|
Open (Not Ukraine) Thread 220
News & views (not related to the war in Ukraine) …
Before my recent trip to attend my best friend’s wedding, an anonymous poster accused me of the “Crime” of plagiarism 10 years ago. I note that since his “Ambush” he stopped posting here..
He directed readers here to….
https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-internet-as-information.html
In which Louis DeSouza complains he was plagiarized…. by Public Research Institute
Who according to the oil drum’s last issue…..
http://theoildrum.com/node/10249
Luís Alexandre Duque Moreira de Sousa (Luís de Sousa) is a researcher at the Public Research Institute and a Ph.D. student in Informatics Engineering at the Technical University of Lisbon. Luís created the first Portuguese language website dedicated to Peak Oil in 2005 (PicoDoPetroleo.net); in 2006 he would be one of the founders of ASPO-Portugal and later that year integrated the team that started the European branch of The Oil Drum. Since then he has continuously written about Energy and its interplay with Politics and Economics, both in English and Portuguese. Luís is a regular presence at the collective blog European Tribune and writes on the broader issues of life on his personal blog AtTheEdgeOfTime.
I am the Executive Director of Public Research Institute, the world wide parent organization of the chapter which employed Luis. Our board sets policy, including employment policy for the entirety of the Public Research Institute. Our employment policy for staff and employees is clear.. The entirety of their research findings and writings are assigned to Public Research Institute for use in furtherance of it’s charitable objectives
In other words Luis made a stink 10 years ago because I the big boss took his draft report from our server, re-wrote it into a format targeting a broad audience, and expanded it to include new findings, and posted it on Informed Comment for the purpose of presenting those ideas to a wider public.
This matter initially surprised me. So, we investigated Luis. We found that much of his “reputation” consisted of his taking Institute reports and research and publishing these as his own personal work. Shortly thereafter Luis needed a new job, the oil drum ceased publication, and the affiliation with Technical University of Lisbon ceased.
Today ASPO-Portugal is a betting parlor… http://www.picodopetroleo.net is a sports betting site
AND….
Luis last posted to his blog in 2018 mostly about his music.
SO…
Luis no longer posts WRT energy matters, most likely because his career as an itinerant musician precludes it..
So what was the furor all about… It was this short report…
The real problem with Renewables: Wind Turbine & Panel Prices in Free Fall, & the Fuel is Free:
(A compendium of ideas from within and without the Institute, unified with original research by Institute staff.)
Summary:
A paradigm shift in energy is underway.
The total spent on upstream oil and gas exploration and production between 1998 and 2005 was $1.5 trillion USD, which yielded an increase in oil production of 8.6 million barrels a day, worth $905 million per day, with five years production increase repaying this seven year investment.
However, between 2005 and 2013 an additional $4 trillion was spent on oil and gas exploration and production, which was only able to reduce the collapse of conventional oil production to – $1 million barrels a day. This huge investment, netted a negative (-) $100 million per day, -$ 38.25 billion per year a return of – 0.96% per year.
Given the world’s willingness to invest $ 500,000,000,000 ( $ 500 Billion USD ) per year in energy resources, where should these funds be invested? We of The Institute, believe that investing such sums in Renewable Energies will yield positive returns, on many fronts, providing ~ 500 Gwe of generation capacity additions annually. Four years of such additions, would provide 2 Twe of PV capacity. Four and a half years of such additions would provide 1.75 Twe of wind capacity, an additional 15 months is sufficient to provide 500 Gwe of GeoThermal capacity, and finally an additional 9 months of such additions would expand US HydroPower production to 200 Gwe, the feasible limit. That is, were such sums invested in a mix of renewable power sources, consisting of 2 Twe of PV, 1.75 Twe of wind, 500 Gwe of GeoThermal, and 200 Gwe of Hydro, renewable energies could power the US economy, and completely replace fossil fuels within 10 ½ years, simply by redirecting existing energy development funds!
As summarized above, the cost efficient generating potential of renewable sources of electricity; hydro, GeoThermal, wind, and solar photo-voltaic is grossly underestimated, and their generation costs are grossly over estimated. Virtually all observers treat these industries act as if they were static, when in fact, they are among the most dynamic in existence. Their presence in the grid, challenges utility companies and governments because their prices are in free fall and they require no fuel. The wind turbine and solar photo-voltaic markets are following the path pioneered by the computer hardware market, obeying Moore’s Law, with exponentially declining costs and pricing. These technologies feature continual improvements in efficiency and output, which have yet to run their course, because important new breakthroughs have yet to reach the market.
