Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[SunEagle]

I have been called a pessimist by most of my family members so maybe (and hopefully) my estimate of decades is an overestimate.

What I see is that the technology of energy storage has been going on for a long time and while it has made some advancement it still has a long way to go to hit a point where it becomes an affordable commodity for the "masses" just like most household appliances. Sure it is cheaper and has become higher in storage density but look at the cost and the technology needed to keep it from going into thermal run away. IMO it still has a lot more work to go.

Panel efficiency has a long way to go to get to 50%. It was about 10% back in the 70's when I was doing research on them and is still only about 24% now which is 50 year later. How long will it take to get to 40%? And even if it does will it generate enough in the Northern latitudes?

The same with low cost, high efficient transmission lines. Back in the 70's we were looking at super conducting cables. That technology is still way out of reach. What has been improved upon is high voltage DC. What has held that technology is people that do not want those power lines running close to where they live. That limits the ability to get solar (or any RE) from places where is easy to generate (South-West for Solar and the Plain States for Wind) to the East and Northern states where it is consumed.

I have been in the electrical power, control and generation industry for about 45 years. While I do not know everything I can tell you that it takes a lot of power generation to keep the lights on for all the customers. Just like it takes a lot of tools for a carpenter to produce a product it takes a lot of different type of generation technologies to keep the lights on.

You need a mix of base power along with fast acting. IMO that will include solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal and hopefully wave. But it should also include fossil fuel and most importantly nuclear power. The percentage of each of those "fuels" will depend on where you live and what makes the most sense to generate and transmit the power that will result in the least chance of any disruption.

To increase solar and RE to a higher % IMO will take decades or certainly not in just a few years.

As another member of this forum has posted. Take what you want from what I have posted and scrap the rest.

[jflorey2]

Getting to 20% may be possible if the energy storage technology makes a leap in quality and a major drop in cost.

The 20% is notable because that's close to the estimate of how much solar the grid can handle WITHOUT storage (i.e. the solar offsets the daytime peaks in power consumption and does not need storage.) Of course grid scale storage makes any intermittent-renewables plan easier to implement.

[SunEagle]

The 20% is notable because that's close to the estimate of how much solar the grid can handle WITHOUT storage (i.e. the solar offsets the daytime peaks in power consumption and does not need storage.) Of course grid scale storage makes any intermittent-renewables plan easier to implement.

20% maybe reachable in some states or some countries but I just can't see it being reached in most of the US or world without a lot of help from storage. The weather patterns in the Winter just don't make it an easy goal with limited sun to produce the amount of electricity that some areas consume. Maybe with some major load reductions it can be done but if I was a gambling man I would say some spots could see rolling black outs.

[jflorey2]

20% maybe reachable in some states or some countries but I just can't see it being reached in most of the US or world without a lot of help from storage. The weather patterns in the Winter just don't make it an easy goal with limited sun to produce the amount of electricity that some areas consume.

Fortunately, power consumption patterns generally follow solar insolation. For example, in the New England ISO area*, during the summer power demand peaks around 2pm at around 28 gigawatts; the peak comes mainly from air conditioning. In the winter, power demand peaks at 10am and 8pm at about 22 gigawatts, which is a 22% lower peak. Thus the New England market could lose ALL 20% of their solar generation during winter and still have the same margins they have now in the winter.

In places like Phoenix, where summer air conditioning loads are much higher (and sunlight is more reliable) the percentages could be higher.

* - from the ISO New England website; can't post the link of course.

[SunEagle]

Fortunately, power consumption patterns generally follow solar insolation. For example, in the New England ISO area*, during the summer power demand peaks around 2pm at around 28 gigawatts; the peak comes mainly from air conditioning. In the winter, power demand peaks at 10am and 8pm at about 22 gigawatts, which is a 22% lower peak. Thus the New England market could lose ALL 20% of their solar generation during winter and still have the same margins they have now in the winter.

In places like Phoenix, where summer air conditioning loads are much higher (and sunlight is more reliable) the percentages could be higher.

* - from the ISO New England website; can't post the link of course.

Then it sounds like my estimates are more pessimistic. Maybe 20% by 2027 is a reachable goal. I certainly hope I can contribute to some of it.

Still we all must learn to conserve and not just increase consumption because we now have "free" energy generation. That kind of attitude will not help meet any RE goal.

[inetdog]

20% maybe reachable in some states or some countries but I just can't see it being reached in most of the US or world without a lot of help from storage. The weather patterns in the Winter just don't make it an easy goal with limited sun to produce the amount of electricity that some areas consume. Maybe with some major load reductions it can be done but if I was a gambling man I would say some spots could see rolling black outs.

+1

AFAIK the 20% figure, for stability, is an short term limit.
Since production will be much higher in summer than in winter, limiting production to 20% in summer will mean that there is no way that you could average 20% over a 1 year period.
Unless, of course, you have major Northern Hemisphere to Southern Hemisphere ties.

[J.P.M.]

Then it sounds like my estimates are more pessimistic. Maybe 20% by 2027 is a reachable goal. I certainly hope I can contribute to some of it.

Still we all must learn to conserve and not just increase consumption because we now have "free" energy generation. That kind of attitude will not help meet any RE goal.

If it were truly free, it wouldn't reduce consumption or demand much, if any - only increase use.

