Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[SunEagle]

Oh, we don't need them to operate 24/7; they need to soak up power during the day, and spit it out in the evening peak hours. That's enough to reduce need for gas peakers significantly.


Anyway, do you agree now that it's clearly possible to get to something like 90% renewable energy? Whether a country does it comes down to cost, science, and politics, I think. (Although of course as we ramp up, engineers will keep bringing down the cost, don't want to minimize the need for more engineering. Just trying to say no technical miracles or quantum leaps are needed, we've got the basic tools we need already.)

You said earlier:


http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/67142.pdf shows it was at 61 cents a watt at the end of Q1 2016, so it doesn't seem like solar has stopped getting cheaper yet. Rough market for solar panel makers...

Dan

While the state of CA may be moving in a hurry toward more RE most of the other BLUE state are pushing back on a lot of RE measures like wind, and HV transmission lines. Yes they are adding more solar but being in the North they get less sunlight and more snow thus reducing the amount of time to run anything during the day and charge batteries for night. Where will they get there electricity the rest of the time? They may want "clean" energy but they also seem to have the attitude of "not in my backyard". They will never get close to 50% let alone 90%.

You also keep forgetting one big item. In some states the weather can result in "days" of little to no sun. Now where does the power come if you have no wind energy or allow transmission lines from other states to bring it in?

[Sunking]

You also keep forgetting one big item. In some states the weather can result in "days" of little to no sun. Now where does the power come if you have no wind energy or allow transmission lines from other states to bring it in?

Dan could care less. All Dan wants to do is destroy the country he hates. Dan nothing is keeping you here. Move to Cuba.

[DanKegel]

In some states the weather can result in "days" of little to no sun. Now where does the power come if you have no wind energy or allow transmission lines from other states to bring it in?

We don't need to hit 100% clean energy everywhere always.
It's enough to take advantage of clean resources where and when they're available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution.
So, at times and places where there is sun, wind, hydro, or geothermal energy, let's use it to reduce pollution.
If there isn't, let's use the next best thing, which might be natural gas. Make sense?

[SunEagle]

We don't need to hit 100% clean energy everywhere always.
It's enough to take advantage of clean resources where and when they're available to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution.
So, at times and places where there is sun, wind, hydro, or geothermal energy, let's use it to reduce pollution.
If there isn't, let's use the next best thing, which might be natural gas. Make sense?

Actually nuclear power has no carbon output so I would vote that being the next or even first best if it matters.

[jflorey2]

Anyway, do you agree now that it's clearly possible to get to something like 90% renewable energy?

No, not practically in most places in the US. You could do it in the Northwest due to their heavy reliance on hydro. If you include breeder reactors as "renewables" (i.e. LFTR's) then it's possible in most places.

[Fuler Gigs]

no more than 8 years...

[SunEagle]

No, not practically in most places in the US. You could do it in the Northwest due to their heavy reliance on hydro. If you include breeder reactors as "renewables" (i.e. LFTR's) then it's possible in most places.

I just read an article that Japan is looking at both 4th generation and fast breeder reactors for power generation.

[SunEagle]

no more than 8 years...

For what? Fast Breeder or 20% RE?

[DanKegel]

No, not practically in most places in the US.

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility. That's another kettle of fish. I'll post a reply about cost-effectiveness later, but for now:
do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?

[jflorey2]

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility.

No, this isn't cost-effective at all. I am talking about practical - i.e. possible with reasonable constraints, like not bankrupting the utility industry, raising your taxes by 20% or diverting the Colorado River for more hydro power. It is, of course, possible to switch to 90% renewables very quickly - just make it a law, punishable by death, that no one use anything but renewables. It is not, however, practical.

do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?

Absolutely.

Do you agree they don't produce power at night?

[SunEagle]

Oh, you were interested in cost-effectiveness, not strict possibility. That's another kettle of fish. I'll post a reply about cost-effectiveness later, but for now:
do you agree that new utility scale wind and PV solar bids have been coming in well under the cost of new coal plants lately?

That type of power generation is just moving the target around. So coal is getting more costly and RE may be getting less costly. But I still think the math is slanted because the cost to generate via RE does not take into consideration a 24 hour day as a coal or other fossil fuel plant can provide.

How much does it cost to generate power to cover the times when solar can't or when wind can't during a 24 hour period? Also how much does it cost to provide power for an entire 24 hour period when RE can't supply any due to either weather or some other reason? It will be very costly to have a lot of Peakers all lined up running all day long to keep the lights on.

So you still need some other type of generating plant running a base load. That cost needs to be figured into the cost of RE and then use some type of % for when it would run every day or ~ how many days a year.

[DanKegel]

No, this isn't cost-effective at all. I am talking about practical - i.e. possible with reasonable constraints, like not bankrupting the utility industry, raising your taxes by 20% or diverting the Colorado River for more hydro power. ...

Do you agree they don't produce power at night?

Hmm. Not sure why you think it's not practical. I totally agree PV plants don't produce power at night, of course, but that doesn't mean renewable energy can't achieve high penetration practically.

[DanKegel]

So you still need some other type of generating plant running a base load. That cost needs to be figured into the cost of RE and then use some type of % for when it would run every day or ~ how many days a year.

The current infrastructure handles nighttime power well; let's see what it would take to just keep using that for nighttime power, and use PV and wind to get to, say, 25% RE penetration.
With me so far?

The challenge is how to practically handle the transition from sunny/windy to not-sunny/not-windy; the existing infrastructure take time to warm up.
Energy storage and/or demand management can help with that rampup time, as could fast-starting NG peakers.

LADWP is currently doing a study to see what it would take to get LA to 100% renewable electricity; it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. They're pretty well attuned to practical, I don't think they'll sugarcoat their report too much. (Although I bet they'll still plan on some offset shenanigans.)

[SunEagle]

The current infrastructure handles nighttime power well; let's see what it would take to just keep using that for nighttime power, and use PV and wind to get to, say, 25% RE penetration.
With me so far?

The challenge is how to practically handle the transition from sunny/windy to not-sunny/not-windy; the existing infrastructure take time to warm up.
Energy storage and/or demand management can help with that rampup time, as could fast-starting NG peakers.

LADWP is currently doing a study to see what it would take to get LA to 100% renewable electricity; it'll be interesting to see what they come up with. They're pretty well attuned to practical, I don't think they'll sugarcoat their report too much. (Although I bet they'll still plan on some offset shenanigans.)

It will be interesting to see how they can get to that number. My guess is that they are just saying what your Governor wants to hear but in all practicality (if they can even do it) the cost to make it happen is going to bankrupt the state.

[DanKegel]

My guess is that they are just saying what your Governor wants to hear

It's not just the governor. It's everybody who cares about the climate, which is a fairly large set of people in LA.
Watching temperatures keep rising, and the icecaps melting, is an ongoing nightmare; a lot of people are motivated to help solve the problem.