Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[solar pete]

Hello, where to start

The majority of people who come to this forum dont know squat about solar or energy production, so should we ban everyone??
J.P.M dont speak on behalf of the forum owners "I believe I know whats going on" ...tripe, and If you dont like it dont let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.
SK, that goes for you too, what proof have you that dan is here to make trouble, he may be naive and silly but he is never rude. Its OK to be wrong about things, its called debating an issue.
Dan, stop posting every bit of pie in the sky crap that you come across, perhaps a bit of research first.

I am doing what perhaps I should have done long ago and closing this thread.

P.S of the complaints I get from users on this site all three of you are the main culprits.
S.K..."is rude"
J.P.M ...."is condescending"
Dan..."is full of crap"

[DanKegel]

Dan is easy to find in the net. He has been banned from many forums. Makes one wonder.

? Which ones? I don't recall being banned.

I have to say, the continual baseless attacks on my character by Sunking and J.P.M. are amazing in their virulence.

That the mods allow those attacks to continue gives me pause. I guess the mods, collectively, must agree with Sunking and J.P.M. If that's not the case, please let me know.

[J.P.M.]

JPM you are a smart man, so are the moderators with their hands tied up. You can connect the dots. This thread was started about a year ago by Vertiass or something like that. It had one purpose, to start a chit storm with make believe science the kind Dan endorses. In fact it got the OP banned. Now Dan has picked up the slack and keeping it going. In fact every thread Dan starts is intended to start trouble using the same VooDoo Science.

Dan is easy to find in the net. He has been banned from many forums. Makes one wonder.

I believe I understand what's going on. It's mostly, and down at the bottom line, about revenue.

Since I seem to recall Dan K. had something to do with it, I suppose I'll wind up the same way Russ did, but I'll keep calling B.S. when I see/smell it, from Dan or elsewhere and take my chances. Otherwise, sooner or later, if I roll over to what I consider Dan's type of loose cannon damage, keep my pie hole shut and go along to get along, sooner rather than later, I wind up a moral idiot.

I don't usually wear it on my sleeve, but R.E. is important to me, solar in particular. A fast analogy that may serve to describe how I feel: The actions of Dan and his ilk give me a lot of the same feelings I might have toward a strip joint owner that employed my beautiful but vulnerable and naïve daughter as a stripper or private dancer, and even kept the tips.

I'll stay civil, call balls and strikes and take my chances.

What the owners/admin. think about my mental spoor, even being as civil as I usually try to be while still being honest and hopefully technically accurate, is out of my control. I'm sensitive to and certainly understand their predicament - if it can be called that. However, and whatever its called, I see it as theirs, and, while I don't see it as a predicament, I see a clear path forward. Any shackles, if they exist at all, are of their own doing and in their own mind. In the end, their forum, their table/game/rules.

Add: FWIW on smarts, I believe most folks are about equally smart, or dumb I guess. I'm just lucky.

[Sunking]

JPM you are a smart man, so are the moderators with their hands tied up. You can connect the dots. This thread was started about a year ago by Vertiass or something like that. It had one purpose, to start a chit storm with make believe science the kind Dan endorses. In fact it got the OP banned. Now Dan has picked up the slack and keeping it going. In fact every thread Dan starts is intended to start trouble using the same VooDoo Science.

Dan is easy to find in the net. He has been banned from many forums. Makes one wonder.

[J.P.M.]

From what I read, heat loss from the bottom of the cell is pretty low, but there's significant loss from the sides and the top; reducing those is possible, but the heat leakage has some benefits for the operation of the cell, so a lot of innovation would be required to keep the cell producing properly without that heat loss. Innovation requires lots of expensive R&D (and trial and error), so it won't happen unless there's a financial incentive. One possible big incentive is that an aluminum smelter that could quickly manage its energy demand could bid on demand markets and get paid quite a bit for ramping down during peak fossil fuel demand hours. And lower heat loss would make it easier to do that.