Wind, solar, hydro, and GeoThermal electricity-production requires no fuel to produce electricity, quite unlike hydrocarbon fired power plants which incur fuel costs every time they produce power. Operators of fuel consuming power stations must source and pay for fuel, via long term contracts(preferred), or via purchases in the volatile spot market(to be avoided if at all possible). Operation and Maintenance(O&M) of fuel consuming power stations, with their complex machinery, is an order of magnitude greater than O&M for a wind turbine, solar PV array, hydro dam, or GeoThermal plant. Predictable O&M costs, independent of output, permit generation of additional power from an operating hydro electric dam, GeoThermal field, solar PV array, or wind turbine, at virtually zero additional cost per kWh. Thus, the marginal cost of producing electricity via wind turbines, solar PV arrays, hydro-electric dams, and GeoThermal Fields, is virtually zero ($0.00/kWh).
Wind turbines, solar PV arrays, hydro-electric dams, and GeoThermal Fields generate electricity. When injected into the grid, that electricity is identical to any other. Moreover, the small areal extent of renewable power generation facilities, means that numerous plants will be affected by meteorological features, producing synchronously. Thus all PV systems in a region are likely to be producing power if the sun is shining, even more so under partly cloudy conditions, all wind turbines in a region are likely to be producing power if that day is windy, and all hydro-electric dams in a region are likely to be producing power if there was sufficient rainfall. Markets where many small producers produce identical products, with concurrent maximum production due to seasonal factors, are called Concurrent Perfect Competition Markets(CPCMs). Such markets are quite common in agriculture, have been widely studied, and their characteristics known. A signature characteristic of such markets, is prices which match marginal costs, long term. Consequently, producers struggle to make a profit, and subsidies must be provided to assure supply.
CPCMs with a marginal cost of zero are new. This characteristic of renewable electricity generation, leads to collapse of spot electricity prices during sunny summer days, or during storms, to zero or less. As the percentage of grid connected supply from renewable power producers, grows, price of this supply will decline, and eventually approach zero.
Renewable power generation’s marginal costs are financially devastating electricity suppliers dependent upon fossil fuel energies. They simply cannot survive in such an environment. Government inaction thus far is for the purpose of protecting traditional electric utilities, while giving lip service to those who revere the market.
In Europe, neither as sunny or as windy as the US, a fully liberalized market with significant renewable electricity production is creating all sorts of problems. Unable to pass on management costs, grid managers are unwilling to reconfigure a grid designed to market central station power, into one capable of managing distributed and fluctuating power sources. In consequence, voltage fluctuates with the wind velocity, or with variation in the amount of solar insolation available, threatening to bring the grid down. In some countries, this issue has become sufficiently serious that governments, of whatever stripe, are contemplating grid nationalization.
The US has sufficient commercial and residential roof space to host ~2 Twe of PV as shown in recent USDOE studies, since confirmed by the Institute. This would cost $744/kwe and would produce power with a Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) of $0.03/kwh, without subsidies and storage. Adding 24 hours storage raises project cost to $2346 / kwe, producing power at $0.08 / kwh. Costs of constructing these systems are so low, that their construction is inevitable. Fully implemented, rooftop PV would provide 80% of current electricity demand, in and of itself, or 3,200 Twh / yr.
The US has 2.1 million farms, averaging 420 acres, each of which has sufficient roof space for 50 kwe of PV and enough room for one 800 kwe direct drive wind turbine. US farms could host 110 Gwe of PV and 1,750 Gwe of wind turbines, producing 5,000 Twh/yr.
The US could produce 8,200 Twh/yr or 27 Quads/yr from rooftop PV and farm wind turbines alone. This is nearly twice the amount of electrical power currently supplied to customers, produced without burning a single gram of carbon based fuels, and is sufficient to run the entire economy.
Configuring hydro and GeoThermal plants to swing production, plus minor amounts of storage, would balance the US grid, eliminating any need for base load power from fossil fueled or nuclear plants.
Policy Changes Required:
To understand the policies that need be changed within the USA, for the nation to convert from fossil fuels to Renewables, it is first necessary to confront it’s myths, as follows:
a. The natural resource base is, for all practical purposes infinite.
b. The US Federal Government is revenue constrained, and running out of money.
c. The EROEI of renewables is much lower than alternatives.
d. Renewables are intermittent and unreliable, and there is no way to obviate this.
e. Renewables cost more than fossil fuels.
