|
Post by Graham Palmer on Apr 11, 2013 17:17:35 GMT 9.5
Not precisely but I estimate 4--6 mils/kWh equivalent. from page 292 of Chang & Till, 2011, "Plentiful Energy" IFR fuel cycle cost components capital fixed charges $15m/GWe-yr, 1.9mill/kWh O & M $10m/GWe-yr, 1.3mill/kWh Consumables etc. $6 m/GWe-yr, 0.8mill/kWh Disposal $4 m/GWe-tr, 0.5mill/kWh Total $35m/GWe-yr, 4.4mill/kWh I assume costs are in USD 2011. One mill is defined as a tenth of a cent.
|
|
|
Post by edireland on Apr 11, 2013 23:39:27 GMT 9.5
But I still think industrial processes that can rapidly trip out from 100% load to near 0% load will make "peaking power" meaningless. Main problem here would be capital expense, if the equipment is expensive then it'll probably make more sense to run it all the time so that kind of load would require high energy use but cheap equipment. Remember that most "peaking power" is used for rather higher capacity factor than say 10% of the very top of the merit order. You could easily keep a lot of SSAS type plants running ~70% of the time or similar, and then have things like low cost KOH electrolysers that just guzzle electricity but cost almost nothing to manufacture. I would have all these process unist owned by the utility so they could internally charge themselves the marginal cost of the electricity production. If they charge themselves more than ~1.5 cents/kWh average the grid is better off for running the processes. (SSAS type plants could have a higher accounting marginal cost to account for the higher value of the product)
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Apr 12, 2013 8:54:31 GMT 9.5
Not precisely but I estimate 4--6 mils/kWh equivalent. So the cost of metal fast reactor fuel, recycled by electrolysis, is 4 to 6 m$/kWh. The cost of its original natural uranium is many times less and was already paid for in its first cycle, in a LWR. In some vastly different future, taken over by a species afraid of touching seawater, demand might begin to increase beyond mined supply, and only then might the price of land-derived uranium begin to nudge off the floor. Nuclear energy is sustainable alright. If sustainabilty or "renewability" is an issue, public expenditure should go to nuclear rather than solar. I note too, that only people rich enough to own a house would be applying for a roof PV subsidy.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on Apr 12, 2013 18:34:50 GMT 9.5
Nuclear fuel is reprocessed and used in fast reactors already. Fast reactors are under construction in Russia, India and China. The utility of reprocessing to recover fissile material for reactors need not be doubted. Australia, or other major exporters like Canada, Russia or Kazakhstan could, of course, enrich uranium to 20% and sell it to make it uneconomical. There seems to be no hope of that at present. Household PV could play its role in a different niche. In isolated or rural areas, where the grid extension costs are high, the PV plus storage could be useful. Australia less the major city clusters could qualify for that. So could large parts of India covering a population many times that of Australia.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 2, 2013 6:59:40 GMT 9.5
DCCEE have released the AEMO to report on 100% renewable supply scenarios. www.climatechange.gov.au/government/initiatives/aemo-100-per-cent-renewables.aspxIn relation to PV, peak demand, demand management, I note that AEMO have not included the cost of distribution network augmentation in the final costings, but have noted that these costs are "likely to be significant", and have not assessed battery storage. I think this is is reiteration of the observation that that the role of embedded PV within networks is complex, and one cannot simply ascribe a simple peak demand reduction or abatement role. But perhaps the most striking observation in relation to PV is that as an embedded non-synchronous generator, PV cannot meaningfully contribute to essential security and stability functions including system inertia, primary frequency regulation, reserve capacity etc. For example Appendix 6 states: There are likely to be instances when generation from asynchronous or power electronic converter based sources (collectively referred to here as non-synchronous sources) would contribute to the majority of load demand service.... A power system with such high penetrations of semi-scheduled and non-synchronous generation would constitute a system that may be at or beyond the limits of known capability and experience anywhere in the world to date, and as such would be subject to a number of important technical and operational challenges.This does mean that such is a system is technically impossible, but that simple half-hourly simulations that show that a particular hypothetical suite of renewables can meet demand for a particular year is really only one part of our understanding of the full economic, energetic EROI and social consequences of shifting to a high-renewables scenario.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 2, 2013 14:16:32 GMT 9.5
Output of household solar PV is best stored and used in batteries as 12V DC system. The system is used in vehicles on a wide scale and appliances have been developed and only the production has to be scaled up. This may also help reduce the grid distribution costs by taking uneconomical isolated users out of the grid. At the very least, it will reduce the diesel consumption by reducing the running time of generators at such locations. It can play an important niche role in power availability.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 4, 2013 14:42:43 GMT 9.5
Further to the AEMO report, I note that the summary states (page 16)
investment in specific storage solutions such as batteries and compressed air did not emerge as being economic for large-scale deployment and were not included in the modelling.