About co2 production - http://climate.columbia.edu/files/20...-Factsheet.pdf shows that about half of the co2 in aluminum production is indirect, from the energy used to run electrolysis (though that depends on where the electricity comes from, of course). That's the co2 emissions I'm mostly thinking of. If the smelter is run on solar and wind 90% of the time, it'll cause much lower emissions.

Dan, you keep making uninformed statements in areas where you are ignorant.

The smelting of AL is a continuous process. As such, ramping electricity demand is effectively impossible or at least very impractical. Scheduling continuous output in blocks of hundreds or thousands of hrs. may be possible for a smelter. However, market demands, as a way of getting a lower price for slack periods won't work well because market demand, as can be seen from T.O.U. rates, as an example, are a bit more volatile time wise. Dedicated, company owned generating facilities as are sometimes used would make that argument moot anyway.

There are no benefits to selective heat loss and few are possible anyway. The heat loss through the anode and cathode is mostly independent of temp. and thus pretty constant in a practical sense. Because high temp. insulation is mostly a matter of finding materials with low and stable thermal conductivity at relatively high temps. (unlike low temp. insulating materials which mostly rely on using air's low thermal conductivity and prevent its movement via natural convection), things have not changed a whole lot over the years. Hope springs eternal and research continues, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone finding something more practical and cheaper than current kiln lining/firebrick materials.

There are some advantages and efficiency gains to be realized by increasing the current and lowering the voltage applied to the cell, which seems to be a better way to save energy, provided the increased current load can be considered during design and managed. The simplified story, as it turns out, is that the pot energy (heat) loss is, among other things, f(pot applied voltage - voltage required to produce AL). In effect, the bigger the difference between the two voltages, the less efficient is the process. That inefficiency is expressed as waste heat- that is, higher temperatures. So, like many other things dealing with energy, not needing the energy in the first place- in this case by reducing the excess applied voltage - is always better, more efficient and cheaper.

[DanKegel]

Process heat loss has been reduced about as far as is practical, reasonable, cost effective given available and likely future technology and methods.

From what I read, heat loss from the bottom of the cell is pretty low, but there's significant loss from the sides and the top; reducing those is possible, but the heat leakage has some benefits for the operation of the cell, so a lot of innovation would be required to keep the cell producing properly without that heat loss. Innovation requires lots of expensive R&D (and trial and error), so it won't happen unless there's a financial incentive. One possible big incentive is that an aluminum smelter that could quickly manage its energy demand could bid on demand markets and get paid quite a bit for ramping down during peak fossil fuel demand hours. And lower heat loss would make it easier to do that.

About co2 production - http://climate.columbia.edu/files/20...-Factsheet.pdf shows that about half of the co2 in aluminum production is indirect, from the energy used to run electrolysis (though that depends on where the electricity comes from, of course). That's the co2 emissions I'm mostly thinking of. If the smelter is run on solar and wind 90% of the time, it'll cause much lower emissions.

[J.P.M.]

Let's look at our points of agreement, and see if we can expand them. Starting with load shifting:



Aluminum smelting seems like a great example. After looking a bit at the literature, I see various discussions about the desired level of heat loss from the sides, bottom, and top of aluminum electrolysis cells. There has been a lot of trial and error over the years learning how to optimize the cells. It's not unlikely that, given proper incentives, industry could gradually reduce heat loss significantly. That would take many years, but since industry is always trying to reduce operating costs, it's kind of already underway.
We have a couple decades to ramp down our co2 emissions to zero, which is enough time for industry to adjust -- assuming we set clear targets and incentives.

But there are nimbler sectors. For instance, demand-management-capable heating and cooling equipment is already practical and being deployed in small numbers. http://ladwp.com/powerirp shows LADWP's 2015 plan included 200 to 500 MW of demand management by 2026. I'd bet you a beer that number will increase in their 2016 plan.

How much do you think load shifting can help in the next ten years?

