Also reduces navigable area, and reduces light to the water. Fine for aqueducts and maybe some reservoirs, but not for normal rivers and lakes.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Solar PV News
- Thread starter mspohr
- Start date
-
- Tags
- solar energy
Also reduces navigable area, and reduces light to the water. Fine for aqueducts and maybe some reservoirs, but not for normal rivers and lakes.
Their study included only reservoirs. Also helps reduce evaporation.
Why the Future of Solar Power Is from Space
This comes up periodically.
It's probably not practical. Not cost effective. Has a few problems such as frying anything in its path.
Solar on Earth works well... just do it.
This comes up periodically.
It's probably not practical. Not cost effective. Has a few problems such as frying anything in its path.
Solar on Earth works well... just do it.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
It would also never be a net energy producer so long as the total mass needed starts from Earth.
If I didn't know better, I would say that someone came up with this idea to make hydrogen look good ;-)
nwdiver
Well-Known Member
Until we build a space elevator and level up to a type I civilization
Although we seem to be regressing as a species What, an optimistic $9/W just for the launch isn't good enough for you?
I think it's like HFCV in transportation. Not in the fossil-fuel-delaying-tactic-conspiracy sense. In the sense that people look at the status quo and try to think of a replacement that can function in the same way, while solving a fundamental problem.
That thinking says that because electricity grids are just-in-time systems, power plants have to be dispatchable.
But technology is advancing in a way that offers a potential solution that works differently: make the renewable power plants so cheap that you can instead overbuild and combine it with limited-availability dispatchable renewables, storage technology, and demand-response.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Pretty much, although I am not even sure that over-building is required. Between hot water and EVs a huge time flexible energy sink is just waiting for an integrated system.
I still think that "base load" is a construct developed by the power companies to justify revenue earning investments.
When you think about it, there is no big, rumbling base load motor out there. There is only the sum of thousands of small loads, all of which vary and come and go throughout the day. There are lots of loads that can be managed to keep the grid in balance; especially now that we have good communication and control protocols. Power companies need to become a lot more proactive about managing their grids. Their primary business should be grid management, not generating power.
Solar tsunami
Boom in large scale solar coming
Developers have applied to build 139 GWac of large-scale solar projects in the territory of six grid operators – around five times what is currently online across the country – and that figure doesn’t even cover the entire United States. By any metric, we are looking at an unprecedented boom in solar development over the next five years.
The six grid operator queues we investigated also showed more than 16 GW of battery projects which have filed for interconnection. And this number should not be too surprising to anyone who is watching the meteoric growth of energy storage
Boom in large scale solar coming
Developers have applied to build 139 GWac of large-scale solar projects in the territory of six grid operators – around five times what is currently online across the country – and that figure doesn’t even cover the entire United States. By any metric, we are looking at an unprecedented boom in solar development over the next five years.
The six grid operator queues we investigated also showed more than 16 GW of battery projects which have filed for interconnection. And this number should not be too surprising to anyone who is watching the meteoric growth of energy storage
Nevada PUC Denies Apartment Dwellers Rooftop Solar Access | CleanTechnica
Looks like Warren Buffets NV Energy is still fighting solar.
Contemptible capitalist pig.
Looks like Warren Buffets NV Energy is still fighting solar.
Contemptible capitalist pig.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
About 40 quads of fossils are burned a year in electric generation in the US. That is 40*293 TWh of source energy, so about 16*293 TWh of PV/Wind.
139 GW of PV/wind is about 2.5*139 TWh a year.
Works out to 13.5 years to replace current fossils for electricity, figure 2x to replace all fossils. The integrated rate will have to double
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The PUC decided that they do not have jurisdiction, but what was the petition ? This *sounds* like an argument over whether the Apt complex is a utility but I am just guessing. If that is the fight then many states that allow collective solar farms can show them a solution.
Well, since these projections are about 5x last years production, we should be able to replace fossil fuels quickly.
(I'm not sure I understand your conversion factors. Could you explain your math in more detail? It would help to have units for the conversions.)
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Happy to oblige, but I am not sure what you are asking. For a start:
1 quad btu = 293 TWh energy.
I presumed 40% thermo efficiency in combusting fossils to electricity between coal and NG so a kWh of clean electricity replaces 2.5 kWh of fossil source energy.
I also estimated that one watt PV produces 2.5 kWh a year. That is a little too generous but I was thinking of combined PV/wind
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I understand your point but 'base load' to my mind is mostly just a loose term for dispatchable.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
@mspohr ,
I'd like my calc to be transparent and reviewed so here is another stab at it:
Fossils used in electricity production:
40 quads a year.
Presuming 40% thermo efficiency,
40*0.4 = 16 quads of electricity
A quad is 293 TWh, so fossils supply
293*16 TWh of electricity
A 2019 addition of 139 GW,
presuming 2.5 kWh/w annually of production,
= 139*2.5 TWh of production
So replacement of just the fossils used for electricity requires
(293*16 TWh) / (139*2.5 TWh) = 13.5x the 2019 planned PV growth
I'd like my calc to be transparent and reviewed so here is another stab at it:
Fossils used in electricity production:
40 quads a year.
Presuming 40% thermo efficiency,
40*0.4 = 16 quads of electricity
A quad is 293 TWh, so fossils supply
293*16 TWh of electricity
A 2019 addition of 139 GW,
presuming 2.5 kWh/w annually of production,
= 139*2.5 TWh of production
So replacement of just the fossils used for electricity requires
(293*16 TWh) / (139*2.5 TWh) = 13.5x the 2019 planned PV growth
I had to look this up:
Quad, unit of energy equal to 1 quadrillion (1015) British thermal units (BTUs). The quad is a convenient unit for describing national and world energy resources. One quad is also equal to 293 billion kilowatt-hours or, for fuels of average heating values, the energy of 183 million barrels of petroleum, 38.5 million tons of coal, or 980 billion cubic feet of natural gas. World energy consumption in 2010 was estimated at 524 quads.
Encyclopaedia Britannica still exists! (250th anniversary)... and keeping the memory of Great Britain alive with British thermal units
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Yeah, I cannot say that 'quad' is part of my vocabulary either but the US EIA uses the unit. And since we are talking about heat energy of fossils I guess a btu has some justification.
A nice side benefit of leaving the combustion era is being able to discard its measurement units. Hopefully one day soon all we will deal with is watts and joules. Or Wh for those so inclined.
A nice side benefit of leaving the combustion era is being able to discard its measurement units. Hopefully one day soon all we will deal with is watts and joules. Or Wh for those so inclined.
Last edited:
Utility scale solar power plus lithium ion storage cost breakdown
NREL has released an inaugural report highlighting utility scale energy storage costs with various methods of tying it to solar power: co-located or not, and DC- vs AC-coupled.
For the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of $209/kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from $380/kWh (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system). The battery cost accounts for 55% of total system cost in the 4-hour system, but only 23% in the 0.5-hour system.
These seem to me to be very reasonable costs and bodes well for the future of energy storage... and, of course, these costs will drop in the future.
NREL has released an inaugural report highlighting utility scale energy storage costs with various methods of tying it to solar power: co-located or not, and DC- vs AC-coupled.
For the standalone systems, a constant per-energy-unit battery price of $209/kilowatt-hour (KWh) is assumed, with the system costs vary from $380/kWh (4-hour duration system) to $895/kWh (0.5-hour duration system). The battery cost accounts for 55% of total system cost in the 4-hour system, but only 23% in the 0.5-hour system.
These seem to me to be very reasonable costs and bodes well for the future of energy storage... and, of course, these costs will drop in the future.
Similar threads