The Myth of an infinite resource base, is a direct consequence of the “release effect” described in “The Eternal Frontier” by Flannery, and came into existence because, to the original few thousand European settlers, the resource base of North America was enormous. Like the Folsom people who decimated the mega-fauna they found within 300 years, the European settlers churned through the resource base of North America, in a similar time frame. Just 80 years ago, US petroleum resources flowed copiously from vertical wells drilled only a few hundred meters deep, at an EROEI of > 100, while today it is necessary to drill thousands of meters down, then to make subsequent multiple horizontal branches additional thousands of meters long, then to fracture the surrounding rock to produce a hundredth as much per well per day as previously, wrung out of the rock at an EROEI of ~2.
The Myth of the US Federal Government being revenue constrained, is a hold over from the past, when the US Dollar was backed by Gold/Silver. Nixon ended that in 75, only a few years after US petroleum production peaked, leaving the US Dollar representing a claim on the “Full Faith And Credit” of the US. The advent of electronic currency means that it is not even necessary to mint coins or print banknotes, because a few keystrokes at the right terminal on the Federal Reserve’s master computer, will create trillions, from nothing.
The Myth of a low EROEI for renewables, is the direct consequence of comparing apples to oranges. Fossil fuels and the energy conversion systems they drive, are burdened only with the cost of getting petroleum to the surface, while the famous Spanish study, burdened PV with the inputs necessary to construct panels, plus the grid, plus the regulatory burden, not to mention the kitchen sink. The Energy Returned by a PV panel as compared to the energy required to manufacture that panel, is ~35:1, today.
The Myth of intermittent and unreliable renewables, focuses on conditions in one location, without storage. Given storage, and a network encompassing the entire nation, Renewables provide lower cost power, available on demand.
The Myth of high renewable generation costs, came about because as recent as 2 years ago, PV panels cost $3/watt in the US, and $2/watt in China. Today Sun Electronics of Miami sells PV at $0.38 / watt FOB Miami, and PV manufacturers in China sell 22% efficient PV for $0.25/watt by the 40 ft container load.
Effect on Long Term Supply Contracts:
Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that El Paso Electric is paying First Solar $0.579/kWh for power from the 50Mwe utility scale PV plant purchased from Element Power. This a third of the price that thin-film solar PV project power typically costs, $0.163 / kWh, and less than half the $0.128 / kWh average price for new coal plants. BNEF also reported that Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison signed 9 power purchase agreements for utility scale PV generated power at prices less than $ 0.09 / Kwh. Thus, PV generated power is now cheaper than power sourced from new coal plants.
The exceptional nature of renewable energy:
With solar power prices now at rock bottom, why aren’t governments everywhere supporting connection of renewable power generating systems to the grid? Deregulation and privatization strategies taken about a decade ago did not consider a significant amount of power from renewable sources as possible. While governments were setting up feed-in tariffs and subsidies to renewable energies in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they separated power generation from power transmission(the Grid), and from power distribution, generally privatizing the sector. This created an electricity market where power is traded in the short term(spot market) and long term (futures market), supposedly all in the best interest of consumers, until ENRON participated. After reaching a critical size, renewable power production, killed this market. To understand why this happened, one must comprehend the essentials of renewable energy economics.
In recent years solar panel pricing has collapsed, due to improvements in technology and scale, as shown in the graphic to the right, previous page. As PV shipments increased from ~ 3 Gwe/yr in 2004 to ~ 50 Gwe/yr today, production shifted from small factories in the OECD, to huge factories in Asia. With this, came lower installation and maintenance costs due to simplified mounts, standardized switchgear, solid state inverters, and improved batteries. By mid 2012, the price of cells declined to $0.50 /Wp, inverters to $0.18/Wp, and complete systems to $ 1.40/Wp. Today, in mid 2014, complete systems cost ~ $ 1 / Wp. The magic number has been crossed!
Globally, capacity is ~ 50Gwe, with demand currently ~ 30 Gwe. This over supply, to a great extent the product of the end of subsidies in both Europe and the US, will lead to further consolidations industry wide, with Solyndra as poster child, in a glorious $250 million bankruptcy. Given this over supply is the driver of recent price drops, a pricing rebound, is not to be expected, given production costs and prices are declining rapidly in a manner similar to that experienced by the computer hardware manufacturers. In both cases, costs are market share driven, with keen competition giving rise to a constant stream of improvements, like proton induced exfoilation which increased wafer yield an order of magnitude. The efficiency of PV technology keeps increasing, and the advent of auto-cooling will continue this trend.