Dan: It looks to ne like you know little to nothing about aluminum smelting. Process heat loss has been reduced about as far as is practical, reasonable, cost effective given available and likely future technology and methods. The pots operate at ~ 900-1,000 C. The pot liners/insulation reduce heat loss and external surfaces temps. to levels safe for personnel. More reduction is of a minor advantage and not worth it. Simple physics- in this case heat transfer. Probably 90 % of the heat loss has already been eliminated - if not by economics then practicality. If that's not enough, rest assured OSHA has effectively mandated temps. for safety reasons. To snag, say, 90 % of the existing and remaining heat loss would be quite impractical from a handling and process standpoint, not necessary and not cost effective using any reasonable and possible insulating materials. Additionally, the insulation is already quite robust for another and unrelated reason: cheap insurance. If power fails and pot contents cool and harden, it's very costly. Adequate or even over-robust insulation provides a bit more time after power outage before things solidify, with time of the essense in such situations.

Aluminum production is, by its very nature, more energy intense than, say, steel production (except for steel made with electric furnaces - mostly using scrap for low grade steel like car bodies, etc.) mostly because AL production uses electricity as a heat source rather than direct use of fossil fuel. Electricity, because of its low entropy, requires about 2-3 Watts of heat equivalent fossil fuel energy (say 8 or 9 BTU), to produce about one Watt of electrical energy (about 3.4 BTU). That's where most of the energy cost originates. That, and other metallurgical reasons, means it takes about 4 or more times as much energy to produce AL, as steel. That's the way the process works and why aluminum plants were and still are located close to hydro plants - about the cheapest source of electricity production available. If aluminum could be made using fossil fuel as the direct energy source instead of first turning the fossil fuel energy into electrical energy, the energy budget to make AL would be less. The process heat loss is really peanuts in spite of what you may think you know.

As for CO2 production and AL smelting - that's not the biggest problem, although polyaromatic hydrocarbons (C and H only) of some concern as the anodes are consumed - but that's not CO2. Perfluorocarbons and hydrogen fluoride as gases, and sodium and aluminum fluorides are of major concern.

To me, and IMO only, another example where you're a loose cannon and spout off because you may have read some crackbrain's wet dream. I'd suggest you do your homework and get it right. You're out of your knowledge depth.

[DanKegel]

I agree with most of what jflorey2 says about nuclear power, but worry about reliability and cost. The next few reactors built may go a long way towards reassuring doubters on those scores.

As for "small amounts of storage" helping peaker plants be more efficient, I meant "20 minutes of storage", which is how much longer it takes to start up a combined cycle peaker vs. a simple cycle one. That's small relative to the 8 or 24 hours of storage needed for other applications.

[jflorey2]

Looks like those "basement" size reactors are still vaporware. The company in your article, Hyperion Power Generation, decided to change its name to Gen4 Energy in 2012 and is no longer in Arizona. Looking at the Gen4 Energy website, I can't find anything in the way of systems sold. And their 25 MW generating system product is a whole lot bigger than basement-sized once you include the support structures. Another company mentioned in the article NuScale, touts a mini reactor module (50 MW) but apparently has only built a 1/3 scale prototype for testing. Toshiba's 4S mini reactor doesn't seem to be faring much better: it apparently was proposed for a generating station in Alaska but that project was abandoned.Wiki has a list of designs as of 2014 and only one, in Russia, was actually operating.

Yep. Nuclear power has seen a long string of disappointments, from the first pronouncement of "too cheap to meter" power, to the McMurdo reactor, all the way to today's plant shutdowns and meltdowns.

That being said, it is still the best baseload source of power compared to fossil fuel sources. (And that's the important comparison to make.) Coal is too dirty and damaging. Natural gas is pretty good, but natural gas is such a good fuel for peakers, domestic heating/cooling, industrial process heat and transportation fuel that it's silly to waste it on base load power. Oil for electricity has been largely relegated to special cases like islands where they need a cheap and transportable fuel.

The future of nuclear lies in medium to large size plants. This allows investors to generate a large return to justify the large expense incurred by siting, construction, evacuation planning, nuclear waste handling etc. Most of those expenses are not significantly reduced by going to smaller plants, so they don't make as much economic sense. Fortunately, we now have good designs for large nuclear plants, and many decades of experience operating them. (Which tells us what to do, but more importantly, what NOT to do.)

