About the Solar and other Energy costs in Europe

Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum

Help Support Mitsubishi i-MiEV Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It would take effort and research to properly rebut this, so for now, let me just cast aspersions on the source instead:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
 
What is the actual output vs. nameplate for conventional power plants?

Solar production naturally follows the majority of the peak demand curve. When the most demand is on the grid is usually when solar is at it's maximum.

Any article I read anymore loses credibility with me when it uses stats on government subsidy money spent on renewables to try to further drive nails into the coffin. How much help has fossil fuels had from the government through the years? The US government, at least, is still directly supporting oil to keep prices at the pump artificially low. Plus, with all the money spent on purchasing refined oil for transportation fuel, only 25% of the energy is actually used to propel the vehicle.

On my most productive day, my 11.8 kW solar array held its maximum output of 10 kW (inverter-limited) for 3.5 hours (noon-3:30 PM). With solar, it takes clear, direct sunlight to reach maximum power. That is, unfortunately, how they are rated.

Here is the public portal to my system's production. Below "Energy" in the graph view, click the double left arrow to go back day by day from today and see the different production curves. April 24, 2015 was the production day mentioned above.
https://enlighten.enphaseenergy.com/pv/public_systems/D6fj257468/legacy/graph/hours
 
PV1 said:
What is the actual output vs. nameplate for conventional power plants?
That is totally irrelevant, as conventional plants have to compensate irregular fluctuations of the wind turbines and solar panels. Otherwise their actual output would be very close to the nominal output.

PV1 said:
Solar production naturally follows the majority of the peak demand curve.
Very bold statement!
Here in Estonia power consumption in wintertime is ca twice the consumption of summertime. But Sun activity in winter is maybe one tenth of that in summer, at best.
Even now in August the consumption level is rather flat through the business hours. But soon there will be clear peaks at 9...10 oclock AM and 8...9 PM.

Real time graph of Consumption and production:
http://elering.ee/production-and-consumption-3/?period=week&chart=&step=-1

European statistics show that solar power production is extremely ineffective.
 
Kuuuurija said:
European statistics show that solar power production is extremely ineffective.

Ineffective at what? Relieving peak consumption stress. Not really surprising for a country that is a net exporter of electricity ;)

What is solar or any other renewable power source effective at. Well it depends on the local circumstances. Universally, however Renewables are always effective at conserving finite fossil resource fuels for a later time when the renewable is off line. It's mostly a management issue which the electric utilities are in the infancy of learning how to do.

It's no different than managing relatively unpredictable changes in consumption loads no matter what the generation source. Once thought to be an impossible task. Now done daily around the world without much of a second thought or worry. The "concerns" are mostly just unnecessary worry and paranoia of a corporate model wondering how it will profit from more distributed generation. Why worry, when instead, suppression of renewable growth through propaganda and lobbing government for oppressive policies is so effective.

Aerowhatt
 
Not being any expert, doesn't the production/consumption mismatch mean that we need storage batteries? If your long at one time and short another, then store the long until you need it.

I have always wondered why homes and business in the US don't typically have storage batteries. I would think that the rate difference between peak day and off-peak night would justifiy the difference in most regions.
 
Phximiev said:
I have always wondered why homes and business in the US don't typically have storage batteries. I would think that the rate difference between peak day and off-peak night would justifiy the difference in most regions.

In a decade or two many will have on site storage (some of us already do :D ). It's part of the answer. We need to shake off the past norms and think outside the box.

One of the most concerned utilities in the US is Hawaii. The grids are isolated by island and can't adjust by importing and exporting electricity as needed like most areas can. They have what they are calling saturation levels of solar coming out of some residential areas during the day. This could easily be solved since most homes there heat their water with electricity. Any home which has a couple of extra square feet of space in the garage could put in a second super insulated water heater. Cold water coming into it, then next going into the original unit when a faucet is turned on in the home. During the homes peak solar production they heat (preheat) water for later when everyone gets home. The home becomes a near real time net zero energy consumer/producer during peak solar hours. Regulate the new water heater by the flow of current in and out of the house during the day (simple to do). Thereby engaging all the surplus and using it on site instead of "burdening" the utility grid with it. It would only take one in three homes in these areas outfitted with this low tech, low cost solution to evaporate the perceived problem now claimed on the local grid. It's electricity the home owner will use anyway, just stored in their garage instead of shipped out to the grid during the day and imported back from the grid after everyone gets home and begins showering, washing dishes and clothes etc. By morning the "thermal battery" is ready to soak up the next days surplus solar electricity production.

