PV Solar - If not Florida, Where?

[zapta]

That's how screwed up America is.

If America is screwed it's because it follows the socialist practices of Europe inserted of being true to it's core values, liberty and self reliance.

[mamalala]

Huh?  who said anything about conspiracies?

You did. Right here:

As for winning strictly on it's merits - you'd have to believe in fairies and unicorns to believe that any technology threatening the profits of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries would be allowed to do any such thing.

Let's put a little thought experiment out here. Companies are not charities, they want to make as much profit as they can. Now, given that, what do you think is more likely what they will do:

1) Sell one kW/h for price X to you, while they have to pay for some part of price X for of fuel to generate that kW/h, thus lowering their profit margin when it comes to fuel cost per kW/h?

- or -

2) Sell one kW/h for the same price X to you, but they don't need to pay for any fuel, thus increasing their profit margin when it comes to to fuel cost per kW/h?

Both scenarios assume that there is a given cost to build and operate the actual power plant.

Why do you think they are still burning fossil fuels at an alarming rate, when there are allegedly usable alternatives available that require no constant fuel supply? Just because they love to lower their profit margins and throw out money for fuel?

And while we are at it: Can you please provide a back-of-the-envelope calculation as to how much name-plate capacity in PV/wind generating power has to be installed to supply an average base-load of 1MW, plus the normal load-curve demands above that, considering that there can be periods of up to a week or more where the is next to no wind and very, very little sun? And what amount of storage capacity is needed for that?

Greetings,

Chris

[dannyf]

thought experiment

performing a thought experiment can be challenging for the fanatics.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Once again, Ivanpah is producing about 1/4 of "promised output". Not 1/4 of the name plate capacity. They only wish it was producing 1/4 of nameplate capacity. Neither the Government nor BrightSource is buying this "nameplate confusion" crap. BrightSource warned the administration of embarrassment if the 1.6 billion was not provided, and the project went bankrupt. Now they are not paying back the loan, and angling for a 539 million grant. BrightSource blames weather for the shortfall in promised output and not nameplate confusion. Everybody knew what the nameplate capacity was, and they also knew what the promised output would supposedly be. This nameplate confusion story, is a completely desperate ruse, that is not even supported by BrightSource itself. We are all familiar with nameplate capacity because that is what is always quoted by the UK Wind Power bamboozlers, instead of actual output.

--Not paying back loans and seeking a 539 million grant is proof of a resounding success? I think not.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2014/11/dazzling-solar-generator-fails-promise/

"So Ivanpah has failed its early production targets before a year is up, having produced only a quarter (254,263 MWh) of the planned electricity, and it’s applying to burn more fossil fuel which will emit 60% more CO2 to warm the globe." [US Energy Administration figures]

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/google-asks-bailout-federally-funded-solar-plant/

"They’re asking for a government handout to cover the payment they must make on a government loan. Adding to the plant’s woes is a request to use 60 percent more natural gas in auxiliary boilers than was allowed under the plant’s certification that was restricted to 5 percent of the total annual heat input from the sun."

--And now BrightSource is saying it will probably be 2018 before the plant reaches its promised output. In a pig's eye.

"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."
Enrico Fermi 1901 - 1954

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--The below article give some of the best details yet on the Ivanpah fiasco. Be careful not to confuse Watt hours, with Watts. One million mega-Watt hours was promised, and 250 thousand mega-Watt hours actually produced, and more than half of that is from burning natural gas.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/is-obamas-latest-green-energy.html

"the plant has not lived up to its clean energy promise. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to, a disappointing 254,263 megawatt-hours of electricity from January through August, not the million megawatt-hours it promised."

"In addition, the plant recently filed with regulators to greatly increase the fossil fuels burned by the "solar" plant's inefficient boiler system, due to insufficient heat input from the Sun on cloudy days and at night. The plant wants to burn 1,575 million standard cubic feet [mmcf] of natural gas every year, which will increase its CO2 emissions 59% to 94,749 tons per year.
    "To get a sense of that volume, an average U.S. natural gas-fired power plant [using much more efficient and clean-burning turbines instead of boilers] might be expected to produce about 200,000 MWh from 1,575 mmcf of gas, according to the EIA."
Therefore, the plant is producing about 254,263 * 12/8 = ~381,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year using natural gas that could otherwise supply 200,000 megawatt-hours of electricity per year. Thus, over one-half [about 52%] of the plant electricity output is from inefficient use of fossil fuels."