[DanKegel]

Looks like those "basement" size reactors are still vaporware.

Mike knows that, he was just trying to see if anyone would salute the idea and show they had drunken too much kool-aid, I think.

SK probably knows it, too, but thinks it the most promising idea for the future.

[Ian S]

Oh no, you are not a believer, the article specifically stated

So a little math shows they have been sold for [ 2008 + 5 = 2013 ] about 3 years now. It says it's so. Not maybe, it says Reactors to be on Sale Within 5 Years.

Looks like those "basement" size reactors are still vaporware. The company in your article, Hyperion Power Generation, decided to change its name to Gen4 Energy in 2012 and is no longer in Arizona. Looking at the Gen4 Energy website, I can't find anything in the way of systems sold. And their 25 MW generating system product is a whole lot bigger than basement-sized once you include the support structures. Another company mentioned in the article NuScale, touts a mini reactor module (50 MW) but apparently has only built a 1/3 scale prototype for testing. Toshiba's 4S mini reactor doesn't seem to be faring much better: it apparently was proposed for a generating station in Alaska but that project was abandoned.Wiki has a list of designs as of 2014 and only one, in Russia, was actually operating.

[DanKegel]

I further halfway agree with Florey that NG Peakers to be used during peak demands is a possible solution. However Solar is not capable of peaking during Peak Demand.

Sure, I think natural gas peakers are the current mainstream way of handling the daily evening load spike, but it isn't the only option.

Solar alone can't act as a peaker, of course. I've never disagreed with you there. But demand management can act to some extent like a peaker,
as can any of several kinds of storage. There's pumped storage (of which LADWP currently has about 1GW, enough to help for 6-10 hours in summer according to wikipedia),
customer-sited thermal storage (of which LADWP's area has about 12MW? so far), and batteries (SCE bought a 20 MW, 80 MWh battery, to be ready by end of this year),
and thermal solar towers with molten salt storage (Crescent Dunes puts out about 110 MW, and can deliver that for ten hours after sunset).
And when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, they can be used to charge that storage.
Of course, until there's enough storage and demand management deployed, or when it's dark and nonwindy for more than usual, we'll still have to fire up fossil fuel plants, but the more RE and storage we have online, the less often we'll have to do that.

But I suspect you don't need much storage until solar + wind exceed about 30% of generation; see e.g. http://www.utilitydive.com/news/four...g-deal/431686/

TOU pricing is important to provide an economic incentive to move load away from times when power is scarce and toward times when power is abundant.

All of the above is available now; it's a matter of society deciding we want to deploy it, and how quickly. It would take several decades to get our co2 emissions down by 90%, so if we want to prevent a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees C, we'd better get started soon. And that's what California, Germany, and other areas are doing.

Nothing of what I wrote above is remotely controversial in the science-based community, as far as I know. The fossil-fuel industry doesn't like it much, and is working really hard to discredit it, just as the tobacco industry worked to discredit the science that said smoking causes cancer.

Now, lots of people look at what it would take to deal with the problem, feel it's too expensive, and decide that on that basis it's a bunch of bunk. That's only human. As costs come down, I think you'll find more acceptance of the science and the technical fixes for the problem, just as people accepted more efficient lightbulbs once they stopped sucking (which is only in the last couple years, thanks to LEDs).

I understand you disagree with all of the above, and think it's a liberal plot to take over the economy or something. But it's not, it's God's honest truth*, and even the Pope agrees.

Nuclear can play a role, too, though many people are leery of it since TMI, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. Personally, I think it's worth going down both the nuclear and the RE paths. Design redundancy is a good thing, and that way we'll have more tools in our kit for the future.


