Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[SunEagle]

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

I have no connection to any power company or any fossil fuel company. I do have about 45 years of knowledge and experience in the power industry and will out and out tell you that if you think RE will power this world 100% you are completely fooled into believing anything.

If you are so afraid of climate change and feel that us humans are to blame then I will ask you what are you doing to stop the CO2 from getting out there? Have you parked your ICE vehicle? Are you turning off all of your electrical appliances at night when the power comes from fossil fueled generating sources? Are you growing your own food or do you still purchase it from stores that are stocked by trucks? If not then you have nothing to complain about when it comes to wanting more solar and less fossil fuel power generation.

Why don't you get out there and protest to find ways to invent better systems that will capture carbon and methane and other green house gasses? Why aren't you out there planting trees?

There are ways to mitigate higher sea level, and dirty air, and warmer oceans then to just shut down the fossil fuel industry. Go out and find them. Go out and create jobs. Stop complaining. Go do something worth while.

Sorry. To the rest of the forum members for my outbust. Time to get off my soap box and another cup of decaf coffee.

[DanKegel]

That would be nice, and it makes sense, but only in a simplistic, naïve outlook with respect to the reality of running a utility. My H2O bill for the 31 day period through 11/15/2016 was $104.59. Of that amount, $15.70 was for the cost of the resource. The rest of the bill was made up of fixed charges for delivery of the H2O to the utility, infrastructure and sewer charges. If my usage was zero, I'd still be paying ~ 90 bucks a month. Not a beef - curse the wind or don't take water service - but if the price of the commodity alone ($15.00) had quadrupled, it would have shown up as a $150 bill instead of $105.

The boundary between fixed and variable costs is flexible. Utilities and their regulators can and have pushed costs in one category to the other to meet some policy goal.
The goals "use less water" and "don't go broke" can both be achieved by allocating more of the fixed costs to people who use an "unfair" amount of water, and this has been seen as good and fair policy at times.

[word]

There is a lot more to the energy production/consumption landscape then electricity production /consumption alone.

The same source you reference, Table 1.2, P.5, "Primary Energy Production by Source (quadrillion BTU)", Might be a better source to show actual energy production and mix in the U.S.
Long story short: through 8 months of 2016:

Fossil fuel (coal, nat. gas, crude oil, nat. gas products) = 43.494 Quad
Nukes: 5.672 Quad

Subtotal fossil fuel + nukes: 49.166 Quad.

Hydro: 1.824 Quad.

Renewables:
Geothermal: 0.152 Quad
Solar: 0.412 Quad
Wind: 1.402 Quad
Biomass: 3.134 Quad

Renewables subtotal, including hydro: 6.921 Quad, with solar and wind contributing ~ 1.8 Quad ~ = 1.8/56.087 = 3.2% of the total energy production, or about as much as hydro and about half as much as biomass.

So, for the first 8 months of 2016, renewables accounted for 6.921/56.087 = 12.3% of the total production.
For the same 8 months in 2014, the same ratio was = 6.505/57.684 = 11.28 %.
For the same 8 months in 2015, the same ratio was = 6.422/59.138 = 10.86%.

It looks to me that, while 3 years does not a trend make, there doesn't appear to be a headlong rush to get to 20 %, particularly when I look at the changing political realities of the last 3 weeks or so.

To your points that solar and wind are larger portions of the electricity mix in some states:

1.) Again, you are referring to electricity production, not total energy production.
2.) The states you mention as having high production are also quite windy and have relatively low populations making for larger ratios of production to consumption.

To your point that in SD wind electrical production exceeded electrical production from coal in 2015, using your cited reference, Table 7.2a, P. 109, for the U.S, for 2015, electrical production from coal was 1,356,057 gigaWatt hrs. Electrical production from wind for 2015 for the U.S. was 190,927 gigaWatt hrs. or wind electrical production was only 14.1 % of the electrical production due to coal, and thus did not exceed it.

Seems like your cherry picking data to me.

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

[J.P.M.]

So... 20% for solar in a decade? If wind energy can in multiple states, why can't solar in some states?

The EIA Monthly energy review, released November 22, 2016, shows under topic "10.1 Production and consumption by source" that for 2015 Iowa had under "Total Electric Power Industry" 56,658,918 MWH and under "ENERGY SOURCE - Wind" 17,872,632. That makes wind at 31.5% of electricity production. Kansas had 10,998,501/45,527,124 or 24.2% wind. In South Dakota, wind as an energy source for electric production exceeded coal in 2015.

