Off grid is getting cheaper every day.

[Hedges]

I'm in San Jose, California so pretty mild weather.

I shut heat off at night, turn on by timer a couple hours before I get up.
Summer I usually don't run A/C, but working from home this year it was used more.

Peak grid consumption occurs during afternoon, so PV is a good way to reduce fossil fuel use. So much PV offsetting high priced commercial use, and residential solar pushed by companies selling pollution credits, that we now have the "ducks back" curve with peak remaining demand early evening. A/C use stops at night and for now we have available production then (nuke and hydro)

For now, there are power shortages on hot days. More PV will help. Also needs curtailment of production when excess.
There is talk of grid-scale battery storage. I think load management is higher leverage. Discretionary loads could be controlled to match production. Prior to shutting off the entire grid, ought to send a signal that adjusts thermostats or turns off A/C; that would be better than losing fans and refrigeration. EV charging now at nighttime could be mid-day with chargers at work and shopping locations, controlled by signals according to available power.

Those of us on net metering are not allowed to charge batteries from the grid and "sell" back at peak times, can only charge from PV. Grid/battery storage is done on a different rate schedule.

Winter heating from PV isn't going to work so well. Presently no power shortage, but much heating is done with gas. As new constructions is required to be all electric and no new plants are built, likely to have shortages. Perhaps more wind power would help. Residential thermal storage could shift time of consumption and make it controllable to match production.

Our goal ought to be minimizing use of fossil fuel and being independent of foreign sources, but our policies are driven by profit motive and other agendas.
People who love laws, and people who love sausages, shouldn't watch them being made.

 

[HRTKD]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, only 3.3% of our average daily petroleum use comes from foreign sources. This has been going down since 2006. I'm all for not sending money outside the U.S.



I'm all for the "All of the above" approach to energy production.
Nuclear - big fan of this
Hydro - Great, but don't mess up my fishing
Wind - A bit unsightly, loud if you live nearby and takes up a lot of room
Solar - Takes up a lot of room, otherwise a great way to go
Coal - Given the technology in use to scrub stacks, I'm OK with this
Gas - Even better than coal
Conservation - Very much needed, but mandates drive up the cost, putting home ownership out of reach for many

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much in favor of clean air.

As Electric Vehicles gain more traction, there will be a higher demand on the grid. Very few people have the infrastructure at home to support off-grid charging. It seems like the California government wants to have their cake and eat it too.

Renewables have a long way to go to supplement fossil fuels.

 

[Hedges]

The US both imports:

U.S. Imports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels)

www.eia.gov

and exports:

U.S. Exports of Crude Oil (Thousand Barrels per Day)

www.eia.gov

crude oil, so net imports may be low now.
How "sweet" the crude and other factors lead to shipping tankers out and shipping tankers in.
U.S. oil production for a time was more expensive than imports. Crude prices when high can make it economical. Fracking and oil sands use new methods.
Ground water contamination occurs with the chemicals and processes used. We may for centuries pay the price of extracting oil today.

Water is more valuable than energy. Foot production has plunged when ground water reserves were depleted. New sources of "fossil" water are being developed and countries are securing access to foreign ground water and food production. This may let them grow population for another hundred years, after which the water and food production will dry up. Leaving an even larger population to starve or seek to take from other nations by force.

All this cr*p about how we should change our diet so food production can support the 16 billion people soon to be on earth - but they don't tell us what those 16 billion should eat so the coming 32 billion can have enough food, or those 32 billion to let the coming 64 billion eat.
The only solution is limiting human population. Only question is whether "we" do it voluntarily or nature does it for us involuntarily.

Nuclear power? It was a twofer when we wanted the nuclear waste to support the arms race. Less market for enriched uranium and plutonium today, at least among the first world.

I'm all for nuclear power, just have preferences as to location of the reactor. I prefer it to be 93,000,000 miles from my backyard.

