The US could Save $5.6B a year if it Switched from Coal to Solar – study

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are arguing against yourself which is pretty dang funny.

Really? Where did I argue that lower albedo causes global cooling?
Where did I argue that solar panels cause global cooling?

Still confused about net?

 

[ding]

Really? Where did I argue that lower albedo causes global cooling?
Where did I argue that solar panels cause global cooling?

Still confused about net?

I'm not the one arguing against himself. You are. It's hilarious.

 

[flacaltenn]

"Efficiency" (as applied to solar) is just concocted silliness to begin with. The input remains clean and free no matter the output. Given one does zero maintenance and the installed cost gets returned over time in the form electrical power, everything gained thereafter translates to infinite "efficiency."

What's average useful life of a solar panel? What's the chance of damage by hail and/or wind? How do you measure efficiency for something that only works 7 to 9 hours a day in most places?

Would you volunteer to go CLEAN the bird shit, dust and soot and snow/ice off the panels since there are "no maintenance" costs?

 

[Grumblenuts]

What's average useful life of a solar panel? What's the chance of damage by hail and/or wind? How do you measure efficiency for something that only works 7 to 9 hours a day in most places?

Would you volunteer to go CLEAN the bird shit, dust and soot and snow/ice off the panels since there are "no maintenance" costs?

At least 20 years and increasing. Depends. I've had mine for at least six years. No damage. Producing electrical power at least 7 to 9 hours a day, and I have some big trees. The rain, wind, and snow keeps them clean. I've never cleaned them at all. Your wishing them to suck real bad all this time has had no apparent effect either. Perhaps try harder.

 

[flacaltenn]

At least 20 years and increasing. Depends. I've had mine for at least six years. No damage. Producing electrical power at least 7 to 9 hours a day, and I have some big trees. The rain, wind, and snow keeps them clean. I've never cleaned them at all. Your wishing them to suck real bad all this time has had no apparent effect either. Perhaps try harder.

The answer for residential is that if you're NOT cleaning twice a year, you lose about $20/month on your electric bill. They are OPTICAL devices, even thin films can cut efficiency.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Okay, I'll check them tomorrow, but I really doubt that made any difference either.

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay, I'll check them tomorrow, but I really doubt that made any difference either.

Just trying to help you with stuff that maybe your installer never told you...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Just trying to help you with stuff that maybe your installer never told you...

Oh, I'm well aware they can be cleaned. I'm telling you mine have never needed any. Certainly not worth my bother. They're leased from Tesla for 20 years at a flat rate. If they want to clean them, fine by me

 

[skookerasbil]

At least 20 years and increasing. Depends. I've had mine for at least six years. No damage. Producing electrical power at least 7 to 9 hours a day, and I have some big trees. The rain, wind, and snow keeps them clean. I've never cleaned them at all. Your wishing them to suck real bad all this time has had no apparent effect either. Perhaps try harder.

Good for you dude....you have about 10 years left before your system craps out.

Wind and solar are ghey...decades before they are relevant. Don't take my word for it...check the EIA projections out to 2040. Laughable.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

There's some truth to this but only if we ignore why it is so expensive to run coal plants today in the US. That is because of greater and greater regulatory fines and charges based on their CO2 Output.

Solar works, just as wind as an additive but it cannot replace fossil fuels, much less nuclear energy to maintain a constant flow meeting customer demands.

A modern coal fired plant has an expected lifespan of over 70 years, solar farms and wind generation a life span of no more than 5 years at best production which quickly drops by over half in as little as 5-7 years.

When they have reached the end of their useable lives, we have a toxic waste disaster ready to happen in disposing of both.

I'm glad green weenies are still "peer reviewing" each others research and not seriously challenging it to promote something that will never work in the long term without huge technological breakethroughs not even possible as of yet while demonizing the life blood of every industrialized economy on earth.

I doing so they prove over and over why liberal academics should never dictate what is/isn't science nor make energy policy since most of them are frauds, liars, and/or utterly clueless.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Good for you dude....you have about 10 years left before your system craps out.

Wind and solar are ghey...decades before they are relevant. Don't take my word for it...check the EIA projections out to 2040. Laughable.

It's what is termed, "Feel Good Power". You pretend that if you live long enough the systems will eventually pay for themselves and you get just enough then to "Feel Good" as long as you never consider the environmental nightmare their production and even more so their recycling causes.

 

[skookerasbil]

There's some truth to this but only if we ignore why it is so expensive to run coal plants today in the US. That is because of greater and greater regulatory fines and charges based on their CO2 Output.

Solar works, just as wind as an additive but it cannot replace fossil fuels, much less nuclear energy to maintain a constant flow meeting customer demands.

A modern coal fired plant has an expected lifespan of over 70 years, solar farms and wind generation a life span of no more than 5 years at best production which quickly drops by over half in as little as 5-7 years.

When they have reached the end of their useable lives, we have a toxic waste disaster ready to happen in disposing of both.

I'm glad green weenies are still "peer reviewing" each others research and not seriously challenging it to promote something that will never work in the long term without huge technological breakethroughs not even possible as of yet while demonizing the life blood of every industrialized economy on earth.

I doing so they prove over and over why liberal academics should never dictate what is/isn't science nor make energy policy since most of them are frauds, liars, and/or utterly clueless.

Correct

Solar and wind still decidedly laughable on the energy landscape. Too, world events causing even the most green countries to go big on fossil fuels....like Germany who will now be firing up old coal plants so their population isn't collectively going to the poor house and/ or freezing to death. That would be ghey....thus, a resurgence of gas and coal!

