Tweet
Sunking, you still haven't shown that EROI for solar PV with storage is less than 1 which is what you originally claimed. Here's an analysis from 2012 which has EROI (without storage) at 5.9 but it uses an efficiency of 14% for mono-Si which is considerably lower than where we are today - i.e. about 20%. That's nearly a 50% increase which will translate into a much higher EROI as well. At least, PV is moving in the right direction while fossil fuels are not.
-
-
Iam I am typing slowly so you can understand and follow along. The information has already been presented but here is the readers digest version just for you.
If you use Stanford University Paper, Argonne National Lab papers data you can extrapolate the data. It is not something manufactures and advocates want the public and even more important Investors to know about. You have to dig it out. First critical piece of information one needs to know is how much energy it takes to make a battery from Cradle to Grave. These are truths advocates do not like to discuss or have known. To take dirt, mine the materials, extract the materials, refine the materials, process the material, manufacturing, delivering and putting it into service takes a lot of energy in the form of diesel fuel, coal, and natural gas to turn dirt into a battery
With respect to Pb batteries. Opps sorry Ian I mean Lead Acid batteries. from Extrapolating data from Stanford and Argonne papers you get this graph. The graph tells you how many units of energy input is required to make the device to store one unit of energy. For Pb it takes 643 units to store 1 unit. In other words to put a 12 volt 83 AH battery (1 Kwh) requires 643 Kwh to put in your hands.
Take a look, it list all the known storage technologies. Add it up for PbA 643 units.
Going back to Argonne labs paper and from manufacturing the get the most energy out of a Pb battery, you have to deeply discharge the battery to 80% DOD. The reason is very simple because if you shallow cycle Pb batteries say 20 to 30%, round trip charge efficiency is very low. Thus done that way you get less energy out of the battery over its cycle life. When discharged to 80% th ebest of the Pb batteries only have 500 to 1200 cycles.
With that information we can them make some calculations. Ian you might need someone to help you with this math, so don't be afraid to have one of your kids help you out with the math. On the low end of 500 cycles with a 12 volt 83 AH battery discharge 80% delivers 12 volts x 83 AH x .8 = 800 watt hours or .8 Kwh. At 500 cycles the battery will have provided 400 Kwh over its life. That means its ESOI = 400 Kwh / 643 Kwh = .622
On the high side at 1000 cycles we just double the number and get an ESOI of 1.244. Ask your kids they will verify it. Take the middle ground here reality resides under 1 at .93MSEE, PEComment
-
Sunking, you're basing your opinion that PV has an EROI of 3.9, and that the threshold for viability was 7, on this paper:
Right?
There are a few problems with applying that to, say, Southern California:
1) The same panel will have a much higher EROI in Southern California than it will in Berlin,
As Pleppik said,
Those links you gave all cite a paper by Weissbach from 2013, which uses solar data from Germany and concludes than in Germany, the EROI for PV is 3.8-4.0 for poly-Si without battery storage, and 2.3 with some amount of battery buffering (see table 2). The author also notes that in southern Europe the EROI is about 1.7 times higher because Germany is a cloudy place.
So EROI for PV in southern areas is about 6.8 even by your own reference.
You glowered at Pleppik when he pointed this out, but you didn't refute him.
2) The paper calculated the EROI threshold as "the ratio of the GDP to the
unweighted final energy consumption" (given as 70 cents/kWh in the US in 2011)
divided by the retail price of electricity (given as 10 cents/kWh in the US in 2011).
So Cal Edison's middle-tier rates were closer to 15 cents in 2011, so EROI threshold there
might be 70 / 15 = 4.
So, by your own references, in California, the EROI threshold for viability is 4, and EROI of PV is 6.8, so PV was economically viable there at the time of those figures.
I suppose you will once again bluster and insult, but not actually refute these figures, and argue again that lead-acid batteries suck (why you're talking about lead-acid still, I can't say).
To each his own.Comment
-
I am not refuting Solar Interactive PV EROI varies from 3 to 7 as I have stated. Want imaginary batteries with that cuts it in half. Point is WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DRIVE THAT CAR THAT GETS 2 MPG? Unlike you the rest of us like our money and want to make the most out orour resources, and not waste it on Solar which has been proven cannot work.Sunking, you're basing your opinion that PV has an EROI of 3.9, and that the threshold for viability was 7, on this paper:
Right?
There are a few problems with applying that to, say, Southern California:
1) The same panel will have a much higher EROI in Southern California than it will in Berlin,
As Pleppik said,
Those links you gave all cite a paper by Weissbach from 2013, which uses solar data from Germany and concludes than in Germany, the EROI for PV is 3.8-4.0 for poly-Si without battery storage, and 2.3 with some amount of battery buffering (see table 2). The author also notes that in southern Europe the EROI is about 1.7 times higher because Germany is a cloudy place.
So EROI for PV in southern areas is about 6.8 even by your own reference.
You glowered at Pleppik when he pointed this out, but you didn't refute him.
2) The paper calculated the EROI threshold as "the ratio of the GDP to the
unweighted final energy consumption" (given as 70 cents/kWh in the US in 2011)
divided by the retail price of electricity (given as 10 cents/kWh in the US in 2011).
So Cal Edison's middle-tier rates were closer to 15 cents in 2011, so EROI threshold there
might be 70 / 15 = 4.
So, by your own references, in California, the EROI threshold for viability is 4, and EROI of PV is 6.8, so PV was economically viable there at the time of those figures.
I suppose you will once again bluster and insult, but not actually refute these figures, and argue again that lead-acid batteries suck (why you're talking about lead-acid still, I can't say).
To each his own.
Why do you insist on using an Energy Source that only produces 3 to 7 units of energy for each unit you put into it? That is insane. We have other means that produce 40 to 200 units for each unit input. That is the irony of solar as it is wasteful, dirty, and extremely expensive. You can't see the forest because you are blinded by the tree you are hugging.MSEE, PEComment
-
No, your original claim that everyone took issue with was that solar PV with battery storage has an EROI of <1. If you want to argue that solar PV with battery storage is not yet at the point where it would be acceptable for a first world country (somewhere around EROI of 8) then fine, we can have that discussion. But be warned that the papers you've quoted are using data that's several years old and manufacturing of PV solar not to mention battery storage - other than the 19th century lead acid type - is making great strides that include not only superior performance and lifetime but significantly less energy to make. EROIs are increasing for solar PV with or without storage: who knows we might already be closing in on EROI of 8.
I suppose you would have us burn every last lump of coal that we could strip out of the landscape but the only way that has a decent EROI is if you burn it without thought to the crap it spews into the air. As for nuclear, that industry has screwed up big time and for better or worse, nobody apart from maybe you and Russ really believe that's the magic solution at this point.Comment
-
7 to 8 is probably more like it in California, as established in previous posts. Not such a bad deal, and as Ian points out, getting better all the time.
What are the alternatives?
Fossil fuel isn't really an option for the long term; it's far dirtier, and emits carbon dioxide that is turning the oceans acidic and raising temperatures.
Wind's pretty good, but isn't available in many areas.
Nuclear reactors are pretty expensive to build, and they're far from 100% safe (see list of accidents at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lear_accidents ). A handful are under construction
in the US ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear..._United_States ), but
one of the utilities involved ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Company ) is hedging
its bets by also building solar PV and wind farms.
Like it or not, solar's probably going to be a big part of energy production going forward.
And now I guess this thread's over, since Sunking has basically given up, and is back to thumping his chest and saying SOLAR IS BAD.Comment
-
Really liked this thread, cheersComment
-
I knew one of the solar energy gurus, and a pretty good engineer IMO, who, back in the '70's - tongue in cheek (mostly) - suggested we should reduce the price of fossil fuel to zero - give it away - and then we'd be forced to use alternate energy.Comment
-
Solar isn't BAD. I will support it as a part of the energy generating portfolio. But right now solar just isn't financially an economical way to produce energy. Until a new and low cost energy storage technology is "found and proven" RE can never be a large percentage of reliable energy production .
All you have to do is look at issues in Hawaii and Germany. As the % of installed PV increases so does the cost for grid power to cover the cost of RE. Each area has their "tipping point" when the % of RE goes beyond what the POCO can provide from "base generation".