Lower costs in China and South East Asia, will preclude production returning to the OECD. If it’s not economical to produce a disk drives, screens, or motherboards in Europe and North America, simpler technologies like solar cells and wind turbine production will likewise gravitate to asia.
Rooftop PV Is Important:
The US has sufficient roof space to host 1.1Twe of PV as shown in the USDOE study by Denholm & Margolis, equally divided between commercial and residential buildings. Total project cost is $818 bilion or $744/kwe producing power with an LEC of $0.0304/kwh, with no subsidies whatever(no storage). Adding 24 hours storage raises project cost to $2 trillion or $2346 / kwe, producing power at an LEC of $0.08 / kwh. Costs of emplacing these systems are so low, that their construction is inevitable. Their nature lends itself to consumption of production on-site, unaffected by grid regulations, or pricing. Fully implemented, rooftop PV as envisioned in the USDOE study, would provide 40% of current electricity demand, in and of itself, or 1,800 Twh / yr.
The cost of energy is prompting conversion of US housing stock to PassivHaus standard, thereby reducing household consumption of power for heating/cooling to < 15 kwh/m2-yr, and total energy demand to < 120 kwh/m2-yr. For the US, with 125 million dwellings, averaging 200 m2 in area, conversion to PassivHaus reduces heating/cooling power demand to 373 Twh/yr, and total power demand to < 3,000 Twh/ yr.
Were refrigerators and air conditioners built with SawaFuji Free-Piston Compressors, high performance vacuum insulated panels, and with hold over plates so they run during the day, when the sun is shining, much of the need for storage would disappear and consequent demand would be reduced to 1,000Twh/yr.
Conversion of all lighting to LED eliminates 80% of power demand for lighting, and conversion of electronics to energy efficient versions, further reduce demand to 590 Twh/yr.
US houses, sporting 550 Gwe of rooftop PV, converted to PassivHaus, and featuring holdover plate aircon/refrigeration, efficient electronics, and LED lighting would have their own distributed 24/7 supply of electrical power, net of conversion and storage losses, of 25 kwh/m2-yr = 4,400 kwh/house-yr, while providing 1,000Twh/yr to power the rest of the economy.
Furthermore, I take issue with the USDOE rooftop survey, because efficiency gains are sufficient to provide 6 kwe of rooftop PV per house using the same area, and is sufficient to provide 750 Gwe of capacity, in and of itself, generating 1,300 Twh/yr. So meeting the power requirements of each house requires only 8 m2 of rooftop PV per 200 m2 house, or 4% of it's area, and the available roof area can easily host ~ 6 kwe = 24 m2 of PV/house = 0.75 Twe of nationwide rooftop PV capacity.
Feed-in Tariffs:
Governments should be working toward complete integration of renewable systems into the grid, not to their exclusion. They must accept that only schemes such as feed-in tariffs can guarantee the long term presence of renewable power producers in the grid. With marginal generation costs close to $0.00 / kWh, these systems will never be able to yield proper cash flows in a competitive electricity market. If the investment in grid connected renewable power technologies is to continue to come from private investors, stable revenues must be guaranteed in the long term. Looking at feed-in tariffs in particular, obvious changes are the following:
1. Extend the feed-in tariff to the whole lifetime of the project.
2. Reduce the feed-in tariff over the life of the project, from a high initial value.
3. In a jurisdiction with an expected cost of 0.09 $/kWp for industrial systems, a tariff with an initial rate of 0.12 $/kWp for the first five years, 0.10 $/kWp for the next five years, 0.08 $/kWp for the next five years, and 0.06 $/kWp for the last decade of production, preserves the important break-even anticipation, essential for an effective feed-in tariff.
With proper feed-in tariffs in place, governments can then focus on retooling large utilities into distribution, and load-balancing. Subsidies for construction of storage infrastructure, such as NaS batteries will be necessary. Incentives linked to adoption of cost reduction measures, will pay dividends too.
Were I to update this report in light of my current research, I would expand the concept of minimal marginal cost to high speed rail, hydro-electric, Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, RosAtom’s nuclear waste burning reactors, Desert Reclamation, Giant Rice, Salt Tolerant Rice, Moscow2000 Maize, and all other investments lasting many years. Economist John Ross in his blog….
https://learningfromchina.net
covers this in great detail… as the reason the Chinese Economy grew and continues to grow fast.
