Parking lots for Solar Energy?

[tyman]

Yes, it's maddening.


On one hand, we get enough energy from the sunlight that hits the earth to have all the energy we need with a small percentage of the surface covered. This certainly makes Solar very tempting.

HOWEVER, on the other hand, we are no where near able to get a high enough percentage of that energy from current solar tech.
Unless there is some breakthrough where solar panels are an order of magnitude or two more efficient, solar is not yet ready to power the whole show.

But knowing how much energy we receive makes it a tempting option. It does deserve more development as there is potential if we can make far more efficient panels.

That's the nice thing about technology though is that it's always evolving and progressing.

 

[KrisZ]

Get ready for something like this with solar and electric utopia.

This is what people are sold and imagine:

This is what is awaiting:

 

[OVERKILL]

And they would help with brownouts/blackouts too by giving some electricity back into the system during the day.

No they don't, they don't provide any form of grid stability (inertia), and in fact can often destabilize it, which is why South Australia ends up curtailing solar because there isn't enough inertia on the grid.

 

[tyman]

No they don't, they don't provide any form of grid stability (inertia), and in fact can often destabilize it, which is why South Australia ends up curtailing solar because there isn't enough inertia on the grid.

If you're talking during a brownout/blackout, then yes. But when they are up and going whilst power is on, they are producing energy into the grid/system. I'm speaking in general terms though. If the system without solar power is only able to produce (hypothetical) 2GW of power and everyone is using 2.1GW of power, you're in trouble. If the system with solar power is able to produce 2.25GW of power while everyone is using 2.1GW, no trouble. But yes, they don't "produce" inertia to help spin generators or turbines like wind/hydro/nuke would. I'm merely and strictly talking about the fact that it adds more energy production into the system/grid overall.

 

[OVERKILL]

Obviously implementation matters. It's only a hassle if your area doesn't already use covered parking because of the heat. For areas like the SW US it's a no brainer.

Besides nobody says it MUST be used to charge an EV. It could be used to charge batteries which could help offset early evening peak demand.

Batteries have a short lifespan, have a tendency to catch fire and are extremely expensive. They are not a great "partner" for solar, despite what people are led to believe. Pumped Hydro is a much better storage medium, but clearly has other limitations.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's the nice thing about technology though is that it's always evolving and progressing.

There are some pretty strong physical laws governing maximum solar panel output. Current best results are from multi-layer panels and these are insanely expensive and still not that great. Solar is diffuse, that's the reality of the technology. Doesn't mean it doesn't have uses, but massive grid-scale power generation is probably not a good one.

 

[OVERKILL]

If you're talking during a brownout/blackout, then yes. But when they are up and going whilst power is on, they are producing energy into the grid/system. I'm speaking in general terms though. If the system without solar power is only able to produce (hypothetical) 2GW of power and everyone is using 2.1GW of power, you're in trouble. If the system with solar power is able to produce 2.25GW of power while everyone is using 2.1GW, no trouble. But yes, they don't "produce" inertia to help spin generators or turbines like wind/hydro/nuke would. I'm merely and strictly talking about the fact that it adds more energy production into the system/grid overall.

You have to understand the systems though.

The grid is "alive". At every moment loads are being added and being subtracted and these affect frequency and voltage. Large inertial generators (turbines) absorb these events to keep frequency stable and voltage where it should be.

Solar doesn't do that. This is why, per my SA example, they have to, when the intertie, that brings in inertia from a neighbouring state, is down, they have to cut solar output and replace it with gas turbines, to keep the grid stable.

In your example, if the solar is producing 2.25GW and the system is using 2.1GW, you have over-supply. In reality, in that situation a large portion of that output would be rejected and spinning reserve leaned-on for stability.

 

[tyman]

There are some pretty strong physical laws governing maximum solar panel output. Current best results are from multi-layer panels and these are insanely expensive and still not that great. Solar is diffuse, that's the reality of the technology. Doesn't mean it doesn't have uses, but massive grid-scale power generation is probably not a good one.

To wit, no one has argued or said that solar alone is what we need but to supplement the current system as a way of helping in general.

 

[tyman]

In your example, if the solar is producing 2.25GW and the system is using 2.1GW, you have over-supply. In reality, in that situation a large portion of that output would be rejected and spinning reserve leaned-on for stability.

My example was more that everything else but solar produces 2GW. Adding in solar takes it to the 2.25GW level, whereas before, demand outpaced output. But yes, I was adding in overage into the system rather than just saying "solar would add some into the system to take it to 2.1GW and demand is 2.1GW so they're the same."
Not that solar itself would produce 2.25GW.

 

[OVERKILL]

To wit, no one has argued or said that solar alone is what we need but to supplement the current system as a way of helping in general.

I'm quite cautious in my approach to how I see solar integrating for being the most beneficial.

We see that in both SA and California, too much solar creates a duck curve, this drives up emissions and is hard on the supporting equipment.

