Solar power is getting cheaper every year

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Sounds political to me. In the US all power is sold at the same price per market area.


Believe what you want. If it were market driven, then there would be ZERO solar and wind, period.
And in the US there would be zero nuclear also. Nat Gas is the great game changer here.


LOL, like Solar and Wind, it's a game changer while it's disrupting traditional installed capacity.

As soon as it kills coal and nukes, it becomes VERY expensive.

Australian NG wholesale prices were $4.50/GJ this time last year...this morning they are $11. The sate that lost it's last coal plant earlier this year has only gas and wind now, and two weeks ago the Wholesale NG prices were $35/GJ, 8 times last year.

The Gas fired thermal have a heat rate of around 11GJ/MWh, meaning that the cost of gas to supply these units is $121/MWh (12.1c/kWh) at $11, and $385 (38.5c/kWh) at 35...the simple cycle GTs have a heat rate of around 20, so at $11 gas, the GTs are 22c/kWh - simply in fuel costs, before transmission and mark-up.

 

[OVERKILL]

Ontario has 12,978MW of Nuclear and 9,942MW of Gas/Oil. It is surprising then that Nuclear generates 92,300GWh of electricity (60%), whilst Gas/Oil generates 15,400GWh (10%). The GT's are primarily used to prop up wind/solar when they aren't working. The nukes provide the base-load.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Sounds political to me. In the US all power is sold at the same price per market area.
Believe what you want. If it were market driven, then there would be ZERO solar and wind, period.
And in the US there would be zero nuclear also. Nat Gas is the great game changer here.
LOL, like Solar and Wind, it's a game changer while it's disrupting traditional installed capacity.

As soon as it kills coal and nukes, it becomes VERY expensive.

Australian NG wholesale prices were $4.50/GJ this time last year...this morning they are $11. The sate that lost it's last coal plant earlier this year has only gas and wind now, and two weeks ago the Wholesale NG prices were $35/GJ, 8 times last year.

The Gas fired thermal have a heat rate of around 11GJ/MWh, meaning that the cost of gas to supply these units is $121/MWh (12.1c/kWh) at $11, and $385 (38.5c/kWh) at 35...the simple cycle GTs have a heat rate of around 20, so at $11 gas, the GTs are 22c/kWh - simply in fuel costs, before transmission and mark-up.

Very interesting topic, once again. In the discussions I've had with "greenies", they don't understand the depth, reliability or consistentcy (sp?) of the base generation "holding up" the "green" sources. Keeping it stable. Remove that, and there would be plenty of screaming and knashing of teeth.

Here, we live in A/C. Not just due to the heat but the humidity as well. When a major storm hit Houston several years ago, there was wide-spread power outages for 4, 5, 6 weeks. Can you imagine what a life-changer that is when people are so used to reliable, consistent AC service 24/7? Furthermore, remember the disaster that New Orleans was when flooded and power-less?

As Shannow has so aptly pointed out, it's only cheap until you set the weight of the ENTIRE GRID down upon it and the people demand the same dependability, reliability, consistantcy and availablility of "their" 24/7 power needs from it. Talk about chaos. People here complain about their electric bills doubling in a single month, when the only thing that has changed is the amount used, due to increasing Summer heat & humidity. Imagine if that was compounded by greatly increased rates because their "wasn't enough to go around", rolling black-outs, sagging Voltage levels, causing burned out motors, which means there goes your fans, your HVAC system, your washer & dryer, your dishwasher and your refrigerator.

I haven't even mentioned additional issues such as power factor control nor frequency stability......

Those selling this don't even have the depth of understanding to realize how far, wide or deep the consequences would go. You just don't "wing this" or pull it off in a press release.

Imagine a car that ran this way. You can either climb that hill or use your A/C, but not both. You may have to stop "and rest" before getting to the top as well. Additionally, you may only be able to go 10mph...hope you weren't in a hurry!

Imagine a freeway clogged with cars going 10, 30 and 50mph. Some would lose power completely, unexpectedly. Just quit. Some would be fine...for now. But later, may experience "problems". You may reach your destination...or may not. It's uncertain....it "depends". Better take your bicycle in case....