I think the US could reduce energy consumption and increase PV production. Maybe eventually be self sufficient with PV, hydro, wind, renewable biomass.
Instead of plowing under farmland in the "inland empire" and running air conditioners to make it habitable, preserve agriculture and have most people live where the weather is bearable.

Allow homes and businesses to intermingle, so if you do ride light rail it is a 1/2 mile hop rather than a 10 mile commute. Same train can carry 20x as many people.
Of course, ripping up existing railway and developing the automobile, highway, gasoline economy was a deliberate effort one century ago. (I'm glad in these days of COVID I get around by private car not train or bus.)

Light rail in the US means voters approve bonds to spend so much on a train it cost $100 per passenger day to carry a worker to a $40/day job while charging him a $3 fare (1980's). Bart was $10 per passenger day and $1 fare (1970's)
Later light rail extended to East San Jose, at a cost per passenger of $500,000, enough to purchase each of them a home in that location.
When politicians and voters spend other peoples money, all sense is thrown out the window.

Man-made contribution to global warming may be a real thing. But they're talking about 3' sea level rise flooding some coastal areas. The "Continental Shelf" is 400' under water, and 10,000 years ago was oceanfront property. Something much bigger than man is at work.
We are told the rate of change is much greater than before. If I'm not mistaken, the measurement technique has changed. Recent data is from recorded thermometer readings, but older historical values come from geological or icepack analysis. I'm not convinced they can be compared.
Interpolation of data points using curve-fit results by definition will fit well. Extrapolation often does not. Possibly curve-fitting of older data and checking reliability to "predict" current data could help validate it.

 

[HRTKD]

Man-made contribution to global warming may be a real thing. But they're talking about 3' sea level rise flooding some coastal areas. The "Continental Shelf" is 400' under water, and 10,000 years ago was oceanfront property. Something much bigger than man is at work.

On this, I am in complete agreement.

 

[Newenough]

On this, I am in complete agreement.

Man-made contribution to global warming may be a real thing. But they're talking about 3' sea level rise flooding some coastal areas. The "Continental Shelf" is 400' under water, and 10,000 years ago was oceanfront property. Something much bigger than man is at work.

I too am in agreement with this statement. But as usual, when you mix politics and science, with the government giving out gobs of grant money looking for a result (as oppose to solid science) which they can use politically, you achieve nothing but bad data and bad policy. Look no further than the politicians warning of rising oceans that will doom us iall n 12 years, but they go spend millions to buy a mansion on the beach.

Sorry....that just struck a nerve. Back to energy talk.

 

[upnorthandpersonal]

From what i have seen the maintenance is constant only done with a bms which most people seem to watch like hawks.

I know I'm just another sample of one, but I definitely don't watch my BMS often (I have better things to do), and I'm very often not even there to do so. It's not a small system either.

 

[Ampster]

As Electric Vehicles gain more traction, there will be a higher demand on the grid.

I think the capacity is there in the medium term. It is a timing question until then. At least in California there is so much solar generation during the middle of the day that some commercial solar farms are being curtailed.

The result of that is recenty constructed commercial solar farms are being built with some storage capacity. These investments support the changing economics.

 

[Ampster]

This is why i have complete and utter contempt for all this save the planet and renewable crap. It is nothing but a thinly veiled excuse for companies to profiteer off the back of a noble and decent cause.

I agree with your premise that economics drives everything. Because of market economics, renewable energy production exceeded coal energy production for the first time in the US. We do have a different view about the economics of energy storage. Residential energy storage is a small market compared to grid scale energy storage. The growth of grid scale energy storage has all been with Lithium battery chemistries. As telecom companies replace their lead acid banks with Lithium I believe there will be a ready supply of used lead acid batteries. That will be another reason off grid may become cheaper even for lead acid fans.

 

[TRW]

I have heard that thee is a new technology on the horizon that will make large storage systems practical. I got that from a large electric utility executive.

It is my opinion that we will have massive shortages in electrical generation in 5 years. Keep in mind we need to replace the fuel used in todays world with electricity and that can be measured by knowing how much gasoline and diesel we use today. I love solar, but think nuclear is the only way to make this work and stay green.

