Changing the equation

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=1

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

“It is really quite notable, when compared to where we were just five years ago, to see the decline in the cost of these technologies,” said Jonathan Mir, a managing director at Lazard, which has been comparing the economics of power generation technologies since 2008.

Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil fuels. Solar and wind farms, for example, produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations in demand. Alternately, conventional power sources produce pollution, like carbon emissions, which face increasing restrictions and costs.

Clean energy in our future.

 

[Old Rocks]

The solution to intermittant power;

New Battery Startup Alevo Has Raised 1 Billion In Private Funding Looking To Blow Up US Energy Storage Industry CleanTechnica

The Alevo Group is currently aiming to begin manufacturing the batteries in 2015, at a large ex-cigarette-plant near Charlotte, North Carolina. The company’s expectation is that it will employ around 2,500 people within three years of opening.

Interestingly, the battery — developed by Alessandro Volta — will be produced without any state funding or incentives, but financed entirely through anonymous investors. Hmmm.

One billion dollars is a significant amount of money for a cleantech startup. Given the company’s plan of going straight into full production, and skipping the pilot project phase, the funding is, I suppose, necessary. But it certainly remains to be seen if the strategy will be a successful one.

The advantage of such an approach is obviously that economies of scale will be in play from the start — potentially allowing for “low-costs” from the start of production.

The company is aiming to produce and deliver roughly 200 MW worth of batteries in 2015.

And that is just one of several companies working on this problem.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like someone thinks it is doable;

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like coal will be no longer economically feasable by 2020, and gas by 2030. Perhaps the problem of human GHGs will be solved by the marketplace.

 

[SSDD]

How many wild promises like this have already proven to be nothing more than pie in the sky? You would think that the number of failures that have come back to bite you in the ass would impart at least a touch of skepticism and cause some small bit of critical thinking on your part.

Guess you are so blinded by your faith that reality rarely enters the picture. Coal no longer feasible in 5 years? Are you kidding....and do you really believe your own bullshit?

 

[Old Rocks]

With unsubsidized solar at 7.2 cents right now, and unsubsidized wind at 3.7 cents, subsidized coal at 6.6, and subsidized natural gas at 6.1 cents, it looks like coal and natural gas are both at the end of the line. You see, the price of solar will continue to decline. Same for wind. However, the price for natural gas and coal will both increase. So it is a matter of economics.

And when you consider new construction, wind and solar really shine. You can build it all at once, or you can build either in increments. Very difficult to do with either gas or coal generation plants. And coal is inherintly dirty. And very costly even to clean a little. Natural gas is much cleaner, but the cost of laying pipes and transmission lines makes it more expensive than either solar or wind to build.

With affordable grid scale batteries, both are 24/7, and the grid actually is more robust for the addition of the batteries.

 

[Old Rocks]

And, hand in hand with those developments, we have this;

Gas 2 Bridging the gap between green heads and gear heads.

Elon Musk has bet his fortune on the future electric cars, and he knows that Tesla has to stay on the forefront of battery technology. One of the most promises advancements in battery tech is graphene-based anodes, which have been proven to more than quadruple lithium-ion battery density.

A report from China’s Xinhua news agency claims that Tesla is working on a new graphene battery that could almost double the range of the Model S to some 500 miles. This follows up on Musk’s assertion that Tesla could offer a 500-mile battery “soon”, but only if it makes financial sense.

Graphene could be what makes long-range EVs finally viable, though the technology has been in the works for some time now. As well as increasing energy density, graphene also allows for faster charging of batteries, opening the ion-highway to faster fill-ups. Whichever company can come up with a long-range, fast-charging, and (most importantly) fiscally viable electric car battery will be at a huge advantage going forward. Tesla needs to be that company if the $5 billion battery Gigafactory is going to be the game changer Musk thinks it will be.

A 500-mile Tesla Model S would all but eliminate the effects of range anxiety and could give Tesla the means to dominate the growing electric car market. That would be more driving range than even most conventional cars offer, though the price would likely be in the six-digits…at least at first. The average driver rarely exceeds 100 miles of total driving per day, and 200 miles per charge seems to be the magic number the Tesla Model III is aiming for. Then again, Musk seems confident that there hasn’t been a legitimate battery advancement yet, and that when it does comes, Tesla will know about it first.