Oh and if you do get stuck, forgot calling....everyone else will be trying that and the communication "back-bone" will go out. Of course, the towers are having to deal with the same unpredictable power quality, supply as above. Even with a charged phone, you're 100% dependant upon your "provider", right?

Same with electricity. The common denominator here is RELIABLE POWER GENERATION and wide-spread AVAILABILITY. Without it in the modern world, all descends into chaos, confusion and wide-spread panic.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver

As Shannow has so aptly pointed out, it's only cheap until you set the weight of the ENTIRE GRID down upon it and the people demand the same dependability, reliability, consistantcy and availablility of "their" 24/7 power needs from it. Talk about chaos. People here complain about their electric bills doubling in a single month, when the only thing that has changed is the amount used, due to increasing Summer heat & humidity. Imagine if that was compounded by greatly increased rates because their "wasn't enough to go around", rolling black-outs, sagging Voltage levels, causing burned out motors, which means there goes your fans, your HVAC system, your washer & dryer, your dishwasher and your refrigerator.

I haven't even mentioned additional issues such as power factor control nor frequency stability......


If you are interested in the read, then this event makes good reading, and is a portent of the future

South Australian Freqency Control and Ancilliary Services Event Late 2015

The aforementioned state that has gone troppo on wind, and lost it's only coal thermal two months ago was reliant on gas and coal thermal at the population end, brown coal from another state on the other, and all the wind in the middle lost the extension lead to the brown coalers, and was left with the thermals trying to control wind gusts...they had great difficulty reconnecting as they had to get the frequency and phase angle back...

 

[Vikas]

Here is the video that I was trying to find. It is very interesting prediction.

 

[Vikas]

It would be interesting to get comments from our resident experts on the hypothesis posted in the above video. I am too simpleton and do not see any obvious holes in his presentation.

 

[OVERKILL]

I'm no expert but I see the following flaws:

- The talk about disrupting the Utility's pricing power by leveraging storage.
- Dealing with eliminating peakers by leveraging the same policy.

The utilities aren't going to just bend over and let the market screw them out of their revenue. So they will either get involved, which will end up screwing the consumer, or they will change their pricing models. JMHO of course, but I can't see that just continuing the way it is if the fundamentals of everything around it change dramatically.

I find the cars being "power plants on wheels" idea novel and the 50% figure impressive (Norway uses about the same amount of power as Ontario, and generates the vast majority of it with hydro electric according to their Wiki) however I didn't see any mention as to how them constantly going on and off-line would be managed

It isn't like that capacity just sits there plugged in all the time.

 

[Shannow]

Size/Scale

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Like I mentioned in another thread, those greenies will be the first ones to scream bloody murder once they are unable to afford their electric bill or to charge their electric car. Of course they will be all surprised when it happens because they were always told half of the story that wind and solar are free. Some members in this and other threads are trying to give the full picture to the whole renewable energy movement, but as can be clearly seen, a lot of people simply do not want to listen, or do not understand the topic.
For an average Joe/Jane, he/she can easily picture free wind blowing or free sun shining during the day, so yeah, the energy captured should be very cheap. The moment you start talking about storage, transmission, peak times etc. they are totally lost.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Do you know the topic of this thread ? It is clearly stated:
"Solar power is getting cheaper every year"

Did you read my post above ?

DEWA's customers will not get 2.99 cents/kWh. But there is no evidence DEWA's customers will get raped after this 800 megawatts from solar get online in the near future.

DEWA does have enough power to supply its customers 24/7, this 800 megawatts is to replace some power plants when it is generate electricity, which is during daytime only. In the evening the idle plants will resume supplying power.

As of now DEWA didn't announced any plan of storage for this 800 megawatts of solar power.

The topic is very simple and clear, it is impossible to misunderstand, but you still have a hard time to understand what the topic is about.


Originally Posted By: Shannow
But As it forces tradition power out of the grid, Solar and Wind HAVE to step up to the plate, and provide actual power 24/7, and the grid stability that they (wind and solar) rely on the thermals providing for their very operation.