INDY
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Sep 20 2023 15:20 utc | 19
Before my recent trip to attend my best friend’s wedding, an anonymous poster accused me of the “Crime” of plagiarism 10 years ago. I note that since his “Ambush” he stopped posting here..
He directed readers here to….
https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-internet-as-information.html
In which Louis DeSouza complains he was plagiarized…. by Public Research Institute
Who according to the oil drum’s last issue…..
http://theoildrum.com/node/10249
Luís Alexandre Duque Moreira de Sousa (Luís de Sousa) is a researcher at the Public Research Institute and a Ph.D. student in Informatics Engineering at the Technical University of Lisbon. Luís created the first Portuguese language website dedicated to Peak Oil in 2005 (PicoDoPetroleo.net); in 2006 he would be one of the founders of ASPO-Portugal and later that year integrated the team that started the European branch of The Oil Drum. Since then he has continuously written about Energy and its interplay with Politics and Economics, both in English and Portuguese. Luís is a regular presence at the collective blog European Tribune and writes on the broader issues of life on his personal blog AtTheEdgeOfTime.
I am the Executive Director of Public Research Institute, the world wide parent organization of the chapter which employed Luis. Our board sets policy, including employment policy for the entirety of the Public Research Institute. Our employment policy for staff and employees is clear.. The entirety of their research findings and writings are assigned to Public Research Institute for use in furtherance of it’s charitable objectives
In other words Luis made a stink 10 years ago because I the big boss took his draft report from our server, re-wrote it into a format targeting a broad audience, and expanded it to include new findings, and posted it on Informed Comment for the purpose of presenting those ideas to a wider public.
This matter initially surprised me. So, we investigated Luis. We found that much of his “reputation” consisted of his taking Institute reports and research and publishing these as his own personal work. Shortly thereafter Luis needed a new job, the oil drum ceased publication, and the affiliation with Technical University of Lisbon ceased.
Today ASPO-Portugal is a betting parlor… http://www.picodopetroleo.net is a sports betting site
AND….
Luis last posted to his blog in 2018 mostly about his music.
SO…
Luis no longer posts WRT energy matters, most likely because his career as an itinerant musician precludes it..
So what was the furor all about… It was this short report…
The real problem with Renewables: Wind Turbine & Panel Prices in Free Fall, & the Fuel is Free:
(A compendium of ideas from within and without the Institute, unified with original research by Institute staff.)
Summary:
A paradigm shift in energy is underway.
The total spent on upstream oil and gas exploration and production between 1998 and 2005 was $1.5 trillion USD, which yielded an increase in oil production of 8.6 million barrels a day, worth $905 million per day, with five years production increase repaying this seven year investment.
However, between 2005 and 2013 an additional $4 trillion was spent on oil and gas exploration and production, which was only able to reduce the collapse of conventional oil production to – $1 million barrels a day. This huge investment, netted a negative (-) $100 million per day, -$ 38.25 billion per year a return of – 0.96% per year.
Given the world’s willingness to invest $ 500,000,000,000 ( $ 500 Billion USD ) per year in energy resources, where should these funds be invested? We of The Institute, believe that investing such sums in Renewable Energies will yield positive returns, on many fronts, providing ~ 500 Gwe of generation capacity additions annually. Four years of such additions, would provide 2 Twe of PV capacity. Four and a half years of such additions would provide 1.75 Twe of wind capacity, an additional 15 months is sufficient to provide 500 Gwe of GeoThermal capacity, and finally an additional 9 months of such additions would expand US HydroPower production to 200 Gwe, the feasible limit. That is, were such sums invested in a mix of renewable power sources, consisting of 2 Twe of PV, 1.75 Twe of wind, 500 Gwe of GeoThermal, and 200 Gwe of Hydro, renewable energies could power the US economy, and completely replace fossil fuels within 10 ½ years, simply by redirecting existing energy development funds!
As summarized above, the cost efficient generating potential of renewable sources of electricity; hydro, GeoThermal, wind, and solar photo-voltaic is grossly underestimated, and their generation costs are grossly over estimated. Virtually all observers treat these industries act as if they were static, when in fact, they are among the most dynamic in existence. Their presence in the grid, challenges utility companies and governments because their prices are in free fall and they require no fuel. The wind turbine and solar photo-voltaic markets are following the path pioneered by the computer hardware market, obeying Moore’s Law, with exponentially declining costs and pricing. These technologies feature continual improvements in efficiency and output, which have yet to run their course, because important new breakthroughs have yet to reach the market.