Yet scenario 2 includes 49.5 GW of PV, which is greater than than maximum assumed peak demand. It is implausible to imagine a scenario in which the NEM could function with such a high instantaneous penetration of PV without localised storage. Given that 90% of the NEM lies within 36 minutes of local solar noon, the option of exporting excess PV across time zones is not a realistic option - either excess energy is spilled or stored. What happens in Melbourne for example when rapid cloud cover reduces full-sun PV from 5 GW to under 1 GW in 30 minutes? The localised impacts of voltage regulation would require significant local network upgrades and the rapid ramping would almost certainly require localised storage - pumped hydro or thermal storage could only provide aggregate, not local storage. Although the report notes that distribution augmentation costs will be significant, it should have included an exploration of these issues rather than assuming non-technical readers will read appendix 6. Allowing for automatic tap-changer transformer upgrades, smart grids, fault-level implications of embedded generation, and even modest local storage could easily double (or more) the raw cost of the PV. The report notes that looking ahead to 2050 is difficult and we don’t know what technology options or costs will be, but nonetheless these issues should at least have been highlighted - a non-technical reader could be forgiven for walking away with the impression that 50 GW of PV is not only possible to integrate but easily achievable.
|
|
|
Post by singletonengineer on May 6, 2013 13:03:54 GMT 9.5
Excellent paper. The full download is a much more satisfying read, but that is no a criticism of the shorter version, which must leave some things unsaid.
The amount of serious effort which goes into such a paper is staggering. It is just this type of commitment which will, hopefully not too late, lead the world to a better future.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on May 6, 2013 14:07:54 GMT 9.5
The full download is a much more satisfying read If you found the "terms of reference", please give us a paste or link. The question of why they chose/had to exclude nuclear from "renewables" deserves clarifying. (No -- in case the peak-fuel people protest -- crustal U+Th will never, ever run out in the lifetime of our species. Anyway, crustal underplating accumulates it faster than we can use it.)
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 6, 2013 14:41:41 GMT 9.5
There is no need for mining, seawater uranium and beach thorium (in India) will see us through.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 7, 2013 3:24:31 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 7, 2013 6:42:18 GMT 9.5
Look at this astonishing graph: Then look at this graph: bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/load_duration_chart.pngThe challenge is how to capitalize on the low cost of PV in a way that provides meaningful progress - a focus on the headline cost misses the big picture. Solar PV displaces fuel and variable operating costs of baseload generation, which constitute typically 10 to 25% of the LCOE for baseload. I argued in the paper that the reduction in wholesale price due to PV in summer is going to force us down the OCGT path and undermine the case for low-emission baseload. CSP with gas backup for example can operate with a much better capacity factor with dispatchability, but has no chance of securing an economic return if PV undermines the wholesale market.
|
|
|
Post by grlcowan on May 7, 2013 21:27:30 GMT 9.5
In the USA, the San Onofre nuclear plant had a new, supposedly improved steam generator installed about two years ago. It was improved a little too much [http://www.realclimate.org/atomicinsights.com/2013/03/san-onofre-steam-generators-honest-error-driven-by-search-for-perfection.html], resulting in a small, within statutory limits, leakage of steam that had been in the core into the system, also sealed, in which water is boiled and condensed in a Rankine cycle. Eager to avoid trouble with petrodollar-avid regulators, the management shut it down. All this is being seized upon as an excuse to never let it restart. Vote at www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/30/nuke-plant-future-uncertain/
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 10, 2013 6:58:49 GMT 9.5
The EU has will be imposing punitive import duties of Chinese PV panels of an average 47%. The investigation into dumping (selling at below true cost) is said to be the biggest the commission has launched. Given the parlous state of the EU finances, the purchase of 21 billion euros of PV panels (in 2011) would seem to be adding to Europe's woes given that is it not obvious that adding PV to electricity grids adds to national productivity or wealth creation - PV provides little firm capacity and cannot contribute to essential network reliability or stability functions - the potential emission abatement role is neutralized by the EU ETS, which provides abatement at a fraction of the cost of PV. www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-eu-china-solar-idUSBRE9470CO20130508There's said to be about 60 GW of global capacity with 35 GW of demand at the moment - might be a good time to buy panels in Australia? It is noteworthy that around three-quarters of solar industry value is expended on imports in Australia.