Could a graphene-anode battery be the technology that puts Tesla at its place on top of the EV market? Or is there another technology (like aluminum-air batteries) that Tesla is trying to develop?

 

[Old Rocks]

As well as these developments;

8 Potential EV and Hybrid Battery Breakthroughs - Popular Mechanics

 

[ClosedCaption]

good thread

 

[Old Rocks]

How many wild promises like this have already proven to be nothing more than pie in the sky? You would think that the number of failures that have come back to bite you in the ass would impart at least a touch of skepticism and cause some small bit of critical thinking on your part.

Guess you are so blinded by your faith that reality rarely enters the picture. Coal no longer feasible in 5 years? Are you kidding....and do you really believe your own bullshit?

21% growth. My, my, that is pretty robust reality.


Solar Industry Data SEIA

Over Half a Million Solar Installations Now Online in U.S.
The U.S. Solar market enjoyed a solid Q2, with photovoltaic (PV) installations topping the gigawatt mark for the third consecutive quarter to settle at 1,133 megawatts (MW). This performance represents 21% growth over Q2 of last year and brings cumulative installed solar capacity to 15,900 MW. There are now more than half a million homes and businesses nationwide with a solar installation. Through the first half of the year, 53% of all new electric capacity installed has come from solar. (All data from SEIA/GTM Research “U.S. Solar Market Insight: Q2 2014” unless otherwise noted.)





Installations Continue to Boom

• There are now over 15,900 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 3.2 million average American homes.
• With over 42,000 installations in Q2, more than half a million homes and businesses have now gone solar. Through the first half of the year, a new solar project has been installed every 3.2 minutes.
• All three PV market segments grew significantly year over year, with 247 MW of residential, 261 MW of non-residential and 625 MW of utility installations coming online in Q2 2014.

 

[martybegan]

With unsubsidized solar at 7.2 cents right now, and unsubsidized wind at 3.7 cents, subsidized coal at 6.6, and subsidized natural gas at 6.1 cents, it looks like coal and natural gas are both at the end of the line. You see, the price of solar will continue to decline. Same for wind. However, the price for natural gas and coal will both increase. So it is a matter of economics.

And when you consider new construction, wind and solar really shine. You can build it all at once, or you can build either in increments. Very difficult to do with either gas or coal generation plants. And coal is inherintly dirty. And very costly even to clean a little. Natural gas is much cleaner, but the cost of laying pipes and transmission lines makes it more expensive than either solar or wind to build.

With affordable grid scale batteries, both are 24/7, and the grid actually is more robust for the addition of the batteries.

its actually easy to do with gas, as long as you go in with a modular design and build the infrastructure to accept further units.

And the coal and gas prices will not go up soon because of the market, but because of asinine taxes on carbon to be implemented if the dems ever get a congressional majority plus the presidency again.

 

[Old Rocks]

1. Introduction
The U.S. solar industry has much to celebrate about the year 2013. Photovoltaic (PV) installations continued to proliferate, increasing 41% over 2012 to reach 4,751 MW. Solar was the second-largest source of new electricity generating capacity in the U.S., exceeded only by natural gas. And the cost to install solar fell throughout the year, with average system prices ending the year 15% below the mark set at the end of 2012.

This kind of growth and reduction in price is the present reality.

 

[Old Rocks]

Looks like another good year for wind.

Wind Energy Facts at a Glance

Total installed wind capacity in the U.S. through first quarter of 2014:



61,327 MW





Number of American homes-equivalent that operating wind power capacity can power:



15.5 million

 

[Old Rocks]

With unsubsidized solar at 7.2 cents right now, and unsubsidized wind at 3.7 cents, subsidized coal at 6.6, and subsidized natural gas at 6.1 cents, it looks like coal and natural gas are both at the end of the line. You see, the price of solar will continue to decline. Same for wind. However, the price for natural gas and coal will both increase. So it is a matter of economics.