Wind, solar, hydro, and GeoThermal electricity-production requires no fuel to produce electricity, quite unlike hydrocarbon fired power plants which incur fuel costs every time they produce power. Operators of fuel consuming power stations must source and pay for fuel, via long term contracts(preferred), or via purchases in the volatile spot market(to be avoided if at all possible). Operation and Maintenance(O&M) of fuel consuming power stations, with their complex machinery, is an order of magnitude greater than O&M for a wind turbine, solar PV array, hydro dam, or GeoThermal plant. Predictable O&M costs, independent of output, permit generation of additional power from an operating hydro electric dam, GeoThermal field, solar PV array, or wind turbine, at virtually zero additional cost per kWh. Thus, the marginal cost of producing electricity via wind turbines, solar PV arrays, hydro-electric dams, and GeoThermal Fields, is virtually zero ($0.00/kWh).
Wind turbines, solar PV arrays, hydro-electric dams, and GeoThermal Fields generate electricity. When injected into the grid, that electricity is identical to any other. Moreover, the small areal extent of renewable power generation facilities, means that numerous plants will be affected by meteorological features, producing synchronously. Thus all PV systems in a region are likely to be producing power if the sun is shining, even more so under partly cloudy conditions, all wind turbines in a region are likely to be producing power if that day is windy, and all hydro-electric dams in a region are likely to be producing power if there was sufficient rainfall. Markets where many small producers produce identical products, with concurrent maximum production due to seasonal factors, are called Concurrent Perfect Competition Markets(CPCMs). Such markets are quite common in agriculture, have been widely studied, and their characteristics known. A signature characteristic of such markets, is prices which match marginal costs, long term. Consequently, producers struggle to make a profit, and subsidies must be provided to assure supply.
CPCMs with a marginal cost of zero are new. This characteristic of renewable electricity generation, leads to collapse of spot electricity prices during sunny summer days, or during storms, to zero or less. As the percentage of grid connected supply from renewable power producers, grows, price of this supply will decline, and eventually approach zero.
Renewable power generation’s marginal costs are financially devastating electricity suppliers dependent upon fossil fuel energies. They simply cannot survive in such an environment. Government inaction thus far is for the purpose of protecting traditional electric utilities, while giving lip service to those who revere the market.
In Europe, neither as sunny or as windy as the US, a fully liberalized market with significant renewable electricity production is creating all sorts of problems. Unable to pass on management costs, grid managers are unwilling to reconfigure a grid designed to market central station power, into one capable of managing distributed and fluctuating power sources. In consequence, voltage fluctuates with the wind velocity, or with variation in the amount of solar insolation available, threatening to bring the grid down. In some countries, this issue has become sufficiently serious that governments, of whatever stripe, are contemplating grid nationalization.
The US has sufficient commercial and residential roof space to host ~2 Twe of PV as shown in recent USDOE studies, since confirmed by the Institute. This would cost $744/kwe and would produce power with a Levelized Energy Cost (LEC) of $0.03/kwh, without subsidies and storage. Adding 24 hours storage raises project cost to $2346 / kwe, producing power at $0.08 / kwh. Costs of constructing these systems are so low, that their construction is inevitable. Fully implemented, rooftop PV would provide 80% of current electricity demand, in and of itself, or 3,200 Twh / yr.
The US has 2.1 million farms, averaging 420 acres, each of which has sufficient roof space for 50 kwe of PV and enough room for one 800 kwe direct drive wind turbine. US farms could host 110 Gwe of PV and 1,750 Gwe of wind turbines, producing 5,000 Twh/yr.
The US could produce 8,200 Twh/yr or 27 Quads/yr from rooftop PV and farm wind turbines alone. This is nearly twice the amount of electrical power currently supplied to customers, produced without burning a single gram of carbon based fuels, and is sufficient to run the entire economy.
Configuring hydro and GeoThermal plants to swing production, plus minor amounts of storage, would balance the US grid, eliminating any need for base load power from fossil fueled or nuclear plants.
Policy Changes Required:
To understand the policies that need be changed within the USA, for the nation to convert from fossil fuels to Renewables, it is first necessary to confront it’s myths, as follows:
a. The natural resource base is, for all practical purposes infinite.
b. The US Federal Government is revenue constrained, and running out of money.
c. The EROEI of renewables is much lower than alternatives.
d. Renewables are intermittent and unreliable, and there is no way to obviate this.
e. Renewables cost more than fossil fuels.