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 10, 2013 7:36:11 GMT 9.5
The EU has will be imposing punitive import duties of Chinese PV panels of an average 47%. The investigation into dumping (selling at below true cost) is said to be the biggest the commission has launched. Given the parlous state of the EU finances, the purchase of 21 billion euros of PV panels (in 2011) would seem to be adding to Europe's woes given that is it not obvious that adding PV to electricity grids adds to national productivity or wealth creation - PV provides little firm capacity and cannot contribute to essential network reliability or stability functions - the potential emission abatement role is neutralized by the EU ETS, which provides abatement at a fraction of the cost of PV. The Chinese seem to subsidize their panels to destroy competition. It makes sense to act against such an attempt to generate a monopolistic position in an important field. A big advantage of solar power is the roof top installation. a big part of the project can not be moved abroad, so significant money is produced by real labour inside your community. Here in south Germany, solar panels have become competitive without subsidies: www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/22/column-wynn-solar-subsidies-idUSL6N0BKEGQ20130222At the moment there is a big momentum because of low interest rates.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on May 10, 2013 12:36:46 GMT 9.5
the potential emission abatement role is neutralized by the EU ETS, which provides abatement at a fraction of the cost of PV. But do emissions trading schemes (and other such carbon credits crap) actually work at reducing emissions? I suspect they'd only actually work if the cost of them were comparable to reducing emissions yourself (and they do have a history of rather dodgy accounting). The Chinese seem to subsidize their panels to destroy competition. It makes sense to act against such an attempt to generate a monopolistic position in an important field. Getting a monopoly just because the renewable energy bubble bursts probably isn't such a good idea for China (it's them subsidising the rest of the world, if the bubble bursts before the rest of the world has stopped making them then they won't be able to recoup the cost of selling at a loss). A big advantage of solar power is the roof top installation. Which is where solar is more dangerous than nuclear. a big part of the project can not be moved abroad, so significant money is produced by real labour inside your community. At the expense of other jobs due to the more expensive electricity. It also provides a price floor below which rooftop solar can't go. Here in south Germany, solar panels have become competitive without subsidies: They did have subsidies, let me list them: - Subsidised renewable energy increased the cost of power from the grid which it'd have to compete with
- China is subsidising it by selling panels at a loss
- It also appears that they get to sell excess power generated back regardless of whether or not its useful
So grid-backed up rooftop solar can only really compete with wind and solar backed up with methane.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 11, 2013 15:36:51 GMT 9.5
But do emissions trading schemes (and other such carbon credits crap) actually work at reducing emissions? This might make for another interesting thread. But on the topic of carbon pricing, the issue of evaluating the effective abatement cost of PV is fraught and a divergence of cost is possible with a range of defensible assumptions - refer my figure 6. If we take conventional generators, an estimate is made of annual fuel use, which is divided by electricity sent-out to derive an assumed abatement intensity - we are not actually measuring real-time emissions, but in most cases the averaging process provides a reasonable assessment of the marginal emissions. But in the case of PV it is important to note that that an evaluation of PV abatement cost does not involve actual measurements at all - it is entirely based on calculations with a number of key assumptions over the full assumed life of the system. When we are comparing the emission intensity of say coal versus gas, we have less CO2 in real-time with natural gas and this is verifiable. But in the case of PV, we are making life-time assumptions about PV performance and using calculations to convert this to a real-time equivalent, leading to a temporal inconsistency. How do we compare what is happening right now with what we assume might be happening in 2043? For example, using, Crawford’s (2011) life-cycle emissions per 75 watt PV module of 1.083 tonne CO2-e equates to 14.4 tonne CO2-e per kW of PV. Hence the system would need to actually abate 15,000 to 25,000 kWh of coal or gas fired electricity to break even, yet many assessments simply ignore this abatement debt - PV does not meaningfully displace generation or network capacity or contribute to essential reliability or stability functions. For example, I note that Laura Eadie (CPD - Going Solar: Renewing Australia’s electricity options) was quoting a price of “as low as $25/tonne”, yet this assumes an uninterrupted 30 year life, north facing, cleaned regularly, no shading, ignores embodied energy, and displaces “average” generation, despite it being established that PV tends to displace substantially less emission intensive intermediate and peaking generation (i.e. gas, hydro, load-following black coal), rather than baseload coal. theconversation.com/rooftop-solar-reduces-the-risk-of-price-hikes-for-everyone-13831Reference: Robert H. Crawford (2011): Towards a comprehensive approach to zero-emissions housing, Architectural Science Review, 54:4, 277-284
|
|
|
Post by sod on May 11, 2013 16:32:33 GMT 9.5
Do you have a quote and source for this claim: Why would solar PV replace hydro? there will be new peaks at different times, which can be served by peak hydro and i simply don t think that they will waste such a resource! reneweconomy.com.au/2013/rooftop-solar-reshapes-energy-market-in-south-australia-18272i also have doubts about the claims about gas and other load following sources. But even if you are right, this would IMPROVE the system, as it is flattening demand curves! The German system is showing this on a nearly daily basis: www.transparency.eex.com/de/Your claim also is in stark contradiction to the theory accepted by most people here (this has been the topic of several blog posts). It is generally accepted on this blog, that ramping up and down, for example gas, is a main reason for reduced CO2 saving effect of renewables. (i disagree with this claim) But your argument also contradicts this!