So discussion about 4 times the nameplate rating, and the expense of stoarge are ENTIRELY pertinent to a thread on "Solar Power is Getting Cheaper Every Year", as when you get your wish, it will be VERY VERY expensive, and the peak prices will be from storage, through the night, not when there's excess supply during the day.

The discussion on how cheap solar is HAS to include discussion on what happens when it moves traditional power out.

Or (and again) you are burying your head in the sand, and living in an imaginary world.

Shannow, your head is in the sand for too long, you can't think like a normal person.

There is no Cardinal Rule states that if a power company has access to Solar Power then that company has to dismantled traditional power plants. In this discussion, there is no rule that says DEWA needs to destroy a number of power plants that generate 800 MW that they will get from Solar farm in a year or two.

Assume that DEWA needs 4,000 MW(4 GW) an hour during hot summer between 12PM and 10 PM, the power demand drops to 2 GW from 10 PM to 8 AM and increases to 3 GW from 8AM to 12 PM. Incorporate the 0.8 GW solar power for Dubai during summer months will reduce the traditional power by that amount from 8 AM to 6 PM. The comparison below shows the old power generation and the new way with solar power incorporated in 24 hours time frame.

8AM-12PM 12PM-6PM 6PM-10PM 10PM-8AM
Traditional power(old) 3,000 MW 4,000 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Solar power-------------- 800 MW---800 MW-----zero-----zero
Traditional power(new) 2,200 MW 3,200 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Where power storage is needed ?

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Same with electricity. The common denominator here is RELIABLE POWER GENERATION and wide-spread AVAILABILITY. Without it in the modern world, all descends into chaos, confusion and wide-spread panic.

Everyone in the power industry knew that solar and wind are non-reliable, especially wind power.

Only few years ago(no more than 10 years) power companies in US built some traditional power plant(mostly natural gas) because of increased demand. At that time solar power was too expensive, way more than 30-40 cents per kWh, while a gas fired power can be as low as 3-4 cents or less.

If solar power can be this cheap why not incorporate it into total power supply ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Shannow, your head is in the sand for too long, you can't think like a normal person.

There is no Cardinal Rule states that if a power company has access to Solar Power then that company has to dismantled traditional power plants. In this discussion, there is no rule that says DEWA needs to destroy a number of power plants that generate 800 MW that they will get from Solar farm in a year or two.


you can always try reading and comprehending what I wrote.

As these technologies push in, they make the existing less viable...that's EXACTLY what the video vikas posted says, and any number of links that have been posted about the disruptive technologies PUSHING traditional power costs higher to achieve equality and competitiveness...when the thermal operator takes enough pain, they say "enough" and turn the plant off.

That is EXACTLY what has happened in south Australia...the plants that see too many negative prices (that's what disruptive technologies do) shut down...their last coaler did in May, now they are struggling as a state to balancing gas and electricity prices, as the gas can EITHER go to wholesale, or to electricity...and that state is CURRENTLY, as I type this running 9.499c/KWh wholesale electricity prices versus 2.3 to 2.7c in the other states, and that is with the wind blowing.

Disruptive technologies as stated in the above videos disrupt the status quo...in response, businesses make decisions and often those include shutting down part or all of a business (the term "stranded assets" in vikas' video mean anything ?)

WHEN you end up with a renewable power scheme, my point IS that you MUST include storage, and the end result is expensive...so expensive that you'll pay more charging your tesla at night than at midday.

Not paying any attention to your "model"...

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Shannow, your head is in the sand for too long, you can't think like a normal person.

There is no Cardinal Rule states that if a power company has access to Solar Power then that company has to dismantled traditional power plants. In this discussion, there is no rule that says DEWA needs to destroy a number of power plants that generate 800 MW that they will get from Solar farm in a year or two.


Originally Posted By: Shannow
you can always try reading and comprehending what I wrote.

As these technologies push in, they make the existing less viable...that's EXACTLY what the video vikas posted says, and any number of links that have been posted about the disruptive technologies PUSHING traditional power costs higher to achieve equality and competitiveness...when the thermal operator takes enough pain, they say "enough" and turn the plant off.

