|
Post by David B. Benson on Jun 24, 2023 2:18:20 GMT 9.5
LCOE is not an appropriate metric for intermittent non dispatchable power sources like solar and wind. But it is. This is the minimum price the solar PV farm operator must have to break even. In a bravenewclimate.proboards.com/thread/714/pjm-style-electricity-markets?page=1&scrollTo=8571the operator bids this price to the grid operator at 5 minute intervals in units of 1 or 5 MWh. (I simplified.) The grid operator then adds the cost of transmission as a markup to offer this to the demand centers such as battery farm operators not co-located with the solar PV farm and the final consumers, the distribution companies. The distribution companies add their hefty markup to bill the users. Too bad about generation operators which “have to power down or run idle”. The associated costs just go into the market bids they have to make. Possibly they go out-of-business, typically at the time equipment has to be replaced.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jun 24, 2023 5:09:48 GMT 9.5
Yes, I understand that is how it works from the operator viewpoint. Simply pointing out this is not how it works from the system viewpoint, specifically, the final cost to the consumer (generation+storage+transmission fees) and system CO2 emissions, fuel use, etc. That is the problem I am pointing out. We are all caught up in our own myopia here - and the mainstream media and glossy consulting firms like Lazard are adding to the problem.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 7, 2023 3:31:35 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Jul 7, 2023 4:39:36 GMT 9.5
Too expensive. Better to do demand side management - especially cooling loads (aircons and freezers) that can be turned on or off. Ice storage is much cheaper than lithium batteries. This would work way better with baseload sources, since there's more predictable load as well as no seasonal variations. So storage needs would plummet. Not gonna happen in California. They're stuck with sunshine and rainbows & will have to make to, most likely by importing more energy (directly as well as indirectly, by chasing away industry). I guess it isn't a problem to pay thousands of dollars more in energy if you have million dollar beachfront property.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 7, 2023 6:56:28 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 25, 2023 14:20:26 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Oct 25, 2023 17:02:54 GMT 9.5
5% loss in 1000h. So most of its power output will be gone in a year or two. Not exactly “solving the stability problem”.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 17, 2023 3:52:36 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 18, 2023 5:00:04 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 21, 2023 6:51:43 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Nov 25, 2023 20:12:41 GMT 9.5
No. It is currently night time in Brazil so it runs at 0%. It may run at 80% power for an hour on a sunny summer day. This isn’t pedantism. The capacity factor isn’t even mentioned in the article.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 26, 2023 3:03:01 GMT 9.5
No. It is currently night time in Brazil so it runs at 0%. It may run at 80% power for an hour on a sunny summer day. This isn’t pedantism. The capacity factor isn’t even mentioned in the article. Sorry, cyrilr, but yours is pedantism of the first order. As I write this, the sun is shining in Brazil and so the panel is producing. Given the current illumination and angle of the sun, the panel is producing 80% of the power it originally did 26 years ago, it’s rated power.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Nov 26, 2023 16:15:40 GMT 9.5
Capacity factor isn’t even mentioned in the article. Yes, the word "capacity" should always be appended. Let's remember that these guys (PV-mag etc) are in the business of selling religious junk to the doomed. As a marketing machine, they are dedicated to misleading the public. They perpetuate the meme that if we buy enough of their junk, we will have reliable fossil-free electricity on tap. Yeah, sure. Bathed in the smooth patter, we are to feel forgiven for the emissions that we continue to make – junk, or no junk. When anyone in the renewables camp fails to append the word "capacity", we should assume immediately that it is deceit underway and that someone is being defrauded. Then if we can spare the time, to ask questions later.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Nov 26, 2023 19:52:47 GMT 9.5