The Myth of an infinite resource base, is a direct consequence of the “release effect” described in “The Eternal Frontier” by Flannery, and came into existence because, to the original few thousand European settlers, the resource base of North America was enormous. Like the Folsom people who decimated the mega-fauna they found within 300 years, the European settlers churned through the resource base of North America, in a similar time frame. Just 80 years ago, US petroleum resources flowed copiously from vertical wells drilled only a few hundred meters deep, at an EROEI of > 100, while today it is necessary to drill thousands of meters down, then to make subsequent multiple horizontal branches additional thousands of meters long, then to fracture the surrounding rock to produce a hundredth as much per well per day as previously, wrung out of the rock at an EROEI of ~2.
The Myth of the US Federal Government being revenue constrained, is a hold over from the past, when the US Dollar was backed by Gold/Silver. Nixon ended that in 75, only a few years after US petroleum production peaked, leaving the US Dollar representing a claim on the “Full Faith And Credit” of the US. The advent of electronic currency means that it is not even necessary to mint coins or print banknotes, because a few keystrokes at the right terminal on the Federal Reserve’s master computer, will create trillions, from nothing.
The Myth of a low EROEI for renewables, is the direct consequence of comparing apples to oranges. Fossil fuels and the energy conversion systems they drive, are burdened only with the cost of getting petroleum to the surface, while the famous Spanish study, burdened PV with the inputs necessary to construct panels, plus the grid, plus the regulatory burden, not to mention the kitchen sink. The Energy Returned by a PV panel as compared to the energy required to manufacture that panel, is ~35:1, today.
The Myth of intermittent and unreliable renewables, focuses on conditions in one location, without storage. Given storage, and a network encompassing the entire nation, Renewables provide lower cost power, available on demand.
The Myth of high renewable generation costs, came about because as recent as 2 years ago, PV panels cost $3/watt in the US, and $2/watt in China. Today Sun Electronics of Miami sells PV at $0.38 / watt FOB Miami, and PV manufacturers in China sell 22% efficient PV for $0.25/watt by the 40 ft container load.
Effect on Long Term Supply Contracts:
Bloomberg New Energy Finance reports that El Paso Electric is paying First Solar $0.579/kWh for power from the 50Mwe utility scale PV plant purchased from Element Power. This a third of the price that thin-film solar PV project power typically costs, $0.163 / kWh, and less than half the $0.128 / kWh average price for new coal plants. BNEF also reported that Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison signed 9 power purchase agreements for utility scale PV generated power at prices less than $ 0.09 / Kwh. Thus, PV generated power is now cheaper than power sourced from new coal plants.
The exceptional nature of renewable energy:
With solar power prices now at rock bottom, why aren’t governments everywhere supporting connection of renewable power generating systems to the grid? Deregulation and privatization strategies taken about a decade ago did not consider a significant amount of power from renewable sources as possible. While governments were setting up feed-in tariffs and subsidies to renewable energies in the late 1990s and early 2000s, they separated power generation from power transmission(the Grid), and from power distribution, generally privatizing the sector. This created an electricity market where power is traded in the short term(spot market) and long term (futures market), supposedly all in the best interest of consumers, until ENRON participated. After reaching a critical size, renewable power production, killed this market. To understand why this happened, one must comprehend the essentials of renewable energy economics.
In recent years solar panel pricing has collapsed, due to improvements in technology and scale, as shown in the graphic to the right, previous page. As PV shipments increased from ~ 3 Gwe/yr in 2004 to ~ 50 Gwe/yr today, production shifted from small factories in the OECD, to huge factories in Asia. With this, came lower installation and maintenance costs due to simplified mounts, standardized switchgear, solid state inverters, and improved batteries. By mid 2012, the price of cells declined to $0.50 /Wp, inverters to $0.18/Wp, and complete systems to $ 1.40/Wp. Today, in mid 2014, complete systems cost ~ $ 1 / Wp. The magic number has been crossed!
Globally, capacity is ~ 50Gwe, with demand currently ~ 30 Gwe. This over supply, to a great extent the product of the end of subsidies in both Europe and the US, will lead to further consolidations industry wide, with Solyndra as poster child, in a glorious $250 million bankruptcy. Given this over supply is the driver of recent price drops, a pricing rebound, is not to be expected, given production costs and prices are declining rapidly in a manner similar to that experienced by the computer hardware manufacturers. In both cases, costs are market share driven, with keen competition giving rise to a constant stream of improvements, like proton induced exfoilation which increased wafer yield an order of magnitude. The efficiency of PV technology keeps increasing, and the advent of auto-cooling will continue this trend.
