Enphase Battery?

[russ]

Just be clear, you feel you have a handle on what RE in Hawaii will look like in 30 years? I'll raise my hand and say I don't, but since you do, please tell us how each of the horses in the energy race will be doing. How much will storage systems cost in 30 years? A barrel of oil? Environmental regs?

It takes many years for a new tech to go from the lab to the market.

You tell us what cars, TVs or telephones will be in twenty years while you are at it.

Hawaii is different than elsewhere? Only in that power cost is high. As I remember from when I was stationed there in the 60's there are times with not too much sun.

You are attempting to turn the tables because you "don't know" but want to appear to have at least average intelligence it seems.

[Samsolar]

It takes many years for a new tech to go from the lab to the market.

You tell us what cars, TVs or telephones will be in twenty years while you are at it.

Hawaii is different than elsewhere? Only in that power cost is high. As I remember from when I was stationed there in the 60's there are times with not too much sun.

You are attempting to turn the tables because you "don't know" but want to appear to have at least average intelligence it seems.

Russ, I'm asking the question because most would think that guessing where technology will be along with the economics of various energy sources in 30 years (on an island chain in the middle of the Pacific) is a wild guess at best. I'm only asking for the data that was used to draw to a certain conclusion. As for turning the tables I think you're confusing me with you. I asked a question and instead of offering up an answer you ask me questions. If you don't believe me, check out your own reply above.

As for Hawaii being different, yes, yes it is. Why? Because from the article, 97% of lawmakers voted FOR this initiative. Whether you agree with the idea or not, it is clear that for some reason Hawaii wants this. I don't think for a minute that we'd get anywhere near that level of support where I live or in many parts of the world, but they did. While current energy costs certainly factor into this, I'm sure they are very aware that they are completely at the mercy of markets external to Hawaii with little control over what they will pay for fuel in the future. Transitioning to RE sources offers them a level of control/stability that they do not have today.

[russ]

As for turning the tables I think you're confusing me with you. I asked a question and instead of offering up an answer you ask me questions. If you don't believe me, check out your own reply above.

You asked a question for which there is no answer today - a dumb question in reality.

The 97% you refer to - do you give lawmakers credit for knowing their ass from a hole in the ground? If so you give them too much credit. They vote for what gets them re-elected - whether it makes sense or not. Remember - most are probably lawyers which gives them a terrible disadvantage as far as having any common sense.

[peakbagger]

Technically all the technology is out there for Hawaii to meet their goal, economically it is another story. The reason folks are installing PV in Hawaii is that fossil power is expensive and that residential solar power is currently cheaper to produce from the owners perspective. Unfortunately the solar folks are getting a free ride from all the other rate payers as someone needs to supply backup power at night and during cloudy conditions plus supply peak power. That's going to require deployment of expensive power storage along with fairly draconian demand side management. Demand side management is near instantaneous pricing, if the sun is out, power is cheap, if the sun is not the power rate rapidly goes up to the point where most users elect to shed load and the remaining ones fund the cost to build operate and maintain the electric storage infrastructure.

Most off grid folks know the rules, spend a lot of money up front to maximize efficiency and buy the biggest battery bank they can afford, then practice load side management. Tie major power usage to when sun is available and the batteries are charged. Of course most folks also have a fossil fueled backup generator for the inevitable long cloudy stretch in winter. That works fine on a small scale but the general range of dollars per KW for such a lifestyle is generally reported as 60 to 90 cents per KW long term. Dangle 30 cents per KW in front of a developer and he will be clearing a site for the battery bank the next day.

[solar pete]

Howdy,

I had a look at that 100% RE target and had a bit of a laugh at first. Then I started to think about the price of power over there and the very long pie in the sky timetable for it and thought you beauty the incentive is going to be there for a bunch more solar to be installed, happy days

[SunEagle]

Just be clear, you feel you have a handle on what RE in Hawaii will look like in 30 years? I'll raise my hand and say I don't, but since you do, please tell us how each of the horses in the energy race will be doing. How much will storage systems cost in 30 years? A barrel of oil? Environmental regs?

First off RE doesn't currently provide power 24/7. That is fact.