No. It is currently night time in Brazil so it runs at 0%. It may run at 80% power for an hour on a sunny summer day. This isn’t pedantism. The capacity factor isn’t even mentioned in the article. Sorry, cyrilr, but yours is pedantism of the first order. As I write this, the sun is shining in Brazil and so the panel is producing. Given the current illumination and angle of the sun, the panel is producing 80% of the power it originally did 26 years ago, it’s rated power. It isn’t pedantism. An article claiming how long lived PV is should mention the basic performance figures, least of which would be how much energy the facility has provided over the lifetime. I was merely pointing out that simple fact of journalism 101, but you had to be a pedant by missing the key point. And if you don’t understand why rated nameplate power is not an appropriate performance metric for PV then my point is lost to you to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Nov 26, 2023 21:26:23 GMT 9.5
Capacity factor isn’t even mentioned in the article. Yes, the word "capacity" should always be appended. Let's remember that these guys (PV-mag etc) are in the business of selling religious junk to the doomed. As a marketing machine, they are dedicated to misleading the public. They perpetuate the meme that if we buy enough of their junk, we will have reliable fossil-free electricity on tap. Yeah, sure. Bathed in the smooth patter, we are to feel forgiven for the emissions that we continue to make – junk, or no junk. When anyone in the renewables camp fails to append the word "capacity", we should assume immediately that it is deceit underway and that someone is being defrauded. Then if we can spare the time, to ask questions later. Well put, Roger! The lack of critical review in all these PV magazines and websites is rather shocking. Everything is sunshine and rainbows, innovation is amazing, bla bla. Meanwhile the performance figures are dismal. Right now solar PV is running at about 1% capacity factor this month over here, and will do the same next month. These are national figures, not cherry picking. It is the reality of solar PV in northern European winter. If I were writing an article about the oldest PV plant in a country, the first question that comes to mind is how much energy has been generated by the facility. It's the key performance metric, and we can derive useful statistics from it using back of the envelope calculations that an 8 year old could do. It is sad to see this is beyond the capability of the PV magazines. The state of solar PV is that cost have dropped a lot so a lot of people installed solar PV, to the point of there being too much power at noon in summer resulting in negative prices. Mr. Market telling us to please stop installing more PV systems onto the grid. Meanwhile no fossil plants are being shut. I think we have over 10000 MW of solar PV now. Hasn't resulted in any fossil plants shut down and CO2 emissions are almost the same. That is the real state of solar PV that the advocates won't tell. To fix these issues one needs extreme levels of energy storage which is cost prohibitive, not to mention environmentally exhausting on non renewable resources. We are supposed to save the environment, not pillage it for ever more resources. I'm not totally antagonistic towards PV though. There could be some large scale uses such as making ice or chilled water for airconditioning. And satellite communications would be hard without it. To me, the whole grid connected PV thing is just taking a good idea to the extreme where it becomes a bad idea. And it is surrounded by more bad ideas like distributed power generation, and a general emotion of antagonizing the "evil power utilities". Very popular with academics and dreamers, just not practical from the engineering and numbers angle.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 27, 2023 3:24:28 GMT 9.5
Oh dear! Both cyrilr and Roger Clifton are misinformed: 1. Capacity factor for solar PV depends upon where it is installed. It might be as high as 25% in the desert but is much less here in the Pacific Northwest, so much so that it is only this year that it pays to install some solar panels on one’s roof. This is, of course, treated as independent from the degradation over time of solar PV. The latter is an important consideration in determining the payback period. 2. It is well known that adding a battery to a solar PV installation pays for itself by making the power available when it is needed — in the later afternoon and early evening in localities which require air conditioning. 3. Solar PV and wind are replacing coal burners in many regions of the world. For example, Australia, for which there is a separate thread here @ Brave New Climate Discussion Forum devoted to reports about how well that is working. And it is no surprise that solar PV is not well suited to wherever in northern Europe cyrilr hails from. 4. The central point of my post is that we now have confirmation that solar PV panels last for at least 25 years without signifiant degradation in performance. That’s all.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Nov 27, 2023 12:27:55 GMT 9.5