--And that does not include rises in power bills, from building the transmission lines.

Wun Hung Lo 1948 -

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[dannyf]

the plant produced only about a quarter of the power it's supposed to,

That's the P25 valuation approach, .

Most windfarms are valued at P50 (50% of the time, they generate more than their rated power).

what happens in the other 50% of the time?

[zapta]

..250 thousand mega-Watt hours actually produced, and more than half of that is from burning natural gas...

Do they actually transmit to their customers energy they generate from fossil fuel or just use it to power the renewable operation?

(I know, it's doesn't matter from bottom line perspective but I wonder what is behind those numbers).

[SgtRock]

Dear EEVBees:

--Below is a link to the energy.gov web site which clearly shows that the government and NRG/BrightSource are promising an output of 1,065,000 Megawatt hours. I hope this puts to rest any attempts to confuse the issue with the nameplate capacity. If you look at the picture provided you can clearly see that the nameplate capacity is 392MW and that the promised Annual Generation Output is 1,065,000 MWh. So far however the rate of annual output has been about 250,000 MWh or 25% of what was promised. NRG/BrightSource now says it expects to achieve the promised output by 2018. Do not hold your breath!

http://energy.gov/lpo/nrg-energy-inc-brightsource

--Meanwhile Google has announced it will not be funding any more Solar Thermal projects, because wholesale prices for PV solar panels has dropped by 50% since the time Ivanpah was planned.

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
Ronald Reagan 1911 - 2004

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[zapta]

... Yeah, it's not perfect, but it's still far, far, far better than a pure fossil fuel plant.

If it's paid with my tax money than it's not.

[zapta]

If it's paid with my tax money than it's not.

Your tax money paid for the fossil fuel and nuclear plants as well. The difference is that, unlike this project there is zero chance of you ever getting any of it back.

In both cases I will not get it back but two wrongs do not make right. It's interesting though that you want to declare this bait and switch project as a success. It shows your low expectations from 'green' energy and your tolerance for lying to the public in the name of your cause.

[tom66]

Two wrongs may well not make a right, but while subsidies do exist for fossil fuel (*including* the indirectly and unrealised externalities, such as health problems created by coal, nuclear waste disposal, etc.) it is necessary for them to compete on a level playing field. Which means subsidies.

Anyone suggesting the energy market is in any way representative of a free market is having a hearty laugh at the expense of Joe Q. Public.   It's probably one of the greatest examples of government meddling. For one example of many, see Russia's refusal to supply natural gas to Ukraine. Or the Iraq war and oil. Or the Keystone Pipeline.

Coal should be heavily taxed to represent the serious harm it causes to individual health. Coal power kills more people in just ONE YEAR than nuclear power has EVER killed in any accident. (http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/) And the one most serious accident, Chenobyl, can be put down to serious design errors and lack of proper operator training.

Just because a technology cannot be necessarily economically competitive (for example coal will almost always be cheaper than solar) does not mean it is superior, because in one way or another, you will be paying for it, just not in the electric bill.

[nctnico]

If it's paid with my tax money than it's not.

Your tax money paid for the fossil fuel and nuclear plants as well. The difference is that, unlike this project there is zero chance of you ever getting any of it back.

IMHO it is not about getting your money back. If you got all your money back then it wouldn't be necessary to earn it in the first place. The way I see it tax is like paying rent to the government. On their turn they spend money on things you may not benefit from. Like your landlord pays for fixing a leaking roof on the top floor of an apartment building while you live on the bottom floor.
The fact is that fossil fuels will run out at some point in the future and we will need alternatives. Those alternatives do cost money to develop.

[zapta]

IMHO it is not about getting your money back. If you got all your money back then it wouldn't be necessary to earn it in the first place.

Hmm, so no reason for us to earn money unless we can give it to the government?