And when you consider new construction, wind and solar really shine. You can build it all at once, or you can build either in increments. Very difficult to do with either gas or coal generation plants. And coal is inherintly dirty. And very costly even to clean a little. Natural gas is much cleaner, but the cost of laying pipes and transmission lines makes it more expensive than either solar or wind to build.

With affordable grid scale batteries, both are 24/7, and the grid actually is more robust for the addition of the batteries.

its actually easy to do with gas, as long as you go in with a modular design and build the infrastructure to accept further units.

And the coal and gas prices will not go up soon because of the market, but because of asinine taxes on carbon to be implemented if the dems ever get a congressional majority plus the presidency again.

Even without the carbon tax, the simple economics of the market look to doom gas and coal generation.

 

[martybegan]

With unsubsidized solar at 7.2 cents right now, and unsubsidized wind at 3.7 cents, subsidized coal at 6.6, and subsidized natural gas at 6.1 cents, it looks like coal and natural gas are both at the end of the line. You see, the price of solar will continue to decline. Same for wind. However, the price for natural gas and coal will both increase. So it is a matter of economics.

And when you consider new construction, wind and solar really shine. You can build it all at once, or you can build either in increments. Very difficult to do with either gas or coal generation plants. And coal is inherintly dirty. And very costly even to clean a little. Natural gas is much cleaner, but the cost of laying pipes and transmission lines makes it more expensive than either solar or wind to build.

With affordable grid scale batteries, both are 24/7, and the grid actually is more robust for the addition of the batteries.

its actually easy to do with gas, as long as you go in with a modular design and build the infrastructure to accept further units.

And the coal and gas prices will not go up soon because of the market, but because of asinine taxes on carbon to be implemented if the dems ever get a congressional majority plus the presidency again.

Even without the carbon tax, the simple economics of the market look to doom gas and coal generation.

Then stop pushing for carbon taxes.

There is ample coal left in the US alone for a century or two at the current economic costs of extraction. As for NG, we have seen technological improvements in the past decade that have made harder to remove deposits easier to extract.

We have been hearing about peak oil for 3 decades now, I see no reason to believe chicken little prophecies on other sources.

 

[RollingThunder]

With unsubsidized solar at 7.2 cents right now, and unsubsidized wind at 3.7 cents, subsidized coal at 6.6, and subsidized natural gas at 6.1 cents, it looks like coal and natural gas are both at the end of the line. You see, the price of solar will continue to decline. Same for wind. However, the price for natural gas and coal will both increase. So it is a matter of economics.

And when you consider new construction, wind and solar really shine. You can build it all at once, or you can build either in increments. Very difficult to do with either gas or coal generation plants. And coal is inherintly dirty. And very costly even to clean a little. Natural gas is much cleaner, but the cost of laying pipes and transmission lines makes it more expensive than either solar or wind to build.

With affordable grid scale batteries, both are 24/7, and the grid actually is more robust for the addition of the batteries.

its actually easy to do with gas, as long as you go in with a modular design and build the infrastructure to accept further units.

And the coal and gas prices will not go up soon because of the market, but because of asinine taxes on carbon to be implemented if the dems ever get a congressional majority plus the presidency again.

Even without the carbon tax, the simple economics of the market look to doom gas and coal generation.

Then stop pushing for carbon taxes.

Ahhhh....there it is! The underlying imperitive behind all fossil fuel industry denialist propaganda. Very plainly stated.

Of course, carbon taxes are essential to dealing with anthropogenic global warming/climate changes.

However they are anathema to the greed-heads in the fossil fuel industry who are making so much money selling the carbon emitting fuels that are radically altering our planet's climate and eco-systems.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Solar and Wind are being adopted by Utilities because they are not held hostage by the fossil fuels cartel. Wind has other benefits for farmers who have them on their land. They can be assured of a steady paycheck as long as the wind blows. That means less dependence upon the weather.

Wind and solar will not completely replace the current fossil energy infrastructure for several decades but you can rest assured that when it comes to making the decision as to whether to build a coal or gas fired power plant versus investing the same funds in solar or wind the decisions will go with the least expensive option and that is renewables over fossil fuels every time.