Overall however, the key to large solar displacement of current technology does lie in long term, cost effective, scalable (automobile/residential to utility scale) and probably portable electrical energy storage.

To get much beyond about 30 % or so electrical conversion efficiency, sun to conversion device outlet, will take a quantum technology leap. How soon ??

[DanKegel]

Still we all must learn to conserve and not just increase consumption because we now have "free" energy generation. That kind of attitude will not help meet any RE goal.

Just set the economic incentives properly, and people will adjust their behavior to avoid the waste that matters; that's what realtime pricing is all about. (And it's why flat rate pricing isn't a good idea.)

[bernard]

You need a mix of base power along with fast acting. IMO that will include solar, wind, hydro, geo-thermal and hopefully wave. But it should also include fossil fuel and most importantly nuclear power. The percentage of each of those "fuels" will depend on where you live and what makes the most sense to generate and transmit the power that will result in the least chance of any disruption.

To increase solar and RE to a higher % IMO will take decades or certainly not in just a few years.

Thank you for the explanation!
German politicians need to read this whole forum topic. I am not sure what kind of news traveled to the other side of the Atlantic, but in general Germany is regarded as the success story of the RE with its constant closures of nuclear and coal plants. Billions are taken from tax payers each year to promote the green dream of "Germany living on solar and wind ONLY in just a couple of decades".

[SunEagle]

Just set the economic incentives properly, and people will adjust their behavior to avoid the waste that matters; that's what realtime pricing is all about. (And it's why flat rate pricing isn't a good idea.)

I might agree with you but can you explain why it seems a lot of consumers in CA that have high tiered tariffs decided to install solar to lower their electric bills made a decision to use more power instead of less because they now have lower electric bills?

Shouldn't they have just accepted all the savings by using the solar and enjoyed the much lower bill? Why increase their usage because that means spending more money and IMO that is not following any form of conservation.

[DanKegel]

I might agree with you but can you explain why it seems a lot of consumers in CA that have high tiered tariffs decided to install solar to lower their electric bills made a decision to use more power instead of less because they now have lower electric bills?

Doesn't seem mysterious at all to me.
If power is cheap, people will use more. Once people have sunk money into solar panels, their incremental cost of power is actually cheaper, so it makes sense they'd use more.
(Maybe they should be keeping track of the opportunity cost of the money they sunk into the panels, but human beans don't think that way, I guess. Too abstract.)

People respond to price signals (possibly with pitchforks). If you want to reduce fuel consumption during peak hours (nowadays, 5pm to 7:30 pm in LA?), well, jack the rates up during those hours. People will squawk, but they'll slowly start moving their energy consumption to cheaper times of the day -- possibly by buying a Tesla battery.

[J.P.M.]

Just set the economic incentives properly, and people will adjust their behavior to avoid the waste that matters; that's what realtime pricing is all about. (And it's why flat rate pricing isn't a good idea.)

Hit folks in the wallet and they'll use less. Works every time.

[J.P.M.]

I might agree with you but can you explain why it seems a lot of consumers in CA that have high tiered tariffs decided to install solar to lower their electric bills made a decision to use more power instead of less because they now have lower electric bills?

Shouldn't they have just accepted all the savings by using the solar and enjoyed the much lower bill? Why increase their usage because that means spending more money and IMO that is not following any form of conservation.

I suspect folks take some of the PV enabled savings and spend it on a more relaxed conservation regimen. The lower monthly bills that PV enables gives the (perhaps wishful) perception that less money is going out the door for electricity - with the reality being that the money has already having been pre - spent on the install or going to the leasing slugs. That perception removes a lot of the incentive to reduce usage. When people see something as costing less, they will use more of it. And, as I noted in another post, hit'em in the wallet if you want them to use less.

FWIW and mostly anecdotal, folks in my HOA that I keep an eye on generally use more electricity after the PV addition than before. Nothing complicated about it - it's no more than human nature at work.

[SunEagle]

I suspect folks take some of the PV enabled savings and spend it on a more relaxed conservation regimen. The lower monthly bills that PV enables gives the (perhaps wishful) perception that less money is going out the door for electricity - with the reality being that the money has already having been pre - spent on the install or going to the leasing slugs. That perception removes a lot of the incentive to reduce usage. When people see something as costing less, they will use more of it. And, as I noted in another post, hit'em in the wallet if you want them to use less.

FWIW and mostly anecdotal, folks in my HOA that I keep an eye on generally use more electricity after the PV addition than before. Nothing complicated about it - it's no more than human nature at work.

I guess motivation comes in different forms.

I remember when I lived in another state where there was a shortage of water. So the state asked the consumers to reduce their usage. Out of the goodness of our hearts we did without being penalized.

Then the water utility got all bent out of shape because they did not get the amount of money they needed due to less water being used.

Guess what? They raised the rates. So who got hurt for using less water? We did. Seems back ass ward to me as a form of motivation. I called that the "carrot or stick method" where someone had painted the stick orange and beat us with it.

[inetdog]

Guess what? They raised the rates. So who got hurt for using less water? We did. Seems back ass ward to me as a form of motivation. I called that the "carrot or stick method" where someone had painted the stick orange and beat us with it.

Not nearly as bad as when you voluntarily conserve ahead of time and then find that it reduces your baseline allotment when mandatory conservation kicks in.