IMHO it is not about getting your money back. If you got all your money back then it wouldn't be necessary to earn it in the first place. The way I see it tax is like paying rent to the government. On their turn they spend money on things you may not benefit from. Like your landlord pays for fixing a leaking roof on the top floor of an apartment building while you live on the bottom floor.
The fact is that fossil fuels will run out at some point in the future and we will need alternatives. Those alternatives do cost money to develop.

The main role of the government is to protect our liberty, not to provide us food or energy. What you promote is the other way around. Cherish freedom.

[tom66]

It would be nice if we could rely on the free market to provide everything that citizens want or need, but in reality, it does not work. The free market is great at optimising profit for few and the expense of many. It doesn't work  because consumers have imperfect information (i.e. few are aware of the health effects of coal.)

In theory, I think libertarianism (or otherwise very limited government influence) is an ideal goal, but I just can't see it working, unless there was some way that every individual had all information available to them and acted appropriately upon that information. Maybe if we were all clear-thinking, reasonable individuals.

The financial crisis of 2007 ongoing was in part due to this idea that if we let banks regulate themselves the system will sort itself out. I think that we can see this does not work because the executives and other staff of such companies optimise their own short-term profit over long-term stability and growth of a business or the wider economy.

[HackedFridgeMagnet]

I think that we can see this does not work because the executives and other staff of such companies optimise their own short-term profit over long-term stability and growth of a business or the wider economy.

Then when they fail they get a government bailout, but that is ok as they are libertarians at heart and are not infecting the grid with green power. </sarcasm>

[zapta]

The financial crisis of 2007 ongoing was in part due to this idea that if we let banks regulate themselves the system will sort itself out. I think that we can see this does not work because the executives and other staff of such companies optimise their own short-term profit over long-term stability and growth of a business or the wider economy.

People mismanaged their businesses and the businesses collapsed, this is how it should be. Bailing them with other people money is immoral.

[tom66]

The financial crisis of 2007 ongoing was in part due to this idea that if we let banks regulate themselves the system will sort itself out. I think that we can see this does not work because the executives and other staff of such companies optimise their own short-term profit over long-term stability and growth of a business or the wider economy.

People mismanaged their businesses and the businesses collapsed, this is how it should be. Bailing them with other people money is immoral.

Agreed; and some have argued that the banks were aware they would be bailed out, influencing their choices. However, it is also immoral to allow such large corporations to effectively gamble with the economy in the way they did.

They caused millions of people to lose their jobs, likely triggered many suicides or bouts of depression, destroyed many industries and small  businesses, and did trillions of dollars of damage to the economy.

So it's also not moral to allow such businesses to operate without sufficient oversight. The free market doesn't work (here), except to maximise the profit of a few individuals at the expense of everyone else.

More on topic, you need to address the unrealised externalities caused by fossil fuel usage, such as health harm, pollution, environmental damage, etc. There are two ways you can do this: You can heavily tax fossil fuel usage, and use that to fund clean up and health programs. Or, you can subsidise renewable/"green" technology, putting it on a more level playing field.

Politically speaking, it's a lot more palatable to fund renewables than it is to tax fossil fuels, especially as tax on such significantly increases the apparent cost to the average individual (the cost is still there but it's not written on a bill any more.)

It doesn't matter even if you don't agree with AGW. It's happening.  But even if you deny it, you can see that coal power kills 7,500 people every year. That's just the USA. If you take a rough approximation and say the density of coal power plants is similar across the world, that's ~165,000 people per year. That's something like 50  September 11 attacks every year.  Can we please do something about this?!

[zapta]

Agreed; and some have argued that the banks were aware they would be bailed out, influencing their choices. However, it is also immoral to allow such large corporations to effectively gamble with the economy in the way they did.

They caused millions of people to lose their jobs, likely triggered many suicides or bouts of depression, destroyed many industries and small  businesses, and did trillions of dollars of damage to the economy.

More on topic, you need to address the unrealised externalities caused by fossil fuel usage, such as health harm, pollution, environmental damage, etc. There are two ways you can do this: You can heavily tax fossil fuel usage, and use that to fund clean up and health programs. Or, you can subsidise renewable/"green" technology, putting it on a more level playing field.

...