Secondly while there may be a "future" battery that works the research for it has been going on for decades already from some very smart people without much success of finding one that is economical and big enough to handle the Gigawatts of energy needed when the sun isn't shining.

Oil prices go up and down and Environmental regulations change like the wind and are hard to enforce. Besides they won't be the true motivator to drive RE to become the only power source.

I feel that somewhere it will finally dawn on people that if you want to use less fossil fuel to generate electricity then you need to focus on nuclear again. That will get you power 24/7 and doesn't produce CO2 if that is what you are worried about.

But as you said neither you or I have a crystal ball to clearly see the future. A big breakthrough may be just around the corner or not.

Anyone that makes a claim to rely on 100% of anything is making a foolish statement that will be hard to meet.

It doesn't really matter to me because I will be 92 in 2045 and may not see what really happens in Hawaii then.

[bberry]

Most off grid folks know the rules,

Hawaii won't be "off grid". They will at least have PV, wind and geothermal. They may have hydro and synfuel. They will overbuild wind, and possibly PV, and pump hydro if that approach is the most cost effective.

Most importantly are the forward cost curves of renewables, which are a technology, compared to oil and gas, which are fuels. Technology has an exponential cost curve, something anyone truly interested in the future of power needs to understand.

Back to Enphase; consider the impact of requiring every new solar install to include a small amount of storage. The PV industry takes growth into their own hands by pushing for residential storage requirements. Enpase is in an odd position They are (seemingly) poorly positioned technically for storage. But the best way to push residential solar beyond low percentages is to put a small amount of storage behind the meter.

Utility installed storage is more cost effective, but the PV industry can't count on utilities cooperating. So I don't think storage is mostly about companies like Solarcity selling more stuff. I think it's about realistically getting residential solar to be a high percentage of an areas total power.

[bberry]

First off RE doesn't currently provide power 24/7. That is fact.

Hoover Dam.

[SunEagle]

Hoover Dam.

Ok Hydro is both RE and can run 24/7 but that type of electrical producing source is limited in output and location.

You know I was referring to solar pv and wind as the RE power generators, and they have not proven to work to produce 100% of the electrical demand 24/7 anywhere in the world.

Now nuclear is not RE but can run 24/7 and there are dozens of the existing plants that can easily generate the 2000MW that Hoover Dam is generating.

Without some large load shedding at night by the people, running the state 100% on RE (pv, wind, hydro, battery, etc) will be very hard and expensive to do.

[bberry]

Ok Hydro is both RE and can run 24/7 but that type of electrical producing source is limited in output and location.

You know I was referring to solar pv and wind as the RE power generators, and they have not proven to work to produce 100% of the electrical demand 24/7 anywhere in the world.

Now nuclear is not RE but can run 24/7 and there are dozens of the existing plants that can easily generate the 2000MW that Hoover Dam is generating.

Without some large load shedding at night by the people, running the state 100% on RE (pv, wind, hydro, battery, etc) will be very hard and expensive to do.

There are thousands of places in the world that run on just RE without generator backup. Including small islands in Hawaii.

Nuclear is dead and buried based on pure economics, according to nuclear industry managers. First coal plants will not be replaced, then nuclear, then gas plants. This will happen fast enough that some assets will be stranded. Smart utility people understand that some generation companies are screwed.

If you are genuinely interested, you need to look at the numbers and understand cost curves. You need to understand the fundamental difference between fuel and technology.

[SunEagle]

There are thousands of places in the world that run on just RE without generator backup. Including small islands in Hawaii.

Nuclear is dead and buried based on pure economics, according to nuclear industry managers. First coal plants will not be replaced, then nuclear, then gas plants. This will happen fast enough that some assets will be stranded. Smart utility people understand that some generation companies are screwed.

If you are genuinely interested, you need to look at the numbers and understand cost curves. You need to understand the fundamental difference between fuel and technology.

I do understand the economics as well as what it takes to provide electrical power 24/7. I also know that while some countries are stupid and scared of nuclear other countries are moving forward with building new Third generation plants.

What are those "thousands of places" using to run 24/7 just on RE? What is their peak kw demand at night?

We are talking about Hawaii not some remote villages on islands or in Africa & Asia. Even Germany uses coal fired generation at night or purchases power from other countries that use fossil fuel and as far as I understand they have the highest % of RE installed which will not provide power 24/7.