 

[Rigby5]

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study​

Feb 7, 2022

Solar makes more financial sense than coal​

The authors of the peer-reviewed study from the University of Surrey in the UK point out that even if no other argument, such as fighting climate change, is accepted for the switch from fossil fuels to renewables, then economics should be reason enough to embrace clean energy....

Ravi Silva, director of the Advanced Technology Institute at the University of Surrey and co-author of the study, said:

Electrek’s Take​

Of course, solar needs to be balanced with other sources of clean energy, such as wind and hydro, and battery storage is an essential part of the mix to regulate supply and demand. But what’s overwhelmingly clear is that coal – and indeed, fossil fuels in general – are not only bad for the environment, they’re also a terrible financial choice. That’s the main thrust of this study..

The US could save $5.6B a year if it switched from coal to solar – study

Electricity sourced from solar is cheaper than sourcing it from coal-fired power plants on a global scale, according to a new study.

electrek.co

Sounds good but doesn't actually work out that way.
The problem with solar is that it is not when you want it most, which is at night, to charge your electric car.
And while electric motors are 10% more efficient than the 40% efficiency of gasoline engines, people forget that the batteries are only 50% efficient when charging and only 50% efficient when discharging, so that makes EVs 75% less efficient then internal combustion engines.
And coal electricity production is then still more efficient and less expensive then solar, by at least a factor of 2.
Solar only makes sense if you do not need batteries.

 

[Rigby5]

People talk about how the price of solar comes down with volume, but actually it is the opposite.
To get solar to work, you need batteries for night time, and batteries will soar much higher in price if people start buying them in any quantity.
Batteries need rare earth elements, that we are running out of.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

people forget that the batteries are only 50% efficient when charging and only 50% efficient when discharging,

Link?

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

And coal electricity production is then still more efficient and less expensive then solar, by at least a factor of 2.

While I agree that solar requires batteries (or at least some form of storage), I wonder about the "less expensive" aspect of coal, given that we never really pay the actual full "cost" when we use coal. Coal brings along with it a huge amount of environmental cost which is often simply ignored. We put the flyash in giant pods and pray that there isn't a spill into a nearby river (as what happened in Tennessee). That stuff is super toxic. Coal contains a witches brew of just about every toxic metal on the Periodic Table. And that is also not even counting the negative impact on the climate burning coal has.

Solar only makes sense if you do not need batteries.

There are ways to get around this. If we were keep the electrical grid and feed into it from each individual home (similar to the net metering system now enjoyed by many in the US) the grid could be attached to storage like that proposed that make use of "stored hydroelectric" (they use the electricity to pump water up to a higher potential energy point and then drain it back down to put the energy back into the grid). Not as elegant as a chemical battery but workable.

But also I don't think anyone assumes that all our energy needs will be met with only one renewable. It will be more of a "basket" of renewables we rely on.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Solar only makes sense if you do not need batteries.

Truth is the grid makes no sense without batteries. I'm favoring grid scale liquid air battery technology most so far. But there are many good alternatives and, as the PV man just said, like it or not,

It will be more of a "basket" of renewables we rely on.

 

[Rigby5]

While I agree that solar requires batteries (or at least some form of storage), I wonder about the "less expensive" aspect of coal, given that we never really pay the actual full "cost" when we use coal. Coal brings along with it a huge amount of environmental cost which is often simply ignored. We put the flyash in giant pods and pray that there isn't a spill into a nearby river (as what happened in Tennessee). That stuff is super toxic. Coal contains a witches brew of just about every toxic metal on the Periodic Table. And that is also not even counting the negative impact on the climate burning coal has.



There are ways to get around this. If we were keep the electrical grid and feed into it from each individual home (similar to the net metering system now enjoyed by many in the US) the grid could be attached to storage like that proposed that make use of "stored hydroelectric" (they use the electricity to pump water up to a higher potential energy point and then drain it back down to put the energy back into the grid). Not as elegant as a chemical battery but workable.

But also I don't think anyone assumes that all our energy needs will be met with only one renewable. It will be more of a "basket" of renewables we rely on.

No real argument with any of that.
I just do not like batteries because they are so heavy, inefficient, and need rare earth elements.
I would prefer something like hydrogen as the storage media.
I also like pumping water to a higher elevation for energy storage.
When I put solar on the roof, I fed the grid during the day, and got it back at night.

 

[Rigby5]

Link?

Whoops.
I was comparing lead-acid with lithium, and the reading material was talking about things like size and weight.
So I got it wrong.
When I look it up now, it is saying lithium batteries are 99% efficient, meaning only a 1% loss on charging and another 1% loss on discharge.
But they are very expensive.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

No real argument with any of that.
I just do not like batteries because they are so heavy, inefficient, and need rare earth elements.

I don't believe all batteries require rare earths. Li batteries don't to my knowledge. Alkaline batteries likewise don't.

Even lead-acid batteries don't require any rare earths.

I would prefer something like hydrogen as the storage media.

My second postdoc was on H2 storage for transportation. It was a cool idea that didn't pan out (we were looking at a novel storage medium). I went to a transportation conference in Norway (this was about 20 years ago) and at that time the general feeling was that if storage could be cracked that it would propel H2 fuel cells to the fore of transportation, but if not it would always be a minor player in the market. So far no new interesting storage media aside from the old ones: compressed gas tanks or metal hydrides.

I also like pumping water to a higher elevation for energy storage.
When I put solar on the roof, I fed the grid during the day, and got it back at night.

That's the net metering system we use. I love it.