The solutions for any area will be somewhat different depending on the local fuel sources and conditions. There are cost effective solutions for most if not all of them!

Aerowhatt
 
Typically, straight grid-tie systems don't have batteries to save on costs.

I do think buffered grid-tie offers the best output. On utility-scale farms, solar panels could be wired to feed a large battery bank (obviously with a BMS), then have inverters to output power at 1/5 the rating of the array. For example, if you have 500 kW worth of solar panels, put in inverters with 100 kW total output. Now, the battery bank filters out cloud/sun bursts, smooths the output, and enables a fairly steady, predictable output from a solar farm.

There aren't any ready-made systems to do the above that I know of, but off the shelf components should be able to do it pretty easily. On the residential side of things, there is the Xantrex XW6048. With this, the solar panels directly charge a battery bank through a charge controller. The XW6048 then sees the battery voltage being at the charging threshold, and allows DC power to be inverted and fed into the AC stream. Like a standard grid-tie system, any and all available solar power keeps the batteries topped off and is sent first to the house, and any excess is sent to the grid (there is a setting to do grid-assist only and not backfeed). When the grid goes down, the XW acts like a computer UPS and instantly switches the house loads to battery/solar power. This system could also be set up to run as an off-grid system, but with the grid as a backup. The XW6048 also has a generator AC input. Grid power could be hooked up to the generator input, so that the system will run full time from battery/solar power and only use the grid when stored energy is low.

Combine the two, and you now have a very steady generation/consumption model.

(Not endorsing the Xantrex unit, just one I'm familiar with).
 
Phximiev said:
I have always wondered why homes and business in the US don't typically have storage batteries. I would think that the rate difference between peak day and off-peak night would justifiy the difference in most regions.

Most regions of the US do not have peak/off-peak pricing, and only large commercial accounts pay demand charges. Hawaii is an exception, and I don't trust their claims of saturation as much as suspect HECO's reluctance to do much of anything innovative with respect to demand-leveling services. The technology has existed for quite a while. My former home in the Atlanta GA area had a modem on the air conditioning compressor to curtail use upon command from the utility during high-demand periods, and that was almost 20 years ago. Today, it's pretty much guaranteed that solar peaking would coincide with the most air conditioning usage- a match made in supply/demand heaven.

Though grid tie battery storage is maturing fast and can involve much lower efficiency losses than ever before, it is still more cost-effective in most cases to do demand response, both through automated curtailment and bringing on optional loads, like a water preheater or EV charger.
 
Well, we do here in Phoenix with APS. For instance, we pay 9¢ a kilowatt off peak 9-9, and 12¢ on peak. There is an electric car rate that we are considering that ranges as low as 4¢ off-peak and 25¢ on peak. Whilst I can't say what others are paying, it would seem that other utilities would have similar plans.

Battery storage might make a difference to us anyways.

Then again who has that technology right now?
 
Another important piece of the puzzle is that utilities want solar centralized and utility owned for revenue purposes. This actually creates one of the perceived problems that they are complaining about. Loosing a significant portion of generation to a cloud for a short period of time. Just like making making grid fingers large enough and diverse enough to avoid large percentage swings in loads over the short term (a common grid design principle).