* modulo the inescapable typos and thinkos on my part

[Sunking]

Dan I have come to a conclusion. You are either completely stupid, or a Trouble Making Passive Troll. JPM is right about you doing a lot of damage to supporters of RE. You go from Forum to Forum starting trouble with you ignorance and advocacy. You loose debate after debate, get your butt kicked, and do not listen or understand what is being said to you by professionals who know what they are talking about and make their living doing.

If you had any clue you would know it requires Conventional Generation for Base Load using Nuclear, Coal, or NG. There is no other alternative in a developed country. Nuclear is the best solution for many reasons to numerous to outline. I half agree with Florey, Nuclear is the right way to go and is part of the master plan using Distributed Power a concept that flew right over your head using one in a basement metaphor. It flew right over your head. It has a name DISTRIBUTED POWER. Lots of redundancy and back up for cheap. Something Solar cannot do.

I further halfway agree with Florey that NG Peakers to be used during peak demands is a possible solution. However Solar is not capable of peaking during Peak Demand. It is Impossible for Solar to do that. I bet you have no clue why either. Solar Peak Production does not happen during Peak Demand times. Not even GOD can fix it.

Do not confuse TOU rates and Peak Rates with Peak Demand as they are not the same thing. Peak Demand starts in the late afternoon and last until 9 to 10 PM long after the sun has set. We already have the RE source available and built out in most regions of the country, all that is required to use is a change in strategy and energy policy you are obstructing and blocking. It is called Hydro Electric which you can pretty much turn on/off with a switch as needed. You stop running hydro for base load and switch to peak demand.Where hydro is not available use NG turbines or excess hydrogen from nuke plants

All these facts have been explained to you in deep detail many many times over and over again and you are still clueless. You have lost every debate, and you are hurting your cause. I can only come to one of two conclusions, and you have to tell me which one it is please.

You are either Stupid or a Trouble making Troll like you are on other forums you get kicked off of.

Which one is it? We all want to know. My bet is a Troll as no one can be as ignorant as you are.

[DanKegel]

Let's look at our points of agreement, and see if we can expand them. Starting with load shifting:

"- shifting load to when power is cheap (demand management)"

That will help, but will not be significant for a very long time. Very few industrial processes (say, aluminum smelting) can be shut down when the wind stops and restarted when it gets windy again.

Aluminum smelting seems like a great example. After looking a bit at the literature, I see various discussions about the desired level of heat loss from the sides, bottom, and top of aluminum electrolysis cells. There has been a lot of trial and error over the years learning how to optimize the cells. It's not unlikely that, given proper incentives, industry could gradually reduce heat loss significantly. That would take many years, but since industry is always trying to reduce operating costs, it's kind of already underway.
We have a couple decades to ramp down our co2 emissions to zero, which is enough time for industry to adjust -- assuming we set clear targets and incentives.

But there are nimbler sectors. For instance, demand-management-capable heating and cooling equipment is already practical and being deployed in small numbers. http://ladwp.com/powerirp shows LADWP's 2015 plan included 200 to 500 MW of demand management by 2026. I'd bet you a beer that number will increase in their 2016 plan.

How much do you think load shifting can help in the next ten years?

[jflorey2]

Do you agree that one can whittle down the size of the problem with things like
- increasing appliance and building efficiency

No. That can decrease overall electricity usage; it cannot increase the penetration of unreliable renewables.

- shifting load to when power is cheap (demand management)

That will help, but will not be significant for a very long time. Very few industrial processes (say, aluminum smelting) can be shut down when the wind stops and restarted when it gets windy again.

- small amounts of grid scale storage sufficient to give time for efficient but slow peakers to start up

Those are not "small amounts." For a 1GW wind farm (which will not be uncommon) you'd need 1GW of grid scale storage. (That's power, not energy.)

Also, I'm not sure 'cheap' is the right criterion for storage cost. It just has to be cheaper than the full cost of using fossil fuel, including externalities like the cost of dealing with pollution and climate change caused by that fossil fuel.

Either cheaper without externalites or cheaper with externalities - but that means externalities of storage as well (i.e. fuel usage to make, transport and recycle the batteries, environmental impact of mining the lithium, etc)