 

[Decus]

What many people refuse to recognize is that many "green" energy sources like wind and solar are unreliable and even hydroelectric production is problematic on a number of different levels. Geothermal is probably the the most reliable source of "green" energy but not readily available everywhere.

So many of the numbers surrounding solar for example are riddled with inaccuracies and it looks something like this:

"Sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal desert near the California-Nevada border, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened in February, with operators saying it would produce enough electricity to power a city of 140,000 homes."

5 square miles to power 140,000 homes (if the sun is shinning) at a cost of over $2 billion - amazingly inefficient. Now compare that to one nuclear power plant on 200 acres providing power to over 700,000 homes at a cost of about $4 billion.

"It could take until 2018 for the plant backed by $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees to hit its annual peak target, said NRG Energy Inc., which operates the plant and co-owns it with Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy."

Solar needs government support for it to work.

"Operators initially expected to need steam from gas-powered boilers for an hour a day during startup. After operations began, they found they needed to keep boilers running more than four times longer — an average of 4 1/2 hours a day."

Seems that solar plants like this need fossil fuels to meet their promised energy production.

Huge Solar Plant Lags in Early Production - ABC News

When the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow you've got nothing but empty promises.

.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What many people refuse to recognize is that many "green" energy sources like wind and solar are unreliable and even hydroelectric production is problematic on a number of different levels. Geothermal is probably the the most reliable source of "green" energy but not readily available everywhere.

So many of the numbers surrounding solar for example are riddled with inaccuracies and it looks something like this:

"Sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal desert near the California-Nevada border, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened in February, with operators saying it would produce enough electricity to power a city of 140,000 homes."

5 square miles to power 140,000 homes (if the sun is shinning) at a cost of over $2 billion - amazingly inefficient. Now compare that to one nuclear power plant on 200 acres providing power to over 700,000 homes at a cost of about $4 billion.

"It could take until 2018 for the plant backed by $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees to hit its annual peak target, said NRG Energy Inc., which operates the plant and co-owns it with Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy."

Solar needs government support for it to work.

"Operators initially expected to need steam from gas-powered boilers for an hour a day during startup. After operations began, they found they needed to keep boilers running more than four times longer — an average of 4 1/2 hours a day."

Seems that solar plants like this need fossil fuels to meet their promised energy production.

Huge Solar Plant Lags in Early Production - ABC News

When the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow you've got nothing but empty promises.

.

Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective

 

[Decus]

What many people refuse to recognize is that many "green" energy sources like wind and solar are unreliable and even hydroelectric production is problematic on a number of different levels. Geothermal is probably the the most reliable source of "green" energy but not readily available everywhere.

So many of the numbers surrounding solar for example are riddled with inaccuracies and it looks something like this:

"Sprawling across roughly 5 square miles of federal desert near the California-Nevada border, the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System opened in February, with operators saying it would produce enough electricity to power a city of 140,000 homes."

5 square miles to power 140,000 homes (if the sun is shinning) at a cost of over $2 billion - amazingly inefficient. Now compare that to one nuclear power plant on 200 acres providing power to over 700,000 homes at a cost of about $4 billion.

"It could take until 2018 for the plant backed by $1.6 billion in federal loan guarantees to hit its annual peak target, said NRG Energy Inc., which operates the plant and co-owns it with Google Inc. and BrightSource Energy."

Solar needs government support for it to work.

"Operators initially expected to need steam from gas-powered boilers for an hour a day during startup. After operations began, they found they needed to keep boilers running more than four times longer — an average of 4 1/2 hours a day."

Seems that solar plants like this need fossil fuels to meet their promised energy production.

Huge Solar Plant Lags in Early Production - ABC News

When the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow you've got nothing but empty promises.

.

Renewables Facts and Myth Debunking The Energy Collective

Funny but ABC News probably didn't get the link. You might want to send it to them.

I haven't read about a solar plant that produces at 100% capacity on cloudy days or at night. Maybe you could point one out?

.