Developments and News in clean energy: Wind, solar and batteries grow despite economic challenges

T. A. Gardner said:
So, Spain alone, according to the article needs to dump somewhere between 50 and 100 billion euros into building storage (roughly 200 GWh) in the next few years to have a hope of even coming close to solving this problem. That doesn't sound like much of a solution to me
Click to expand...

Based on a cursory AI investigation (but words and some additional context by me, so as not have you unintentionally debate an AI by proxy) that figure is all inclusive and the 100 billion is the upmost limit required; batteries, grid transmission, management, etc. (that sum would net a sizeable excess of pure storage). As Spain is well placed to produce renewable energy, storage notwithstanding, it's not irrational for the EU to strengthen connections to benefit from this resource.

I view this as a positive problem: Excess power is an economic multiplier and in the current global environment, it's worth building even with (some fractional) public support to strengthen independence, resilience and overall growth in the defense of rules and democracy based spaces. The cost will not fall on Spain alone as there are beneficiaries elsewhere as well and while the 50 to 100 billion € price tag sounds steep, over the time period it's between 0.5% and 1% of their GDP. So I'd like to be somewhat more positive about this actually being a workable solution rather than some unproductive "dump" into oblivion.

It's too bad the EU and Spain are in a rush as there are better options for grid storage emerging. The first round of this will by economic and production inertia be LFP but things like sodium batteries will very likely bring prices lower still for those who are not in a rush and/or eventual replacements, freeing the lithium to be recycled.
 
UpForce said:
Based on a cursory AI investigation (but words and some additional context by me, so as not have you unintentionally debate an AI by proxy) that figure is all inclusive and the 100 billion is the upmost limit required; batteries, grid transmission, management, etc. (that sum would net a sizeable excess of pure storage). As Spain is well placed to produce renewable energy, storage notwithstanding, it's not irrational for the EU to strengthen connections to benefit from this resource.

I view this as a positive problem: Excess power is an economic multiplier and in the current global environment, it's worth building even with (some fractional) public support to strengthen independence, resilience and overall growth in the defense of rules and democracy based spaces. The cost will not fall on Spain alone as there are beneficiaries elsewhere as well and while the 50 to 100 billion € price tag sounds steep, over the time period it's between 0.5% and 1% of their GDP. So I'd like to be somewhat more positive about this actually being a workable solution rather than some unproductive "dump" into oblivion.

It's too bad the EU and Spain are in a rush as there are better options for grid storage emerging. The first round of this will by economic and production inertia be LFP but things like sodium batteries will very likely bring prices lower still for those who are not in a rush and/or eventual replacements, freeing the lithium to be recycled.
Click to expand...
Whereas I see it as a solution to a problem that shouldn't have occurred in the first place. With solar--and this is rough but reasonably accurate--you need for generation of a kilowatt-day (one kw for 24 hours / continuous output):

4 or 5 kw of installed solar panels
3 or 4 kw of installed storage
The associated switchgear, inverters, and distribution equipment.

For natural gas, oil, nuclear, etc. you need:

1 kw of installed capacity
The associated switchgear and distribution equipment (inverters not needed).

The bottom line is that solar is the most expensive and least efficient way to produce reliable, 24-hour, power output there is. Wind is better by a bit, and fossil fuels and nuclear blow either away completely in terms of cost effectiveness.

For solar to be really reliable, you really need about 20 to 30 hours of storage capacity minimum and the excess generation capacity to keep that storage system filled. All of that is added cost due to the inefficiency of solar as a generation source.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You need for generation of a kilowatt-day (one kw for 24 hours / continuous output):

4 or 5 kw of installed solar panels
3 or 4 kw of installed storage
The associated switchgear, inverters, and distribution equipment.

For natural gas, oil, nuclear, etc. you need:

1 kw of installed capacity
The associated switchgear and distribution equipment (inverters not needed).

The bottom line is that solar is the most expensive and least efficient way to produce reliable, 24-hour, power output there is.
Click to expand...
Solar panels are already fraction of the cost of generator+fuel in place with good sunlight, that is why additions are happening even in markets without subsidies.

