Power companies going the way of the landline by 2030?

[DanKegel]

All you have to do is look at issues in Hawaii and Germany.

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:

http://www.hawaiianelectric.com/vcmcontent/FileScan/PDF/EnergyServices/Tarrifs/MECO/MauiRatesSchR.pdf

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

http://www.cleanpower.com/2015/solar-storage-hawaii/

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.

[SunEagle]

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.

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.

[J.P.M.]

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.

[solar pete]

Really liked this thread, cheers

[DanKegel]

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.

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.

[Ian S]

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.

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.

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.

[Sunking]

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:

http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

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.

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.

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.

[DanKegel]

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:

http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

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.

[Sunking]

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 .93

[Ian S]

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.

[Sunking]

y the way, http://www.pv-tech.org/mobile/news/g..._residential_m is a storage system claiming 10k cycles.

Quit being a fool. and buying that car with 2 mpg.

What all the links clearly demonstrate from many universities is Solar PV does not and cannot work, the EROI is too small and ROI is negative. The only Renewables that can work is Wind and Hydro. End of story, you lost the debate a long time ago.

[Sunking]

You haven't established that PV has an EROI below 8, nor that storage lowers the EROI. Can you?

Your beyond help Dan. Every link provided in this thread clearly states Solar PV is well below 8, just just just don't want to know or hear it. Any idiot would know by adding batteries wil brin gdown EROI because of round trip efficiency. Add batteries and you cut EROI to about half. Since you missed one of the many graphs linked to in this thread, here is one just for you.

EROI-Book-Figure.jpg

Oh I see you don't like that one. Well here is another one,

[DanKegel]

I don't give a dam about your peak demand and what you have to pay for it. That is what California asked for, and they gave it to you.

Who said anything about California? The high demand charges are from Arizona utilities that, like you, hate solar.

Taking commercial Grid Inter-Active Solar with an EROI of 3 to 6, and adding battery to take that down even further

You haven't established that PV has an EROI below 8, nor that storage lowers the EROI. Can you?

By the way, http://www.pv-tech.org/mobile/news/g..._residential_m is a storage system claiming 10k cycles.

[Sunking]

Nobody said there was. Let's stick to what's actually on the market.
http://bosch-solar-storage.com/the-b...thium-battery/ is a system that's currently on the market, and claims 7000 cycles.
A 4.4 kwh system goes for AUS$17700 or USD$13700, or $2 per cycle. (http://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2271620)
(I think that includes the cost of the inverter.)
And with the 30% federal tax credit, that's $1.40 per cycle.
$1.40 for 4kwh... well, that's not going to be economical in normal service,
but if it prevents a huge demand charge, I suppose it might be worth it for
some people. Let's say it cuts your peak demand by 4KW; that's a savings
of something like $1.40/day under APS's Combined Advantage tariff.
Hey, presto, it's right on the cusp of breakeven. I'd love to hear what
the real figures are -- mine were just crazy estimates.

Dan what you are not grasping is resources. Think of it as mpg for gasoline. Imagine two identical cars with different engines. One gets 2 mpg, and the other gets 30 mpg? Which vehicle makes better use of resources? I don't give a dam about your peak demand and what you have to pay for it. That is what California asked for, and they gave it to you. On top of that pain they take what little resources they have and waste it. You guys chose to drive the car that gets 2 mpg when you went green. If California and other like states would have built out generation instead of shutting it down, you would not have high electric rates, TOU, Tier and other such structured punishing rates.

Taking commercial Grid Inter-Active Solar with an EROI of 3 to 6, and adding battery to take that down even further is just plain crazy talk and waste resources. What is so hard to understand?

[pleppik]

Again you are not getting it. They are talking about Lithium batteries that DO NOT EXIST. It is fantasy. But for giggles let's say there is a Lithium battery that has 15,000 cycles and a calendar life of 45 years. It would be a Economic Disaster even with a EROI of 4. You would get more energy and losse less money buy just burning dollar bills.

Well, okay, if you say that the analysis you cited is based on hypothetical batteries which don't exist, then do you have some documentation for the actual EROI of PV+battery systems which do exist today?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just trying to understand where you are getting an EROI less than one from.