Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

June 1, 2015, 9:10 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by ristvan

Peaking power means power generated to satisfy demand that’s not satisfied by base load generation or by generation that’s determined by non-controllable factors like sunshine or winds. It’s the most valuable form of power per unit of produced energy. Of the renewables only hydro (with reservoirs) is suitable for peaking generation (solar used to drive air-conditioning has a somewhat similar role, but not exactly the same).

Thus it’s highly inappropriate to compare renewables to peaking units and much more justified to compare the cost of renewable generation to the cost of base load generation. As long as the share of wind power is small is small comparing its costs with the cost of base load units is not a bad idea, but with increasing share of wind the relative economics gets worse.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 9:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by rogercaiazza

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

Fuel Diversification: The background for this below post is Dr. Curry's post on coal by Politico (e.g., Sierra Club's success in blocking and retiring coal units here in the U.S.). In sworn testimony (time and again) by Electric Utility CEOs before Congress, the key point they make of why the U.S. needs Nuclear Power is the need for fuel diversification (hedging risk) -- and not to become overly dependent on natural gas. If one agrees with this (which I do), then its important to be consistent and apply this hedging strategy not just to base load generation (nuclear) but also to peaking generation also. For fuel diversification arguments alone, this tells us that current technology Renewables have a rightful, justified by engineering economics, place in our generation mix (which will be different say in South Dakota versus Mississippi).

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by rogercaiazza

June 1, 2015, 9:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

Here is my question for you. You say that renewables are primarily for peaking load. Are you saying that renewables can be used instead of modern peaking turbines to replace old, inefficient, and high pollution rate peaking turbines that have to be replaced to meet lower pollution standards?

In my opinion the need for new generation for high energy demand days in the northeast cannot be met with renewables because on the worst days (multi-day stagnating high pressure system) the wind resource is too low capacity. Solar on the other hand can help shave that peak. However, both solar and wind subsidies ultimately reduce the cost of power on other high demand days which makes the return on investment for the new replacement turbines lower. Is it not possible that the prices will get so low that the only way anyone will invest in new peaker turbines is if they get subsidies.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

June 1, 2015, 9:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by rogercaiazza

In almost all cases wind and solar add to the need of real peaking power rather than reduce that. They have in a sense a negative peaking capacity.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 9:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by jacksmith4tx

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

rogercaiazza — I addressed your point by introducing the engineering concept of ELCC. Do some research on ELCC and then comment. In your research (the Dept. of Energy and its Labs like NREL have a ton of info on this) you will find that Utilities say in Nevada and even New York are applying a capacity value of ~80% on some of their solar projects.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by jacksmith4tx

June 1, 2015, 9:28 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

Two years ago I experienced a electrical ‘disruption’ that cost me a $75 PC power supply and a $130 graphics card. I contacted the grid operator about my damages and was reminded that they can not be held responsible for damage to customer’s equipment due to grid fluctuations. So I bought a couple of UPS units and guess what I found out? Turns out I am experiencing at least 2 electrical ‘events’ per month. So in my experience my grid is very reliable if it’s not really wet, windy, hot or cold.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 9:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by jacksmith4tx

A gazillion engineers say at MIT, the U.S. Department of Energy and its Labs, Technology Organization like EPRI, disagree with you.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

June 1, 2015, 9:34 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by zentgraf2

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

You know, I think we should emphasis biofuels and nationalize all farms :)

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by zentgraf2

June 1, 2015, 9:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

ristvan, thanks your comment is helpful.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

June 1, 2015, 9:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by zentgraf2

As I wrote in my earlier comment and as many others have already written here solar power has an advantage when the peak load occurs regularly during the sunniest hours. Under those conditions solar energy is in part comparable in value with peaking power. In less sunny regions the situation is different. It’s particularly different in regions, where the peak load occurs in winter.

Wind is never comparable to peaking power, it’s closer to base load, but worse than that.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 9:43 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

Current U.S. Penetration Levels of Solar: To put things in “Real World” context, one needs to look at the facts here in the U.S.

Per EIA, Solar’s generation mix is .004. The U.S. has a very long ways to go before solar penetration could possibly be creating “major problems” throughout the U.S.

Feel free to “Nudge” me on this when Solar becomes say, 5%.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 9:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

captdallas — You forgot to add that each Farmer should be given 1 gazzillion dollars, because we are wonderful people.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

June 1, 2015, 9:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Dan Pangburn

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

In regions with operational energy markets based on hourly (or semi-hourly) prices the value of limited amount of renewable generation can be determined best by using for all generated energy the price of the particular hour of generation. That’s a simple and straightforward method for finding the value of the generation.

When the share of the renewable generation grows, it affects the hourly prices so much that the approach becomes less accurate.

↧

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Dan Pangburn

June 1, 2015, 9:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Pekka Pirilä

Climategrog – Apparently you scanned the agwunveiled paper a bit too quickly or perhaps you were blinded by preconceived notions. You say “mix of subsets”. It is unclear to what ‘mix of subsets’ refers. Only one set of sunspot numbers is used and the net of ocean cycles is represented by a single approximation (it appears to be dominated by AMO and PDO). The finding is that the long term trend since the depths of the LIA results from effects that identify with a proxy, the time-integral of the sunspot number anomaly. Ocean cycles neither add nor subtract significant amounts of energy but cause the surface temperature measurements to oscillate above and below the long term trend which is driven by the sunspot number anomaly time-integral.

Because SST was not used, it is unclear what you mean by “massive corrections”.

I agree with your antagonism towards the propensity to use straight lines to summarize what is obviously not straight. Particularly bogus is extrapolation of linear regression as a predictor. A cautious 5-year running average smoothing tamed the random uncertainty in reported average global temperatures as shown by comparing Figures 1 and 1.1 in the paper at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

June 1, 2015, 10:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Barnes

≪ Previous: Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Dan Pangburn

Stephen, the cost of solar is going to go down and the options are going to improve. Doesn’t make a lot of sense to build out much in that situation.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Barnes

June 1, 2015, 10:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

Except that for home solar installations, net metering means that they are being paid a retail rate for energy being put back onto the grid without having to pay for the meter or any additional connection fee. If I understand, or interpret, this post correctly, it appears that Californians get a premium for their net metering when compared to the cost of conventional power generation.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

June 1, 2015, 10:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by Barnes

nope, the farmers are going to have to buy equipment at retail and sell crops at wholesale. I get the big bucks because it was my idea, even though I know squat about farming.

↧

Comment on Solar grid parity? by Stephen Segrest

June 1, 2015, 10:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Solar grid parity? by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

captdallas — Remember, I just “hate” things like a Federal Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (or even State locked in concrete percentages) — that put decision making in the hands of Politicians rather than our Engineers.

Personally, I think in the “big picture” of things, everything is currently going OK here in the U.S. (e.g., State “targets” and not “mandates”) — lets see what happens over the next few years.

↧