Storage have historically pushed prices beyond gas/coal, however (short term) storage costs are dropping fast with developments of things like sodium battery.
------
In any case, "excess" solar production is optimal with anywhere near historical storage costs. If you scale solar for winter, you get excess power in the summer, and building storage to last seasons is insane.

Some "waste" in excess power is fine when it cheaper than additional generators and operating costs of alternative types to cover the load.
------
In any case, solar is hardly remotely the expensive option in real life. An average bungled nuclear project (which is most of them) wouldn't finish paying the consultants, lawyers and NIMBY for the same amount of money.
 
shin_getter said:
Solar panels are already fraction of the cost of generator+fuel in place with good sunlight, that is why additions are happening even in markets without subsidies.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. If they were free, solar would still be too expensive. The only way to make them work in the residential and commercial building market is either subsidies or getting a kw of power above about .25 US.
shin_getter said:
Storage have historically pushed prices beyond gas/coal, however (short term) storage costs are dropping fast with developments of things like sodium battery.
Click to expand...

Storage is down to between about $175 and $225 a kwh. Even if it were half that price, the amount needed makes it prohibitive in cost to replace stable, base generation systems. That aside, those same base generation systems don't require any storage.
shin_getter said:
------
In any case, "excess" solar production is optimal with anywhere near historical storage costs. If you scale solar for winter, you get excess power in the summer, and building storage to last seasons is insane.
Click to expand...

Excess solar production is usually dumped at negative value on available other systems. In the US, California pays Arizona and Nevada to take excess wind and solar power when it occurs. This drives up the cost of electricity in California for customers while having no effect on prices in Arizona or Nevada which remain low.
shin_getter said:
Some "waste" in excess power is fine when it cheaper than additional generators and operating costs of alternative types to cover the load.
Click to expand...

Unless you have storage, you cannot have "waste" / "excess" power in an electrical generation system. You generate what you use.
shin_getter said:
------
In any case, solar is hardly remotely the expensive option in real life. An average bungled nuclear project (which is most of them) wouldn't finish paying the consultants, lawyers and NIMBY for the same amount of money.
Click to expand...
Solar is easily the most expensive means to make electricity commercially. That's why the price of electricity in countries that have heavily adopted it have the highest cost per kwh in the world.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Solar is easily the most expensive means to make electricity commercially. That's why the price of electricity in countries that have heavily adopted it have the highest cost per kwh in the world.
Click to expand...
How about you supply some evidence instead of opinion.
 
GTX said:
How about you supply some evidence instead of opinion.
Click to expand...
Here's the math in a basic example:

In a commercial system you need to supply electricity reliably 24/7. Intermittent systems won't cut it. Solar is an intermittent system.

If the sun shines say 14 hours in a day and production is something like a bell curve, where early and late in the day the system produces only partial power let's say you get 10 hours of full production and another 4 of partial. That means you need, minimally, 10 hours of storage to cover the period where solar isn't producing.

The first way you can do this is build a second power plant with equal output, say like a natural gas plant, that runs when solar isn't producing sufficient power to meet demand. If you choose this solution now you've paid for two power plants rather than one.

The second is to use storage. You need storage that equals, and preferably exceeds, the number of hours that it has to meet demand. By making this more than just what's necessary you have some leeway to cover variations in weather and such. You also need to install additional generation capacity to what you are using to supply the grid when the sun is shining to feed power to the storage system.

Now, here's the math on that in general terms.

For a 24/7 solar array, you need 5 kw of installed capacity to generate 1 kw-day of power (24 hours). You then have to add in 12 to 16 kwh of storage capacity to cover shortfalls or nonproduction time for the array.

The problem right now is that solar's cost is calculated as the Levelized Cost of Electrical generation, that doesn't take into account this intermittent nature of solar.

image.png


All LCOE does is look at the cost of the plant, the cost of operation, and how much the plant will produce over its lifetime. It doesn't look at all at the plant in terms of its place in a system that must generate electricity 24/7 365. When you look at it like that, suddenly solar is prohibitively expensive.

That is why the cost of electricity in nations that have gone all-in on solar and wind have the highest cost per kwh electricity in the world.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom