave that disagreement aside and consider other aspects of the question.

Cheers, Wayne
Good, then stop adding it to every PV thread and I won't call you out on it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top