By distributing that same Solar farm capacity over a large geographical area (thousands of rooftops) the partly cloudy high production percentage variation is diluted to acceptable levels. But in the wide distribution scenario the utility doesn't have control of the revenue, so they lobby against it and want to add fees to undermine the positive economics of distributed solar for the owners of it. Discouraging widespread distributed generation. There is no sense in it . . . it is driven by dollars ;)

Only in the utility ownership large scale solar farm model are large battery banks needed to fill gaps. Gaps created by grouping the solar capacity in one small place, instead of scattered across the city where the cloud impact is far less dramatic and the aggregate variation is entirely predictable from satellite imagery and weather forecast data. Just as the load variation trends are now tracked and compensated for daily and are entirely predictable. By getting the entire solar industry thinking along their only acceptable model (the one with the revenue stream for utility companies) do we get to a place where we add cost and inefficiency to fit the model. Instead of making the model fit the existing landscape far more simply and efficiently.

In real terms the power company sells the excess electricity that a PV array owner produces, to their neighbors at retail. They don't have to buy fuel to generate it or the equipment to generate it. In most modern societies distributed solar it is at a maximum as loads are at maximum as well. So where is the problem or the perceived premium cost. We also have a utility owned and run pilot solar generation facility with large battery bank buffering, built with the help of large sums of federal tax dollars. It's complex, expensive and except for the centralized revenue model, unnecessary.

Whats the solution? how do we shift away from corporate thinking driving the future, and driving it poorly?

Aerowhatt
 
Kuuuurija said:
Aerowhatt said:
Ineffective at what?
Costs per kWh produced.
Over the next 23 years (25 years from install date), my solar panels, without any incentives, are cheaper than grid power. Instead of $150+ a month for dirty coal power, I'm making my own solar power for the up front cost of $130 a month. But, factoring in the rebates we got, we're getting 100% net solar power for $70 a month over the 25 year warranty on the solar panels. Our price per kWh is 7 cents, but by the time fees, charges, and tax is added, it's more like 12 cents/kWh.

Looking on Enphase at some systems in central UK, their panels are producing similar to mine.
 
PV1 said:
Over the next 23 years (25 years from install date), my solar panels, without any incentives, are cheaper than grid power.
Lucky you! Must be some exceptionally favourable conditions at your place!
But in large scale, as an average for Europe, the solar power is 14 times costlier than coal power.
 
When it comes to the true 'cost' of coal power, I think all we're seeing so far is the tip of the iceberg

When it comes down to the money saved vs the upfront cost, I'd like to see the USA mandate that all new homes be required to have solar water heating installed. We put a 40 sq ft collector on our roof about 8 years ago. It feeds two 55 gallon super insulated storage tanks and it provides 90% or more of all the hot water our household uses. Federal credits paid about half of my installation costs (I designed and installed it myself) and it easily paid for itself in less than 4 years. I figure we're saving enough not heating water that it covers the coast of recharging the car(s)

Don
 
Kuuuurija said:
PV1 said:
Over the next 23 years (25 years from install date), my solar panels, without any incentives, are cheaper than grid power.
Lucky you! Must be some exceptionally favourable conditions at your place!
But in large scale, as an average for Europe, the solar power is 14 times costlier than coal power.

The devil is in the details I'm sure. I could mount my panels upside down and achieve 14 times more expensive or less than coal power. It's a silly "fact" that was arrived at with tricks of statistics. Follow up on the foot notes etc, and I can guarantee one will find that the cost of the solar installation was amortized into it (likely for a short amortization period) while the cost of the coal power did not include the capital cost of the generation facility or some such. One could easily flip the spin and make coal 10 times more expensive than solar. Five different presuppositions will yield five different conclusions from the exact same statistic set.

They should have opted for 2 to 4 times as expensive instead. At least in a worst case scenario it might be plausible. 14 times is ridiculous and unrealistic. Even if organized crime installed them and skimmed off the top, 14 times is ridiculous!

Aerowhatt
 
I did calculation based on my real power bill once: http://www.fotothing.com/photos/92d/92ddd8b9c75ce32cc88e28516740f017_5c6.jpg
Row 4 there is renewable (mostly wind energy), row 5 oil shale energy tariff. Renewable energy was more than 11 times costlier on the real bill. For me solar 14 times costlier than coal sounds about right.
 