There is a difference. If someone installed 100 MW capacity of PV at the South Pole, it wouldn't even have to be plugged in for the marketing spruikers to lead us to think that South Pole Station is powered by solar. By convention, they are not required to say "and diesel" out loud. If it was plugged in, it might achieve a 1% capacity factor across the year. But that would not stop innocent readers all around the world from believing that the South Pole Station is powered by solar through the polar night. Far-fetched? Not at all – you yourself have fallen for the marketing meme that Australia's coal generators are being replaced by PV and wind. In this case the sotto voce phrase is "and gas". The coal burning states are desperate for more gas (because they have failed to demand supply from Australia's gas exporters), so they are limited in the amount of renewables that they can actually firm. Even in Western Australia, where the grid is isolated from the neighbouring states, they are having to curtail and block installation of PV, because they currently do not have enough gas to firm the intermittent supply. reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch/
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 27, 2023 13:04:06 GMT 9.5
… Far-fetched? Not at all – you yourself have fallen for the marketing meme that Australia's coal generators are being replaced by PV and wind. In this case the sotto voce phrase is "and gas". The coal burning states are desperate for more gas (because they have failed to demand supply from Australia's gas exporters), so they are limited in the amount of renewables that they can actually firm. (portion about Western Australia elided.) reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch/From the link that you supply, thank you, generation from renewables is currently ~40% of the total requirement in the NEM, that portion of Australia considered on the separate thread here @ Brave New Climate Discussion Forum. That is an impressive amount considering just how little hydro generation is possible in Australia. This discussion certainly properly belongs over on that thread, not being about solar PV alone.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Nov 28, 2023 0:40:48 GMT 9.5
Oh dear! Both cyrilr and Roger Clifton are misinformed: 1. Capacity factor for solar PV depends upon where it is installed. It might be as high as 25% in the desert but is much less here in the Pacific Northwest, so much so that it is only this year that it pays to install some solar panels on one’s roof. This is, of course, treated as independent from the degradation over time of solar PV. The latter is an important consideration in determining the payback period. 2. It is well known that adding a battery to a solar PV installation pays for itself by making the power available when it is needed — in the later afternoon and early evening in localities which require air conditioning. 3. Solar PV and wind are replacing coal burners in many regions of the world. For example, Australia, for which there is a separate thread here @ Brave New Climate Discussion Forum devoted to reports about how well that is working. And it is no surprise that solar PV is not well suited to wherever in northern Europe cyrilr hails from. 4. The central point of my post is that we now have confirmation that solar PV panels last for at least 25 years without signifiant degradation in performance. That’s all. Sadly it is you who is misinformed. Totally missing the point of capacity vs generation. And still no numbers on actual lifetime energy generated for that facility, which you could have made an effort in looking up instead of pointing out some tangential/blatantly obvious side points. And as to battery paying for itself... that is a lie. Batteries add cost. They do not reduce cost. Batteries are very expensive. So we can’t draw any useful conclusions. And as a secondary point, 20% loss of output is rather serious, given that fossil plants lose nothing and nukes actually generally increase output over their life. You’re a smart guy, so I’m going to accuse you of either trolling.or just being deliberate obtuse. Which is it? Do you understand why talking about nameplate capacity for an energy source that has no capacity is an attempt at deliberate obfuscation? This is THE key problem with solar that you just try to fast talk your way out of. As to coal replacement - sure, if you have a lot of natural gas or other firm capacity. Solar can’t do it on its own w/o natural gas. If anything Australia and the UK are proof. And actually no Australia is not proof - Australia coal production is going up. They will export it. They will use natural gas with some solar and wind for greenwashing while increasing coa exports. Net is an increase in global CO2 emissions. This is not a good case study in going green!