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 11, 2013 19:31:03 GMT 9.5
Do you have a quote and source for this claim: Brown coal plant has historically had amongst the cheapest marginal costs in the NEM, and has therefore assumed a base‐load position in the merit order. These units are only occasionally dispatched below full availability. www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/commissioned-work/advice-change-merit-order-brown-coal-fired-stations.pdfSolar PV generation shares many characteristics with wind generation with respect to displacing other forms of electricity generation. However, there is one important difference. Because there will never be high solar PV penetration in the early morning hours before sunrise when load is normally at a minimum, solar PV is less likely than wind energy to cause de-commitment decisions by coal-fired generators due to low overnight load. Thus on weekdays, solar PV alone would be more likely to displace intermediate generators than base load generators and thus more likely to displace gas fired generation than coal-fired generation unless high coal prices or a sufficiently high carbon price drove the effective incremental operating cost of coal generators above that of gas-fired generatorswww.sustainability.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/mma_report_peer_review.pdf
|
|
|
Post by edireland on May 12, 2013 12:51:24 GMT 9.5
Brown Coal is essentially free. (it is the archetypal stranded resource since its energy value is so low its impractical to move long distances, meaning that the mine and power station tend to be vertically integrated).
Reserves tend to be so large that the cost, in maintenance terms, of shutting the plant down and then restarting it are higher than simply continuing to burn through the coal.
|
|
|
Post by jagdish on May 12, 2013 14:32:23 GMT 9.5
Large resources, not suitable for transfer, should best be converted to gas while still underground. Nuclear steam is the best means of conversion for following reasons a. Two third of heat, normally lost in cooling while producing electricity, is not lost. b. Remaining steam can be condensed, simultaneously removing the fly ash and acidic gases.
|
|
|
Post by Graham Palmer on May 12, 2013 18:01:49 GMT 9.5
Recent MIT study showing the ex-post CO2 abatement cost of solar PV for Germany in the years 2006-2010 is euro 537/t CO2. There is a large difference between the abatement costs of wind and solar energy. While the CO2 abatement costs for wind are of the order of tens of euro/tonne CO2, the abatement costs for solar are of the order of hundreds of euro/tonne CO2. Fuel cost savings per tonne CO2 are similar for wind and solar energy, being slightly higher for solar than for wind since solar energy is used during the day at peak demand and it displaces mostly gas (pg 16) web.mit.edu/ceepr/www/publications/workingpapers/2013-005.pdf
|
|
|
Post by sod on Jun 5, 2013 3:28:16 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 6, 2013 10:57:19 GMT 9.5
Richard Read is poking fun in that CSM article.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 7, 2013 23:37:50 GMT 9.5
First Sod claims a "massive" increase in PV for Japan. The link Sod provides shows a projected increase of up to 9.4 GWp. This delivers, at an average capacity factor of 15%, about 12 TWh. Japan needs more than 1000 TWh. Thus, the "massive" increase, spurred on by massive subsidies, produces an extra 1.2% of the nation's power. Very massive.
Then the article goes on to say that the growth is due to massive subsidies. Which is not consistent with Sod's claim that solar is cheaper than nuclear.
Sod then claims that Fukushima makes nuclear expensive. The truth is that the high costs of Fukushima are due to radiophobia, which is expensive and dangerous, not due to actual radiation risks. Furthermore, Fukushima is perfectly preventable. Build modern passive plants, don't need electricity. And build them on a hill, just in case. Problem solved.
I am left with just one question. Does Sod actually believe his own nonsense, or is he smart enough to understand his own lies and internal inconsistency?
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 7, 2013 23:42:59 GMT 9.5
Really, how does unreliable expensive, diffuse, boutique power displace a supposed monopoly of reliable, affordable, concentrated power? It is true that utilities have a monopoly on practical, concentrated, affordable power supply. Solar enthusiasts are very jealous of this monopoly. Out of spite and defeat, solar people have produced a monopoly of their own. The most damaging solar monopoly is the monopoly of stupidity and shallow energy analysis. You all know what I'm talking about. Pretty pictures and superlatives in flashy magazines, rather than hard, apples to apples, numbers comparisons of our current predicament. The renewables industry has this monopoly.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Jun 8, 2013 1:31:23 GMT 9.5
I am left with just one question. Does Sod actually believe his own nonsense, or is he smart enough to understand his own lies and internal inconsistency? Pretty sure he is a true believer, those who understand that he's sprouting lies are either here debunking him or behind the scenes providing money to the antinuclear movement.
|
|