Kuuuurija said:
I did calculation based on my real power bill once: http://www.fotothing.com/photos/92d/92ddd8b9c75ce32cc88e28516740f017_5c6.jpg
Row 4 there is renewable (mostly wind energy), row 5 oil shale energy tariff. Renewable energy was more than 11 times costlier on the real bill. For me solar 14 times costlier than coal sounds about right.

Well there is your answer. It's not the metrics of renewables that are at fault it's your utility company, or perhaps your government, or perhaps both. They obviously don't want to be bothered with it. So what better way to get the government off their back than to send waves of unsatisfied (ripped off) customers to their doors? Smart business on their part but not very forward thinking.

No lets look at reality. My utility company offers wind and solar mix as an option for a premium of $0.017 per KWH over the price of their conventionally generated product (mostly coal and nuclear). It's voluntary and scaleable. You can select how many KWH per month you want from none up to a max of 85% of your total usage.

We have a tiered billing system, first tier is about $0.12 per KWH (with taxes and all) Second tier is $0.15 per KWH. Third tier is a bigger jump up to $0.193.

So I opted for the max 85% on utility generated solar + wind. Plus I have a small grid tie solar system with the goal of keeping me in tier 1 for what I Import (purchase from the utility).

The onsite solar produces an average of 300 KWH per month. Which keeps me in tier 1, even with the electric car charging all done at home. So here are the numbers with and without any renewables for 720 KWH per month.

NO renewables:

720 total KWH used - 450 Kwh x $0.12/Kwh = $54.00 + ( 270 Kwh X $0.15/Kwh = $40) = $94.00 per month

Maximum renewables: (remember the 1.7 cent surplus added to 85% the power purchased)

720 total KWh used - .85 x 420 Kwh = 357 Kwh: we have (357 Kwh x $0.137/Kwh) + (63 Kwh x $0.12/Kwh) = $56.47 per month + 300 Kwh made on site.

Now one must consider the cost of the onsite infrastructure to produce the 300 Kwh per month. $37.53 per month is available from the above calculations to make payments on it. The system cost me $6832.00 to install giving about a 15 year payback on the investment. Mind you that's assuming the electric rates don't rise over that time. As they do (we know they will by ~8% per year (past history)) the payback shortens because onsite production costs are fixed. Now add in the federal tax credit (30% of installation cost) and the system pays for itself in a maximum of 10 years (with flat utility rates from our power company right . . . that will happen). The shortest warranty on any of the equipment is 15 years. So with history as a guide on rising electricity rates I stand to make up to a ~10% return on my investment over the first 15 years. A safe investment (based on warranties and insurance (needed anyway) to cover most possible damage to the system. It's far and away the best paying high safety investment that I can find.

Given it is sunny here with a latitude of about 35-36 but the system still produces half of an average sunny days power on a completely overcast rainy day. No longer a Great investment but still not a bad one.

Start to consider that we have no way to safely (let alone economically viable) store or dispose of nuclear waste. That Global climate change due to the massive amount of carbon we have released into the atmosphere and oceans is probably real and a real concern. That fracking for gas and oil is destabilizing strata and at the root of recent 1000 fold increases in seismic events in some areas.

Solar energy and wind energy are not your villains. Corruption and profiteering are!

Renewable energy (especially solar) is not a be all end all to a cleaner power solution, it's a part of it. Just as our current and past energy supplies have been multifaceted, not just one source ever!

Bottom line a US utility kept mostly honest by the PRC says that their solar and wind power is ~13% more expensive than conventional.
Aerowhatt
 
I have no doubt, that for producers the renewable energy might be profitable, especially when taxpayer pays enough subsidies for that. Our most famous wind energy producers fly their private helicopter and, believe me, there is not too many people here in Estonia who can afford that. Those windmill kings were almost broke just before they entered into wind energy business.

Your calculation includes subsidies too. I do not know how much your government pays subsidies directly to the producers of the renewable energy and to the companies who produce equipment for renewable power plants.

If the renewable was efficient per se, there was no need for any subsidies and governments rather collect some extra taxes on this business.
 
Back
Top