Lower costs in China and South East Asia, will preclude production returning to the OECD. If it’s not economical to produce a disk drives, screens, or motherboards in Europe and North America, simpler technologies like solar cells and wind turbine production will likewise gravitate to asia.
Rooftop PV Is Important:
The US has sufficient roof space to host 1.1Twe of PV as shown in the USDOE study by Denholm & Margolis, equally divided between commercial and residential buildings. Total project cost is $818 bilion or $744/kwe producing power with an LEC of $0.0304/kwh, with no subsidies whatever(no storage). Adding 24 hours storage raises project cost to $2 trillion or $2346 / kwe, producing power at an LEC of $0.08 / kwh. Costs of emplacing these systems are so low, that their construction is inevitable. Their nature lends itself to consumption of production on-site, unaffected by grid regulations, or pricing. Fully implemented, rooftop PV as envisioned in the USDOE study, would provide 40% of current electricity demand, in and of itself, or 1,800 Twh / yr.
The cost of energy is prompting conversion of US housing stock to PassivHaus standard, thereby reducing household consumption of power for heating/cooling to < 15 kwh/m2-yr, and total energy demand to < 120 kwh/m2-yr. For the US, with 125 million dwellings, averaging 200 m2 in area, conversion to PassivHaus reduces heating/cooling power demand to 373 Twh/yr, and total power demand to < 3,000 Twh/ yr.
Were refrigerators and air conditioners built with SawaFuji Free-Piston Compressors, high performance vacuum insulated panels, and with hold over plates so they run during the day, when the sun is shining, much of the need for storage would disappear and consequent demand would be reduced to 1,000Twh/yr.
Conversion of all lighting to LED eliminates 80% of power demand for lighting, and conversion of electronics to energy efficient versions, further reduce demand to 590 Twh/yr.
US houses, sporting 550 Gwe of rooftop PV, converted to PassivHaus, and featuring holdover plate aircon/refrigeration, efficient electronics, and LED lighting would have their own distributed 24/7 supply of electrical power, net of conversion and storage losses, of 25 kwh/m2-yr = 4,400 kwh/house-yr, while providing 1,000Twh/yr to power the rest of the economy.
Furthermore, I take issue with the USDOE rooftop survey, because efficiency gains are sufficient to provide 6 kwe of rooftop PV per house using the same area, and is sufficient to provide 750 Gwe of capacity, in and of itself, generating 1,300 Twh/yr. So meeting the power requirements of each house requires only 8 m2 of rooftop PV per 200 m2 house, or 4% of it's area, and the available roof area can easily host ~ 6 kwe = 24 m2 of PV/house = 0.75 Twe of nationwide rooftop PV capacity.
Feed-in Tariffs:
Governments should be working toward complete integration of renewable systems into the grid, not to their exclusion. They must accept that only schemes such as feed-in tariffs can guarantee the long term presence of renewable power producers in the grid. With marginal generation costs close to $0.00 / kWh, these systems will never be able to yield proper cash flows in a competitive electricity market. If the investment in grid connected renewable power technologies is to continue to come from private investors, stable revenues must be guaranteed in the long term. Looking at feed-in tariffs in particular, obvious changes are the following:
1. Extend the feed-in tariff to the whole lifetime of the project.
2. Reduce the feed-in tariff over the life of the project, from a high initial value.
3. In a jurisdiction with an expected cost of 0.09 $/kWp for industrial systems, a tariff with an initial rate of 0.12 $/kWp for the first five years, 0.10 $/kWp for the next five years, 0.08 $/kWp for the next five years, and 0.06 $/kWp for the last decade of production, preserves the important break-even anticipation, essential for an effective feed-in tariff.
With proper feed-in tariffs in place, governments can then focus on retooling large utilities into distribution, and load-balancing. Subsidies for construction of storage infrastructure, such as NaS batteries will be necessary. Incentives linked to adoption of cost reduction measures, will pay dividends too.
Were I to update this report in light of my current research, I would expand the concept of minimal marginal cost to high speed rail, hydro-electric, Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors, Pebble Bed Reactors, RosAtom’s nuclear waste burning reactors, Desert Reclamation, Giant Rice, Salt Tolerant Rice, Moscow2000 Maize, and all other investments lasting many years. Economist John Ross in his blog….
https://learningfromchina.net
covers this in great detail… as the reason the Chinese Economy grew and continues to grow fast.
INDY
Posted by: Dr. George W Oprisko | Sep 20 2023 15:20 utc | 20
|