In Ontario, we have about 2.6GW of solar that displaces some daytime peaking demand, but not enough to cut into baseload or totally prevent gas peaking.

The proper balance is somewhere in between those two. You need to have enough clean baseload to keep things stable and cover average demand, and then you should have enough solar on top of that to reduce or eliminate peakers, paired with enough storage (preferably PHES) to cover the morning/evening ramps. This is the lowest emissions option and arguably the most cost-effective. It avoids over-building of specific token technologies and facilitates baseload operation of clean thermal or hydro, which is the best/most efficient operating profile.

 

[OVERKILL]

My example was more that everything else but solar produces 2GW. Adding in solar takes it to the 2.25GW level, whereas before, demand outpaced output. But yes, I was adding in overage into the system rather than just saying "solar would add some into the system to take it to 2.1GW and demand is 2.1GW so they're the same."
Not that solar itself would produce 2.25GW.

You have bigger issues if that's your reality though This is why properly setup grids have significant reserve capacity. California is on the edge of not having sufficient capacity and we see how that plays out during the summer with the load shedding.

 

[tyman]

I'm quite cautious in my approach to how I see solar integrating for being the most beneficial.

We see that in both SA and California, too much solar creates a duck curve, this drives up emissions and is hard on the supporting equipment.

In Ontario, we have about 2.6GW of solar that displaces some daytime peaking demand, but not enough to cut into baseload or totally prevent gas peaking.

The proper balance is somewhere in between those two. You need to have enough clean baseload to keep things stable and cover average demand, and then you should have enough solar on top of that to reduce or eliminate peakers, paired with enough storage (preferably PHES) to cover the morning/evening ramps. This is the lowest emissions option and arguably the most cost-effective. It avoids over-building of specific token technologies and facilitates baseload operation of clean thermal or hydro, which is the best/most efficient operating profile.

Really, we just need to build nukes on every other street corner.

 

[tyman]

You have bigger issues if that's your reality though This is why properly setup grids have significant reserve capacity. California is on the edge of not having sufficient capacity and we see how that plays out during the summer with the load shedding.

Precisely. It was a hypothetical just showing how solar can help supplement energy production alongside the other methods in general.

 

[OVERKILL]

Precisely. It was a hypothetical just showing how solar can help supplement energy production alongside the other methods in general.

As I said, as long as it's not displacing clean baseload, I'm fine with it. If you are dumping 5gCO2/kWh nuke output for 48gCO2/kWh solar, you are doing it wrong.

 

[tyman]

As I said, as long as it's not displacing clean baseload, I'm fine with it. If you are dumping 5gCO2/kWh nuke output for 48gCO2/kWh solar, you are doing it wrong.

Absolutely.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Batteries have a short lifespan, have a tendency to catch fire and are extremely expensive. They are not a great "partner" for solar, despite what people are led to believe. Pumped Hydro is a much better storage medium, but clearly has other limitations.

Lets not have indoor plumbing because lead pipes leached lead.
Lets not have indoor wiring because knob and tube wiring would catch fire and burn homes down.
Lets not build houses because balloon framing is a huge fire hazard.

All of these engineering challenges were overcome with time. I'm sure it'll figure out how to stabilize storage.

 

[SeaJay]

Maybe I missed it, but to me the most important issues are (a) - property rights as regards requirements to build a structure when none presently exists, and (b) - who has to pay for the government mandated structures?

 

[JeffKeryk]

If electricity follows basic economics, the rule of supply & demand, an exponential increase in demand for EVs will result in an exponential PRICE INCREASE... UNLESS more green methods of generating power (& yes, I MEAN NUCLEAR) are brought online first! Not political, basic facts.

That's an overly simplistic view of Economics. Economics teaches us the #1 cost factor is the availability of viable alternatives. Economics history shows when there is high profit (or need) in a given product or service, opportunity emerges which leads to disruption.

But you are right, nuclear is an example of a viable alternative. And CA extending Diablo is a perfect example. Perhaps there will be others.

 

[OVERKILL]

Lets not have indoor plumbing because lead pipes leached lead.
Lets not have indoor wiring because knob and tube wiring would catch fire and burn homes down.
Lets not build houses because balloon framing is a huge fire hazard.

All of these engineering challenges were overcome with time. I'm sure it'll figure out how to stabilize storage.

That's a series of strawmen, PHES is a much more capable storage medium with a much longer lifespan and lower per kWh cost. It also has some issues (size) but batteries do not shine at long-term storage necessary to provide grid-scale firming, nor are they cost effective in this role.

To build on your lead pipe example, this would be like deciding to construct pipes out of lead-lined lithium with copper already understood and readily available.

 

[OVERKILL]

That's an overly simplistic view of Economics. Economics teaches us the #1 cost factor is the availability of viable alternatives. Economics history shows when there is high profit (or need) in a given product or service, opportunity emerges which leads to disruption.

But you are right, nuclear is an example of a viable alternative. And CA extending Diablo is a perfect example. Perhaps there will be others.

They are submitting for a 20-year license for Diablo now eh?