Ian, you may want to add me to the list of those that fully support (and are not afraid of) nuclear power generation. That technology is getting better and may be the only true non carbon producing power source that works 24/7.Comment
-
Yes, interesting things are happening there. In both places, the initial wave of sweet deal
subsidies for solar are gone, and the grid is overloaded with solar;
that's driving some interesting changes.
In Hawaii, electric rates are about 35 cents per kwh:
which makes solar attractive even without subsidies. Because their grid is overloaded,
though, the utility really, really wants you to use all the solar you generate.
Remember the $1.40 for 4kwh price (after FTC) for http://bosch-solar-storage.com ?
That's 35 cents per kwh. Hey, presto, another place storage is starting to make economic sense!
But as
points out, the better first move is demand management. That's nearly free by comparison.
It really is time for appliance makers and thermostat vendors, and disruptive startups,
to step up to the plate and start making this happen. Once the low hanging fruit
is taken there, *that's* when to start rolling out small peak-shaving residential batteries.
The way things work in the real world, it'll probably happen all at once or in the wrong
order, but that's ok, it'll happen eventually.Comment
-
Actually the cost for electricity in Hawaii is closer to $0.55/kWh. And until just last week the POCO stopped all new PV installations until they could figure out how to provide power should the Solar stop working.Yes, interesting things are happening there. In both places, the initial wave of sweet deal
subsidies for solar are gone, and the grid is overloaded with solar;
that's driving some interesting changes.
In Hawaii, electric rates are about 35 cents per kwh:
which makes solar attractive even without subsidies. Because their grid is overloaded,
though, the utility really, really wants you to use all the solar you generate.
Remember the $1.40 for 4kwh price (after FTC) for http://bosch-solar-storage.com ?
That's 35 cents per kwh. Hey, presto, another place storage is starting to make economic sense!
But as
points out, the better first move is demand management. That's nearly free by comparison.
It really is time for appliance makers and thermostat vendors, and disruptive startups,
to step up to the plate and start making this happen. Once the low hanging fruit
is taken there, *that's* when to start rolling out small peak-shaving residential batteries.
The way things work in the real world, it'll probably happen all at once or in the wrong
order, but that's ok, it'll happen eventually.
They are now seriously looking into local "energy storage" (at the customer site) and "very" smart metering to control the voltage and frequency swings that are predominant with RE generation.
Just because they are going with "storage" does not mean solar/battery systems are financially smart for the public but probably will save the POCO money since they may not have to improve their power distribution lines.Comment
-
Sunking is mostly right. As he says, storage does not currently pay off for most scenarios (e.g. "storage must handle a one week outage, in British Columbia").
But the fact that it's a win for a few others (e.g. "storage must handle the 45 minutes per day when the grid is overloaded, in Hawaii")
is highly significant because they provide a toehold for the technology to be deployed in the real world.
And as deployments ramp up in volume, that will drive down prices of storage, making it economical in more scenarios.
It'll be interesting to watch the sales trends for solar storage systems in e.g. Hawaii, Australia, and Germany.
One poco in Australia has different feedin tariffs for different towns:
and *requires* either storage or curtailment:
Now that's a toehold.Comment
-
Fine, I'll add you to the list but surely you are realistic enough to understand that there'd have to be a sea change in public attitude for a vast increase in nuclear usage to occur in this country. As for widespread adoption of different nuclear technologies such as thorium, fast breeder, molten salt, etc. good luck on winning the public over without many years, maybe decades of proof of safety. I seriously doubt it will happen in my lifetime.Comment
-
Unfortunately I have to agree with you that most of the public fears nuclear in all shapes and forms. But being an engineer I try stay current with the technology I can say there are vast improvements in both the design and safety levels for those small GE ABWR and PRISM package systems.
Based on the claims of the EPA, coal generation will end and fossil fuel power generation will be severely curtailed. But if we lean too much toward RE power generation a time will come when people will have to decide between having "no lights" or those powered by nuclear power generation. Then I would say the masses might be swayed back to the "dark side" and embrace it again.Comment
Comment