That is EXACTLY what has happened in south Australia...the plants that see too many negative prices (that's what disruptive technologies do) shut down...their last coaler did in May, now they are struggling as a state to balancing gas and electricity prices, as the gas can EITHER go to wholesale, or to electricity...and that state is CURRENTLY, as I type this running 9.499c/KWh wholesale electricity prices versus 2.3 to 2.7c in the other states, and that is with the wind blowing.

Disruptive technologies as stated in the above videos disrupt the status quo...in response, businesses make decisions and often those include shutting down part or all of a business (the term "stranded assets" in vikas' video mean anything ?)

WHEN you end up with a renewable power scheme, my point IS that you MUST include storage, and the end result is expensive...so expensive that you'll pay more charging your tesla at night than at midday.

Not paying any attention to your "model"...

No. You are absolutely wrong for claiming "WHEN you end up with a renewable power scheme, my point IS that you MUST include storage"

I gave you an example of why and how you incorporate the new found renewable power in to your total power supply with a single watt of power storage is needed.

You need to get your head out of the sand first, you need to know that the people who runs multi-billions power companies are not too dumb. They know solar isn't available 24/7 and they know that they need to provide power to their customers 24/7 not 8-10 hours a day.

 

[turtlevette]

I forsee complex rates that change hourly to modify peoples useage. You'll end up paying ungodly rates if you use on peak. With electronic meters its possible. The utility will download real time rates right into the meter thru the internet.

Thing is, the peaks won't be predictable anymore.

People will then automate their homes to dump loads on peak to save. I could load shed my hot tub and save a ton of money.

 

[turtlevette]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


Solar power-------------- 800 MW---800 MW-----zero-----zero
Traditional power(new) 2,200 MW 3,200 MW 4,000 MW 2,000 MW

Where power storage is needed ?


Regionally,

It'll be a lot worse than that. Try 2200. 200 1000 10 4000

I'm curious. Are you "self taught" ?

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
I'm curious. Are you "self taught" ?


Not sure why you would ask that turtle, the highly sophisticated "linear lego block" model of the duynamics of market forces in an oversupplied market is a stroke of genius.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

No. You are absolutely wrong for claiming "WHEN you end up with a renewable power scheme, my point IS that you MUST include storage"

I gave you an example of why and how you incorporate the new found renewable power in to your total power supply with a single watt of power storage is needed.

You need to get your head out of the sand first, you need to know that the people who runs multi-billions power companies are not too dumb. They know solar isn't available 24/7 and they know that they need to provide power to their customers 24/7 not 8-10 hours a day.


You aren't quite understanding what he's saying, that's why you are at odds with him right now and claiming he is wrong.

The goal is never to just install 800MW of solar and allow it to coexist with something like a coal plant. The idea is to install enough renewables to REPLACE the coal plant.

Why?

Coal cannot be used (as it is leveraged) as a peaker. A coal plant takes a very long time to come online, and once it is online, it has a range of rampability to deal with demand variance, this is the same with other steam turbines. Subsequently, if you bring enough renewables online to displace the coal plant and shut it down, you can't just fire it back up when the demand increases.

To deal with spikes in demand, as covered in the video Vikas shared, you have to use something that is dispatchable like a GT, gasser or oil, and with that dispatchability comes a price premium. This is part of the justification for the price of power during peak times, the operation of these "peaker" plants that come on-line quickly to deal with spikes in demand.

My takeaway from what Shannow has stated is that the economics of operating a plant depend on the operator being able to SELL that power on the market. If you displace the demand for that power with renewables, you've removed a portion of that ability. That money is used for paying staff, buying fuel, maintenance, upgrades....etc. Once the plant becomes non-viable, it is shuttered. The operator is not in the game to lose money; they are not a charity. Unlike the renewables, which, in many locations, are paid to NOT make power at times (as per my Ontario thread) and are compensated via contracts that guarantee them well above market value, these "dirty" generators are not. They make money because of the volume of power they are able produce and sell at the low market rates.

Subsequently you have:

- Operators looking at shuttering plants that aren't profitable
- Operators looking at investing in storage to replace that lost revenue
- Operators looking at ways to increase their prices to account for their lost revenue

All of the above are expensive and those costs will be offloaded onto the consumer via higher rates, because as noted, these businesses are not a charity, their goal is to make money and if you make that more difficult/expensive, you will pay more for the product.

I think turtlevette's point about the who rate curve changing makes sense. Instead of our current demand/pricing curve, you will have dynamic pricing that follows the changing load curve and may mean that plugging your Tesla in at night all of a sudden isn't cheap anymore, but may in fact be the most expensive time to charge, as you are doing it the same time as everybody else and where is that power now coming from?

 

[Vikas]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
I'm no expert but I see the following flaws:

- The talk about disrupting the Utility's pricing power by leveraging storage.
- Dealing with eliminating peakers by leveraging the same policy.

The utilities aren't going to just bend over and let the market screw them out of their revenue. So they will either get involved, which will end up screwing the consumer, or they will change their pricing models. JMHO of course, but I can't see that just continuing the way it is if the fundamentals of everything around it change dramatically.

I find the cars being "power plants on wheels" idea novel and the 50% figure impressive (Norway uses about the same amount of power as Ontario, and generates the vast majority of it with hydro electric according to their Wiki) however I didn't see any mention as to how them constantly going on and off-line would be managed

It isn't like that capacity just sits there plugged in all the time.

I understand your point and also agree somewhat to it. But it is impossible to discuss this rationally if we believe that utility companies are out to screw us and would do anything and everything to protect their livelihood.

When we talk about disruptive technologies, the entrenched interests use every legal and illegal method to stop disruptive technology (e.g. Uber vs taxicabs industry etc). Some of the new technologies fail in the marketplace but massively disruptive technologies manage to overcome the vested and legacy interests. Sometimes, the legacy players themselves embrace the new technology and then there is irreversible push away from the legacy technology.

If a person has followed the silicon exponential revolution, he should be able to predict the technology trends for next few decades with reasonable accuracy.

There is a full hour video presented by the same person who talks about coming disruptive changes. It is eminently rational, data driven and interesting to watch.

 

[SHOZ]

Not all storage is overly expensive. Some actually save money compared to the old way of generation vs new with storage.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Vikas

I understand your point and also agree somewhat to it. But it is impossible to discuss this rationally if we believe that utility companies are out to screw us and would do anything and everything to protect their livelihood.


Perhaps "screw" was a bit harsh. I mean that they are looking to make a profit, being private businesses, and subsequently will do what is necessary in order to keep making a profit. They will change to adapt to the landscape if the landscape changes.

Originally Posted By: Vikas
When we talk about disruptive technologies, the entrenched interests use every legal and illegal method to stop disruptive technology (e.g. Uber vs taxicabs industry etc). Some of the new technologies fail in the marketplace but massively disruptive technologies manage to overcome the vested and legacy interests. Sometimes, the legacy players themselves embrace the new technology and then there is irreversible push away from the legacy technology.


And that's what we've seen up here, the Utility (like my local one) adopts the highly subsidized disruptive themselves in order to capitalize on the incentives. If storage is marketed in the same way or propped up by government in the same way, I see the same thing happening. It only makes sense in the context of ensuring their existence and revenue stream. Unfortunately, this means that we are still at their mercy.

Originally Posted By: Vikas
If a person has followed the silicon exponential revolution, he should be able to predict the technology trends for next few decades with reasonable accuracy.

There is a full hour video presented by the same person who talks about coming disruptive changes. It is eminently rational, data driven and interesting to watch.


If you've got the link for that one handy, I'd love to watch it this evening.

My concern isn't with the issue of the trends but rather the potential price that goes along with it. If you read my Ontario thread before it got locked, you could see what government meddling and incentive-driven policy to force this sort of adoption ends up costing the ratepayer. In our case it is 77% of our bill

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: SHOZ
Not all storage is overly expensive. Some actually save money compared to the old way of generation vs new with storage.


No, but not all modes are viable for a given location either. You can use a hydro electric dam as inexpensive and effective storage (which, conveniently, is the primary generator in the location that the presenter in the link Vikas shared hails from) but in locations with little to no HE capacity, what are the inexpensive alternatives? Batteries are much less energy dense than fossil fuels and subsequently expensive with a relatively short lifespan.