i really don't know what to think about this......

[romex jockey]

Solar is now ‘cheapest electricity in history’, confirms IEA

The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries.

www.carbonbrief.org

comments?
~RJ~

 

[ramsy]

Perhaps un/subsidized cost per kilowatt hour, after equipment, installation, and maintenance are considered over a 25 year period.

 

[Besoeker3]

Cheapest...........maybe. Maybe.
But you don't have availability for anything like 24 hours. So what then? Energy storage? We are a long way from that - for now.
There have been some speculative notions of extremely long 800 kV DC transmission lines like the Sahara desert into Western Europe. Will I see that happen?

On a slightly different tack, we have quite a lot of wind energy particularly in the North Sea. Not very helpful for land locked countries/areas of course.

 

[mbrooke]

There have been some speculative notions of extremely long 800 kV DC transmission lines like the Sahara desert into Western Europe. Will I see that happen?

With a 1 cycle critical clearing time

 

[jaggedben]

Cheapest...........maybe. Maybe.
But you don't have availability for anything like 24 hours. So what then? Energy storage? We are a long way from that - for now.

The intermittency seems to be a very overhyped issue. Grid operators will schedule the sources needed to be online to meet demand. As they have always done.

 

[gadfly56]

The intermittency seems to be a very overhyped issue. Grid operators will schedule the sources needed to be online to meet demand. As they have always done.

It is not over-hyped. In most cases, to be part of the power pool, you must guarantee delivery of power when called for. Wind and solar, by and large, can not. This is why they get exemptions so that they are always at the head of the line, and grid operators are required to take whatever they produce when they produce it, regardless of price. This forces all other sources to operate as load following, and aside from gas turbines in the 50 MW range, this is very stressful on existing infrastructure as well as inefficient.

 

[gadfly56]

Perhaps un/subsidized cost per kilowatt hour, after equipment, installation, and maintenance are considered over a 25 year period.

Closer to, "not ever". If you look at the Carbon Brief summary, the dollars/MW-hr chart tags all the solar PV with the note "With revenue support". Subsidies. Sadly, I do not have the spare disposable income, at €120, to peruse the report. Their claim that the cost of capital is now lower for solar sounds sketchy to me. Carbon taxes aside, the longevity of a fossil fuel plant is 2-3X any solar or wind installation. And while they may claim nameplate parity, solar typically delivers 30% of nameplate and wind, 30-45%, depending on on-shore or off-shore conditions. Fossil fuels are usually at 85%. If I were a lender, do I lend for capital equipment that lasts 20 years (at best) or 60 years (typical)?

 

[jaggedben]

It is not over-hyped. In most cases, to be part of the power pool, you must guarantee delivery of power when called for.

I believe it has always been the case that some contracts have been set up this way and some have not, to varying extents.

Wind and solar, by and large, can not.

I believe that utility scale solar can, by and large, guarantee delivery on a schedule. You're more correct about wind.

This is why they get exemptions so that they are always at the head of the line, and grid operators are required to take whatever they produce when they produce it, regardless of price. This forces all other sources to operate as load following,

Your description seems quite incomplete. For one thing, wind and solar do get curtailed now and then when the grid can't take them. For another, it only forces other sources to operate as load following to the extent that the rest of supply and demand require it.

and aside from gas turbines in the 50 MW range, this is very stressful on existing infrastructure as well as inefficient.

In other words, sources other than gas peakers aren't meaningfully better than wind and solar when it comes to load following. They have the opposite problem, which is that they can't ramp down efficiently when the power isn't needed. So a grid that is primarily gas with renewables can work as efficiently as one that has barely moving sources for baseload with peakers for load following. It's just a different kind of inflexibility that's being dealt with. In which case, if one inflexible source costs substantially less than the other, that may well offset whatever amount of gas peakers (or, ultimately, storage) is needed to deal with it.

 

[jaggedben]

Closer to, "not ever". If you look at the Carbon Brief summary, the dollars/MW-hr chart tags all the solar PV with the note "With revenue support". Subsidies. Sadly, I do not have the spare disposable income, at €120, to peruse the report. Their claim that the cost of capital is now lower for solar sounds sketchy to me. Carbon taxes aside, the longevity of a fossil fuel plant is 2-3X any solar or wind installation. And while they may claim nameplate parity, solar typically delivers 30% of nameplate and wind, 30-45%, depending on on-shore or off-shore conditions. Fossil fuels are usually at 85%. If I were a lender, do I lend for capital equipment that lasts 20 years (at best) or 60 years (typical)?

What's your basis for asserting that PV and wind plants don't last as long as fossil fuel plants? Most solar is going in with assumptions of 25 year life spans but there's no real track record yet for what will happen when they get there. We do know that solar panels can last much longer than that, so it's reasonable to assume that replacement costs will be focused on inverters and balance of system, and may be piecemeal, becoming a type of maintenance cost.

As for your question from a lender's point of view, absent concrete price considerations it doesn't have much meaning. But also, without a crystal ball to see 60 years in the future one might lean towards the shorter term investment. (Especially since one doesn't have to take any real risk in assuming an affordable supply of fuel.)

 

[Besoeker3]

The intermittency seems to be a very overhyped issue. Grid operators will schedule the sources needed to be online to meet demand. As they have always done.

The initial poster, RJ, is referring to Solar Power. How do you get solar power power in the hours of darkness?

 

[romex jockey]

having enough solar fields locally Besoeker3?

but if so, wouldn't local distribution need to accommodate it?

~RJ~

 

[Besoeker3]

having enough solar fields locally Besoeker3?

but if so, wouldn't local distribution need to accommodate it?