 

[Ampster]

I have heard that thee is a new technology on the horizon that will make large storage systems practical. I got that from a large electric utility executive.

That new technology may be the control systems that would allow them to use communication protocols to control distributed storage systems to portions of the grid that are stressed.

It is my opinion that we will have massive shortages in electrical generation in 5 years. Keep in mind we need to replace the fuel used in todays world with electricity and that can be measured by knowing how much gasoline and diesel we use today. I love solar, but think nuclear is the only way to make this work and stay green.

At least in California, nuclear is being decommisioned and no new nuclear is proposed because it cannot compete with more economical forms of generation. Coal is also being replaced by wind and solar for economic reasons in other parts of the Country. The latest brown outs in California during a summer heat wave did demonstrate one aspect of the shortages that you alluded to. However, that was more of a demand timing issue and just a few hours into the evening during those times the demand reduced itself below capacity and remained below capacity for the next 18 hours until the cycle repeated itself.

 

[HRTKD]

Once built, a nuclear plant is one of the lowest cost providers.

From the article "Nuclear Energy - Safe, reliable, clean" by the Center for Nuclear Science and Technology Information of the American Nuclear Society (admittedly, not necessarily an unbiased source). The publication date is unknown, so the data could be badly out of date. They also didn't provide a source of their data.

Nuclear power plants are one of the most economical forms of energy production. Including capital and non-fuel operating costs, the cost of operating a nuclear power plant is roughly equivalent to fossil fuels. As of 2012, the average cost of power generation by nuclear plants was 2.40 cents per kilowatt-hour, for coal-fired plants 3.27 cents, for oil 22.48 cents, and for gas 3.40 cents. Costs for solar and wind are still well beyond that considered to be competitive to the public.

The cost of fuel for nuclear is less sensitive to world situations than is petroleum.

I would argue that coal is being phased out, not for economic reasons, but for idealism. Coal = bad, dirty. I want reliable energy. Coal, gas, hydro and nuclear are reliable. Without energy storage, wind and solar are not reliable.

This report (go about half way down) shows that nuclear is THE lowest cost provider in countries other than the U.S.

Economics of Nuclear Power - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels. In assessing the economics of nuclear power, decommissioning and waste disposal costs are fully taken into account.

www.world-nuclear.org

 

[Ampster]

I would argue that coal is being phased out, not for economic reasons, but for idealism.

I suppose it is a little bit of both. Certainly in California the Renewable Portfolio Standards are idealistic goals that have caused contracts for coal generaton to not be renewed. Overall, despite a Federal policy during the past four years, renewable generation has surpassed coal. I think most of that was economic.
As far as nuclear is concerned, the cradle to grave costs are different than the operating costs. I know I see a line item on my bill for for the future decommissioning costs of the two remaining nuclear plants in California. Each state may be different but the Federal government controls the process.

 

[Hedges]

Coal is evil because it produces pollution, specifically CO2 (the stuff which makes plants grow). And of course releases some amount of Hg.
Maybe greenhouses or algae could close the loop.

If PV could be used to synthesize hydrocarbons we could have large volume energy storage and practical "green" transportation. Need enough energy input to make up for the round-trip inefficiency.

The health and environmental impact of uranium mining is probably not included in cost per kWh for nuclear production.

The Health and Environmental Impact of Uranium Mining

large.stanford.edu

"Uranium mining facilities produce tailings that generally are disposed of in near surface impoundments close to the mine. These tailings pose serious environmental and health risks in the form of Randon emission, windblown dust dispersal and leaching of contaminants including heavy metals and arsenic into the water. [5] Historically in many countries around the world these risks have been politicized as they have disproportionately affected low income and minority populations. For example, from 1944-1986 the United States extracted 4 million tons of Uranium ore from and left 500 abandoned mines in native Navajo territories. In that time the rates of lung cancer and other diseases effecting Navajo living near the mine rose drastically. [5] While the Navajo eventually were able to ban mining on their land these problems still exist within other communities today and should not be overlooked in considering the future of Uranium mines."