It doesn't matter even if you don't agree with AGW. It's happening.  But even if you deny it, you can see that coal power kills 7,500 people every year. That's just the USA. If you take a rough approximation and say the density of coal power plants is similar across the world, that's ~165,000 people per year. That's something like 50  September 11 attacks every year.  Can we please do something about this?!

I don't understand the whining. We live longer than ever have stuff and food than even and can travel and communicate faster than ever, all thanks to fossil based energy and some ungrateful people are still complaining and want to take my money for their pet causes. Chill up.

[nctnico]

@tom66:
I'm not comfortable with the 'coal kills' slogan. IMHO that is just FUD. There are so many things which are bad for us: McDonalds et al, sugar, smoking, alcohol, traffic, etc, etc. If a coal based power plant is emitting too much polution it should have exhaust filtering (over here that is mandatory). That means you'd have to 'target' a specific power plant and have the authorities do something about that. Maybe it turns out the local power plant already has state of the art filtering and your numbers are old.

[tom66]

McDonalds, sugar, smoking, alcohol: all personal choices (all to different extents)

Coal power and pollution from traffic: It affects EVERYONE.  Essentially the only thing you can do is move away from the source, but for many people that's not practical. And if you live somewhere like Indiana/Ohio/Virginia... good luck!

I'm actually in favour of support for people who want to quit smoking/alcohol consumption, or longterm alcoholics. I do understand it's often a personal choice in which case I don't think intervention is a good idea.

Data is from here: http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/  and is for 2014, which includes new power plants. The figure HAS reduced, which reflects the improvements in carbon capture and scrubbing, but it is still far too high for me, personally, to be comfortable.

Some more data on this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/903/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html#.VJ2eMDk0

[zapta]

@tom66:
I'm not comfortable with the 'coal kills' slogan. IMHO that is just FUD. There are so many things which are bad for

Coal gives life. Look at all those hospitals that are powered by coal.

[mtdoc]

Zapta, you've jumped the shark!  Posting pictures of premature infants to support your argument.  Really?

While I agree that the "coal kills" slogan is hyperbole, there's no denying that coal - especially non "clean coal" burning power plants are a major source of major adverse health effects. 

Should I be posting pictures of atmosphere in those many Chinese cities powered by "life giving" coal. How about pictures of children with severe asthma in a hospital ICU on a ventilator after a dirty air induced asthma exacerbation?

BTW - that premature infant will be much more likely to grow up with chronic lung problems and be highly susceptible to the effects of the types of air pollution that coal fired power plants are notorious for.

[mtdoc]

Huh?  who said anything about conspiracies?

You did. Right here:

As for winning strictly on it's merits - you'd have to believe in fairies and unicorns to believe that any technology threatening the profits of the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries would be allowed to do any such thing.

Well, no.  Just because a highly entrenched industry (coal,nat gas, oil) has amassed incredible power (thanks in part to government subsidies) now exerts tremendous economic and political power (thanks to hundreds of millions spent on lobbying) does not mean there is a "conspiracy"

Jeez, I'd think someone posing  on an engineering forum could thinks of several examples where a superior product is not able to achieve significant market share strictly on its "own merits" due to the current market dominance and political/economic power of established corporations.

[dannyf]

the unrealised externalities

What's "unrealized externalities"? What an oxymoron.

As to externalities, everything has its externalities. Your very existence has a negative externality on the environment, this forum, and the rest of humanity.

What are you going to do about it?

[zapta]

Zapta, you've jumped the shark!  Posting pictures of premature infants to support your argument.  Really?

While I agree that the "coal kills" slogan is hyperbole, there's no denying that coal - especially non "clean coal" burning power plants are a major source of major adverse health effects. 

Should I be posting pictures of atmosphere in those many Chinese cities powered by "life giving" coal. How about pictures of children with severe asthma in a hospital ICU on a ventilator after a dirty air induced asthma exacerbation?

BTW - that premature infant will be much more likely to grow up with chronic lung problems and be highly susceptible to the effects of the types of air pollution that coal fired power plants are notorious for.

With all the coal kills FUD it's useful to have a more balanced perspective.  Fossil energy improved any aspects of our lives including infant mortality. Look at the big picture.