It comes down to how much electricity people use at night. Cities and developed countries have many buildings and highways that are lit up. Millions of people run their TVs and computers at night along with AC systems and electric stoves.

I am sure those small villages do not use or need much electricity at night because they don't have these luxury items that most people in the US have and use.

I understand your passion in wanting to eliminate all fossil fuel burning but the "economics" to do so around this country and the world says different. The cost to abandon fossil fuel is too high and until RE and energy storage become much less expensive fossil fuel power generation will be around a long time.

[russ]

bberry - You post 3$ worth of BS in a 2$ bag.

Hawaii won't be "off grid". They will at least have PV, wind and geothermal. They may have hydro and synfuel. They will overbuild wind, and possibly PV, and pump hydro if that approach is the most cost effective. Right - where to pump the hydro? Overbuliding wind and solar only works with storage

Most importantly are the forward cost curves of renewables, which are a technology, compared to oil and gas, which are fuels. Technology has an exponential cost curve, something anyone truly interested in the future of power needs to understand. Again, 3$ worth of BS in the 2$ bag - there is a small problem with tech that it has to be "ready to go" tech.

Back to Enphase; consider the impact of requiring every new solar install to include a small amount of storage. The PV industry takes growth into their own hands by pushing for residential storage requirements. Enpase is in an odd position They are (seemingly) poorly positioned technically for storage. But the best way to push residential solar beyond low percentages is to put a small amount of storage behind the meter. The same 3$ problem - you chatter but with no meaning.

Utility installed storage is more cost effective, but the PV industry can't count on utilities cooperating. So I don't think storage is mostly about companies like Solarcity selling more stuff. I think it's about realistically getting residential solar to be a high percentage of an areas total power.

If storage worked the utilities would be doing it and they will be first in line - to make the satement you did is silly.

[russ]

Nuclear is dead and buried based on pure economics, according to nuclear industry managers.

What managers?

First coal plants will not be replaced, then nuclear, then gas plants. This will happen fast enough that some assets will be stranded. Smart utility people understand that some generation companies are screwed. Smart utilities people sure leaves you out.

If you are genuinely interested, you need to look at the numbers and understand cost curves. You need to understand the fundamental difference between fuel and technology.

Look your self - your entire line is green BS.

I learned long back - never bother to be nice to a fool.

[russ]

Hoover Dam.

Talk about changing the scope to suit your BS line! Virtually no more available hydro locations available.

[bberry]

I do understand the economics as well as what it takes to provide electrical power 24/7. I also know that while some countries are stupid and scared of nuclear other countries are moving forward with building new Third generation plants.

What are those "thousands of places" using to run 24/7 just on RE? What is their peak kw demand at night?

We are talking about Hawaii not some remote villages on islands or in Africa & Asia. Even Germany uses coal fired generation at night or purchases power from other countries that use fossil fuel and as far as I understand they have the highest % of RE installed which will not provide power 24/7.

It comes down to how much electricity people use at night. Cities and developed countries have many buildings and highways that are lit up. Millions of people run their TVs and computers at night along with AC systems and electric stoves.

I am sure those small villages do not use or need much electricity at night because they don't have these luxury items that most people in the US have and use.

I understand your passion in wanting to eliminate all fossil fuel burning but the "economics" to do so around this country and the world says different. The cost to abandon fossil fuel is too high and until RE and energy storage become much less expensive fossil fuel power generation will be around a long time.

I have no passion to eliminate fossil fuel. Getting the use well down is good enough.

Nuclear is dead based on pure economics. The noise you hear is simply the asset owners trying to extend the life as long as possible.

And again, you simply do not understand the cost curves of technology vs. fuel. Even low tech manufactured goods follow a log/log cost curve. The trend of even batteries is considerably better than basic manufacturing. You can't dig up increasingly rare fuel and compete with a downward exponential cost curve.

The price of PV falls 20% with every doubling of installed watts. Batteries appear similiar. Volume reduces price which incentivises more volume. That's why in the early days subsidies are needed. That's why, at a point, RE technologies blow away fuel. We are already past that point in some places.

Most of everything you see and use was built in the last 50 years. Yet power generation can't be substantially rebuilt over 30 years?