Cost for cleanup of enrichment/reactor facilities also.

https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/hanford/article225386510.html

The reactors of course were optimized for plutonium production, the desired end product.

The article you linked is from some years ago since it said solar was too high to be competitive. We know that it is today (or was before the present glut), especially considering what power from peaker plants cost. At one point during the Enron debacle (and therefore a manipulated market, not necessary fair prices), peaker plants charged $1.00/kWh while PG&E sold the power they purchased to consumers for $0.12/kWh. Today PV is a couple pennies per kWh.

As a bumper sticker at the time said, "Blackout 2002, Grey out 2003"
The "competition" and (un)fair market established by regulators transferred billions of dollars. First PG&E's parent company got $7 or $8 billion excessive profits which they squirreled away, then PG&E had $7 or $8 billion losses and filed bankruptcy. Water district financed continued power purchases, keeping our lights on. Bonds we will pay off over several decades cover the money squandered during that time.

Hydro is very expensive to develop, then very cost effective for decades. It can also provide large-scale energy storage and some round-trip efficiency (is that 50%? or better?)

Perhaps thermal storage could be very practical for a few days at point of use.

I hope for PV and load management to take care of much of the grid consumption.
Then there is space-based PV; sci-fi stories address the potential to microwave entire city populations.

 

[TRW]

The US navy makes nuclear work very well, and they build them without the emotion of the issue. It would be much less expensive if we take out the quadruple regulation that makes it take so long and makes it impossible at this time. There are no nuc plants being built and have not for years. The Japanese failure was because they had a failed pump back up plan. There are no perfect options, but I can tell you we will expand nuclear in the next 20 years, especially if the green people look at it as a needed and reasonable solution. I also think every house will be required to have a solar array and they will also not be allowed to block the sun from anyone else! And I don't like government mandates, but I like this idea.

 

[MattiFin]

Without energy storage, wind and solar are not reliable.

Solar is very predictable here in northern Europe (Finland)

In winter you get zero watt hours and in summer your hot water collector is boiling

Last few days have been really cloudy and 1 kWp panel was producing 1 Wh per day.
And this is the most southern part of the country, bit up in the north the sun won't rise before 16. january.

 

[TRW]

I live in an area where I am paying monthly to shut down a nuclear plant, but I also get part of my generation from a nuclear plant that is doing well and expects to be generating for many years. Both of them within 50 miles of me. One in Redwing MN. The other is LaCrosse WI.

 

[Hedges]

Solar is very predictable here in northern Europe (Finland)

Don't you guys have methane under glaciers or something like that? And it is escaping now?
I read it is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
You ought to drill gas wells and tap it.

That's about what Mountain View did with Shoreline park after taking San Francisco's garbage (and money) for 20 years, then building a golf course out of it.
The methane capture and electric generation feeding the grid was an afterthought, after some stoners at a concert discovered they could ignite gas seeping out of the lawn.

 

[MattiFin]

Don't you guys have methane under glaciers or something like that? And it is escaping now?
I read it is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2.
You ought to drill gas wells and tap it.

That would be peat permafrost, Russia/Siberia (and also US/Alaska?). No permafrost in here or it is limited to few very small areas.

 

[Ampster]

If PV could be used to synthesize hydrocarbons we could have large volume energy storage and practical "green" transportation. Need enough energy input to make up for the round-trip inefficiency

There is a Professor at the Irvine Campus of University of California that has been getting grants to study the feasibility of converting natural gas to Hydrogen. I am sure it is being studied in other places as well. The availability of low cost solar to provide the energy to do that would make Hydrogen production a way to store energy,

 

[Hedges]

Oh, OK.
You guys are known for woodsmen, or something like that.

Finland: a global leader in forest-based biomass for energy

According to estimates by the Finland’s Energy Authority(Energiavirasto), renewable energy sources (RES) produced more than 130 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity, heat and biofuel …

bioenergyinternational.com