As for solar, in CA in 2015... 14,814,384/196,703,956 or 7.5% of total electric power was from "Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic"

But for the county as a whole... I think 20% is a stretch for just solar. 20% from solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro is feasible, IMO, since the US was at 11.78% from these sources in 2015.
All the data is in the EIA historical 2015 tables. My 2 cents.

There is a lot more to the energy production/consumption landscape then electricity production /consumption alone.

The same source you reference, Table 1.2, P.5, "Primary Energy Production by Source (quadrillion BTU)", Might be a better source to show actual energy production and mix in the U.S.
Long story short: through 8 months of 2016:

Fossil fuel (coal, nat. gas, crude oil, nat. gas products) = 43.494 Quad
Nukes: 5.672 Quad

Subtotal fossil fuel + nukes: 49.166 Quad.

Hydro: 1.824 Quad.

Renewables:
Geothermal: 0.152 Quad
Solar: 0.412 Quad
Wind: 1.402 Quad
Biomass: 3.134 Quad

Renewables subtotal, including hydro: 6.921 Quad, with solar and wind contributing ~ 1.8 Quad ~ = 1.8/56.087 = 3.2% of the total energy production, or about as much as hydro and about half as much as biomass.

So, for the first 8 months of 2016, renewables accounted for 6.921/56.087 = 12.3% of the total production.
For the same 8 months in 2014, the same ratio was = 6.505/57.684 = 11.28 %.
For the same 8 months in 2015, the same ratio was = 6.422/59.138 = 10.86%.

It looks to me that, while 3 years does not a trend make, there doesn't appear to be a headlong rush to get to 20 %, particularly when I look at the changing political realities of the last 3 weeks or so.

To your points that solar and wind are larger portions of the electricity mix in some states:

1.) Again, you are referring to electricity production, not total energy production.
2.) The states you mention as having high production are also quite windy and have relatively low populations making for larger ratios of production to consumption.

To your point that in SD wind electrical production exceeded electrical production from coal in 2015, using your cited reference, Table 7.2a, P. 109, for the U.S, for 2015, electrical production from coal was 1,356,057 gigaWatt hrs. Electrical production from wind for 2015 for the U.S. was 190,927 gigaWatt hrs. or wind electrical production was only 14.1 % of the electrical production due to coal, and thus did not exceed it.

Seems like your cherry picking data to me.

[HollySprings]

So... 20% for solar in a decade? If wind energy can in multiple states, why can't solar in some states?

The EIA Monthly energy review, released November 22, 2016, shows under topic "10.1 Production and consumption by source" that for 2015 Iowa had under "Total Electric Power Industry" 56,658,918 MWH and under "ENERGY SOURCE - Wind" 17,872,632. That makes wind at 31.5% of electricity production. Kansas had 10,998,501/45,527,124 or 24.2% wind. In South Dakota, wind as an energy source for electric production exceeded coal in 2015.

As for solar, in CA in 2015... 14,814,384/196,703,956 or 7.5% of total electric power was from "Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic"

But for the county as a whole... I think 20% is a stretch for just solar. 20% from solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro is feasible, IMO, since the US was at 11.78% from these sources in 2015.
All the data is in the EIA historical 2015 tables. My 2 cents.

[J.P.M.]

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

That would be nice, and it makes sense, but only in a simplistic, naïve outlook with respect to the reality of running a utility. My H2O bill for the 31 day period through 11/15/2016 was $104.59. Of that amount, $15.70 was for the cost of the resource. The rest of the bill was made up of fixed charges for delivery of the H2O to the utility, infrastructure and sewer charges. If my usage was zero, I'd still be paying ~ 90 bucks a month. Not a beef - curse the wind or don't take water service - but if the price of the commodity alone ($15.00) had quadrupled, it would have shown up as a $150 bill instead of $105.

[SunEagle]

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

The point I was trying to make was that the state was trying to get our help to reduce water usage due to a drought by asking for volunteers and not trying to penalize anyone by raising the rates as you have suggested the electric company should do to get people to lower their usage.

We chose to comply and change our culture without any reward or penalty. Yet for some cultures and societies it seems it requires a punishment to motivate them to do the right thing.

The water rates were increased by private water companies so they could keep their investors from leaving. Not to cover any expenses.

[bcroe]

Is this 20% supposed to be for overall energy? Solar capacity would need to be 60% or more when the sun is shinning, to
average out at 20%. The nuke down my road is up better than 90% of the time.

I really get tired of hearing that a renewable can supply X loads, forgetting thats only if you don't mind being
in the dark 2/3s of the time. Bruce Roe

[DanKegel]

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.

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.