~RJ~

I don't see how when it's dark.

 

[electrofelon]

The initial poster, RJ, is referring to Solar Power. How do you get solar power power in the hours of darkness?

You are being completely ridiculous. No one is claiming our grids can be 100% solar. Obviously there will be some point where more solar becomes not needed and/or the storage issues rears it head. Who knows what that number is, but it is very very far away. Take a look at the percentage of energy supplied by solar. Oh, and why don't you look into the percentage of energy supplied by wind power in Texas and consider that seems to be working just fine.

 

[Besoeker3]

You are being completely ridiculous. No one is claiming our grids can be 100% solar.

Why on earth would I claim such a thing?

 

[kwired]

The initial poster, RJ, is referring to Solar Power. How do you get solar power power in the hours of darkness?

Quite simple, those that have developed perpetual energy machines have this one covered. You connect a really bright light to the output, just have to make sure you turn it on before it gets dark and the light will continue to provide input to the solar cells after dark

If you forget to turn the light on before dark, you likely can "jump start" it so to speak with a few flashlights.

 

[Besoeker3]

Quite simple, those that have developed perpetual energy machines have this one covered. You connect a really bright light to the output, just have to make sure you turn it on before it gets dark and the light will continue to provide input to the solar cells after dark

If you forget to turn the light on before dark, you likely can "jump start" it so to speak with a few flashlights.

Like it.............

 

[winnie]

My understanding is that without any subsidy, but also ignoring the costs of intermittent supply, in the context of low borrowing costs, and with lots of other qualifiers, solar electricity is cheaper than other sources.

One could very reasonably argue that all of the qualifiers to the statement make it BS. IMHO we should rather consider these qualifiers as helping to understand that solar is not the answer to everything, but rather a very valuable tool for some applications.

In theory, solar with energy storage could provide for all our energy needs. But even if solar PV production has become cheap, energy storage has not. And even if a 25 year PV life is a reasonable expectation, a 25 year cell life in a battery plant is not. IMHO solar with energy storage is not currently an economically viable dispatchable energy source.

Solar PV systems do not produce power when the sun isn't shining. But humans use more energy when the sun is shining. So for _part_ of our energy supply solar PV without energy storage is certainly viable.

Looking at the solar energy cost data, IMHO the direction we _should_ be taking is not 'grid tied solar using the grid as a free battery', but rather solar powered applications where the energy consumption is matched to the production. Air conditioning is an example in some locations. EV charging is another, since the application requires a battery.

If you need hydrogen as a feedstock, electrolytic hydrogen does not currently compete with hydrogen from cheap natural gas, but we are approaching the break-even point. Electrolytic hydrogen production could ramp very quickly to match available solar.

IMHO trying to fit non-dispatchable resources into a non-dispatchable energy use model is a recipe for failure. If you want electricity available whenever you wish, then you need a supply that you can turn on and off whenever needed. But if your _loads_ are dispatchable than you can much better tolerate/use non-dispatchable resources.

-Jon

 

[Besoeker3]

My understanding is that without any subsidy, but also ignoring the costs of intermittent supply, in the context of low borrowing costs, and with lots of other qualifiers, solar electricity is cheaper than other sources.

One could very reasonably argue that all of the qualifiers to the statement make it BS. IMHO we should rather consider these qualifiers as helping to understand that solar is not the answer to everything, but rather a very valuable tool for some applications.

In theory, solar with energy storage could provide for all our energy needs. But even if solar PV production has become cheap, energy storage has not. And even if a 25 year PV life is a reasonable expectation, a 25 year cell life in a battery plant is not. IMHO solar with energy storage is not currently an economically viable dispatchable energy source.

Solar PV systems do not produce power when the sun isn't shining. But humans use more energy when the sun is shining. So for _part_ of our energy supply solar PV without energy storage is certainly viable.

Looking at the solar energy cost data, IMHO the direction we _should_ be taking is not 'grid tied solar using the grid as a free battery', but rather solar powered applications where the energy consumption is matched to the production. Air conditioning is an example in some locations. EV charging is another, since the application requires a battery.

If you need hydrogen as a feedstock, electrolytic hydrogen does not currently compete with hydrogen from cheap natural gas, but we are approaching the break-even point. Electrolytic hydrogen production could ramp very quickly to match available solar.

IMHO trying to fit non-dispatchable resources into a non-dispatchable energy use model is a recipe for failure. If you want electricity available whenever you wish, then you need a supply that you can turn on and off whenever needed. But if your _loads_ are dispatchable than you can much better tolerate/use non-dispatchable resources.

-Jon

Good and succinct summary if I may say so..............

 

[gadfly56]

Quite simple, those that have developed perpetual energy machines have this one covered. You connect a really bright light to the output, just have to make sure you turn it on before it gets dark and the light will continue to provide input to the solar cells after dark

If you forget to turn the light on before dark, you likely can "jump start" it so to speak with a few flashlights.

Don't laugh, they basically did this in Spain. Some bright light figured that based on the feed-in tariff, it was profitable for them to use diesel generators to power arc lights shining on solar panels during the night.

 

[jaggedben]

The initial poster, RJ, is referring to Solar Power. How do you get solar power power in the hours of darkness?

I suggested nothing of the sort. But in case I wasn't clear...

When I said that grid operators will schedule resources, that was all encompassing. Solar can be relied on during the day, other sources can be scheduled to ramp on and ramp off when solar goes and comes. As far as I can tell, that is exactly what grid operators are doing in places where there are GW of solar contributing to the supply on the grid during the day. e.g. California and Germany