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 28, 2023 3:36:08 GMT 9.5
Oh dear! Both cyrilr and Roger Clifton are misinformed: 1. Capacity factor for solar PV depends upon where it is installed. It might be as high as 25% in the desert but is much less here in the Pacific Northwest, so much so that it is only this year that it pays to install some solar panels on one’s roof. This is, of course, treated as independent from the degradation over time of solar PV. The latter is an important consideration in determining the payback period. 2. It is well known that adding a battery to a solar PV installation pays for itself by making the power available when it is needed — in the later afternoon and early evening in localities which require air conditioning. 3. Solar PV and wind are replacing coal burners in many regions of the world. For example, Australia, for which there is a separate thread here @ Brave New Climate Discussion Forum devoted to reports about how well that is working. And it is no surprise that solar PV is not well suited to wherever in northern Europe cyrilr hails from. 4. The central point of my post is that we now have confirmation that solar PV panels last for at least 25 years without signifiant degradation in performance. That’s all. … And still no numbers on actual lifetime energy generated for that facility, … And as to battery paying for itself... that is a lie. … And as a secondary point, 20% loss of output is rather serious, given that fossil plants lose nothing and nukes actually generally increase output over their life. Do you understand why talking about nameplate capacity for an energy source that has no capacity is an attempt at deliberate obfuscation? … Reply: Balderdash. Solar PV has capacity which depends upon environmental factors at the place of installation. Don’t install one in Carlsbad Cavern. As to coal replacement - (Reply: Read *all* of the thread devoted to the Australia NEM grid.) Once more, ‘actual lifetime energy’ is irrelevant to the calculation of the reduction factor to be applied to the nameplate rating as the panels degrade. Indeed, that panel in Brazil is still is use, as you would know if you had bothered to read the article. And no, 20% loss of power, if planned for, is not cause to replace the solar panel, yet. And you are naive when you state that ‘fossil plants lose nothing”, but that is not the subject of this thread. Compute the LCOS of a battery and the LACE of the proposed installation. If LACE/LCOS > 1 then the project is highly worthwhile. See the thread on LCOE, LCOS and LACE.
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Nov 28, 2023 19:46:00 GMT 9.5
Sorry David, but I won’t waste any more time with you on this.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 29, 2023 4:31:34 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 2, 2023 4:44:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Dec 3, 2023 17:59:28 GMT 9.5
And as to battery paying for itself... that is a lie. Compute the LCOS of a battery ... then the project is highly worthwhile. Well, no, it is you, as claimant, who should compute it. David has failed, possibly unable, to compute the business case for solar+batteries for us, so passers-by can safely assume that batteries will never be able to firm solar on a grid scale. This is been the repeated conclusion across the life of BNC blogging, the only voices in favour being the marketing bumff pumped out by the sellers of such renewables junk. As far as hydro is concerned, even the hydro of the relatively rugged US is incapable of firming the country's renewables. Clack et al. so emphatically demonstrated the idea as nonsense without nuclear, that Jacobson claimed he was being accused of charlatanism - or similar. Big Money appeared out of nowhere to intimidate Clack et al. in the courts. But almost any scenario claiming 100% renewables is known to be quackery and no threat to the barons of fossil fuels, or gas anyway. Instead, it is the inclusion of nuclear that implies an existential threat to all of the fossil fuel industries.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 4, 2023 4:55:16 GMT 9.5
Compute the LCOS of a battery ... then the project is highly worthwhile. Well, no, it is you, as claimant, who should compute it. David has failed, possibly unable, to compute the business case for solar+batteries for us, so passers-by can safely assume that batteries will never be able to firm solar on a grid scale. This is been the repeated conclusion across the life of BNC blogging, the only voices in favour being the marketing bumff pumped out by the sellers of such renewables junk. As far as hydro is concerned, even the hydro of the relatively rugged US is incapable of firming the country's renewables. Clack et al. so emphatically demonstrated the idea as nonsense without nuclear, that Jacobson claimed he was being accused of charlatanism - or similar. Big Money appeared out of nowhere to intimidate Clack et al. in the courts. But almost any scenario claiming 100% renewables is known to be quackery and no threat to the barons of fossil fuels, or gas anyway. Instead, it is the inclusion of nuclear that implies an existential threat to all of the fossil fuel industries. Roger, this discussion properly belongs on the ‘How to Power the World?’ thread. There I provided a response.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 14, 2023 4:33:39 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 28, 2023 6:43:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 18, 2024 13:47:01 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 13, 2024 4:35:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 25, 2024 3:55:56 GMT 9.5
|
|