Enphase Battery?

[SunEagle]

US numbers as a whole are interesting, but Hawaii is the one with the big RE goals. According to the EIA, they are 75% oil, 15% coal (no new plants can be built) and the rest RE. When you look at how locked in they are with oil and the volatility of oil prices over the years/decades, the momentum behind getting away from oil is pretty clear.

Hawaii has a big problem due to the cost of using oil to generate.

They need to find less expensive ways and RE should provide them some relief and less dependance on fossil fuels.

But to go 100% RE even in 30 years is unrealistic and IMO more of a political stunt to convince the populace that their state government is looking to reduce electric costs as well as CO2 emissions. Both those will be a tough nut to crack.

[Samsolar]

US numbers as a whole are interesting, but Hawaii is the one with the big RE goals. According to the EIA, they are 75% oil, 15% coal (no new plants can be built) and the rest RE. When you look at how locked in they are with oil and the volatility of oil prices over the years/decades, the momentum behind getting away from oil is pretty clear.

[SunEagle]

I'm afraid your facts are pretty out of date. Coal and nuclear only make up about 60% of power production as of 2013. That continues to decrease every year as well.

Sorry. I meant to say that fossil fuel instead of just coal.
Electric production in the US for 2013
Coal = 38.44%
Nat Gas = 27.66%
Nuclear = 19.18%

Total for those 3 = 85.9% ~ 870GW

Hydro = 6.53% or ~79GW
Other RE = 6.16% ~ 75GW
Petroleum = 0.66%
Misc = 0.33%
Import = 1.14%

That 85% is still a very big number to convert to RE which is currently only about 13% of the total.

"The share of coal and nuclear in power generation is much higher than their share in installed capacity, because coal and nuclear plants provide base load and thus are running longer hours than natural gas and petroleum plants which typically provide peak load, while wind turbines and solar plants produce electricity when they can."

[emartin00]

85% of all Power production in the US is from coal and nuclear. To covert even half of that over to RE would make the cost of space travel look like a dime store purchase.

I'm afraid your facts are pretty out of date. Coal and nuclear only make up about 60% of power production as of 2013. That continues to decrease every year as well.

[donald]

[russ]

The gov shows Hawaii's potential hydropower resources at zero it seems.

http://energy.gov/eere/water/hydropower-resource-assessment-and-characterization

[russ]

As long as existing power generation stays low in cost converting to anything else will not happen very fast. There just isn't enough need for the people that can make it happen.

100% correct - but don't tell anyone the cost of power has to go up - both ends of the political spectrum become frantic.

[SunEagle]

The time between the Wright brothers first flight and the moon landing was 66 years.

Many cities in the U.S. entire existences lies within the sequential lifespan of two people.

What do the physics and desirability of space flight have to do with the economics of power production?

Advancements in technology have certain drivers behind them. Space Flight had it's day and because it got expensive it was dropped.

85% of all Power production in the US is from coal and nuclear. To covert even half of that over to RE would make the cost of space travel look like a dime store purchase.

30 years is a long time for some people (little less than half my life) and you would expect major breakthroughs in technology during that time. But if there isn't a profit to be made from those changes then breakthroughs tend to be very few and far between.

As long as existing power generation stays low in cost converting to anything else will not happen very fast. There just isn't enough need for the people that can make it happen.

[donald]

The time between the Wright brothers first flight and the moon landing was 66 years.

Many cities in the U.S. entire existences lies within the sequential lifespan of two people.

What do the physics and desirability of space flight have to do with the economics of power production?

[russ]

Well, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.


Going to the moon was very hard and expensive, but we did that...
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.

I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.

1) No one is saying it can't be done - we are saying it ain't on the table today

2) Hydro in Hawaii? Do you have any idea of the size of reservoir required for a small hydro project? You sure don't!

3) The off shore technologies are still way out there from what I read.

4) Geothermal is one of the hardest sources to tap and use - a really nasty solution you are handling plus the natives start to whine about earthquakes.

[SunEagle]

Well, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.


Going to the moon was very hard and expensive, but we did that...
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.

I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.

Why are you so scared of nuclear power? There have been maybe 3 events world wide with literally decades of safe operation providing many Gigawatts of power all over the world. There have been more deaths and injuries from accidents in other types of power generation facilities as compared to nuclear.

You miss my position. I have been involved with solar cell research since the mid 1970's. I have also been closely associated with electrical power generation and distribution for close to 40 years. I am very interested developing new technology concerning energy storage and generation but I also do not wear rose colored glasses and believe all that hype coming out of the research labs. Most of that is generated to get people to invest.

So yes I feel we should continue to find and build a better mousetrap but to believe the result is close at hand is misleading and naive.

[SunEagle]

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?

Back in the 60's everyone was imagining living in space or colonizing the moon or other planets by 1999. Yet after 50 years the US doesn't even have a reusable vehicle to get to near orbit and back again. Why, because it costs to freaking much to do it with not enough return on incentive for our government.

If you want to dream about 100% electricity being generated from RE then you might also believe in anti-matter or black hole power generation. Both are theoretically possible but neither is even close to being practical. Heck even fusion was supposed to be in place before the 21st century yet it is not even perfected in the lab.

Call me a skeptical but IMO even 30 years is not enough to over come the barriers to convert 100% to RE power generation.

[emartin00]

Well, in addition to hydro, Hawaii also has access to a significant amount of geothermal power.

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.

Going to the moon was very hard and expensive, but we did that...
Just because you don't see it happening, doesn't mean it can't. No one ever said it would be easy. Simply stating it can't be done is the worst thing you can do. If you never try, then no, it can't be done, but if you work at it, you might just succeed.

I have no problem with building more nuclear power, but the political hurdles make that about as difficult as 100% renewable.
Batteries are not the only option for stored power. I have seen a number of interesting technologies that could be housed off shore. They are several years from deployment, but Hawaii would provide an ideal location for pilot project.

[Samsolar]

When a law is made with no practical path forward it is total stupidity. The representatives know they can always change the game later.

I guess you still didn't read it. HB623 is amending the EXISTING statutes that detail the state's renewable portfolio standards. Hawaii has been on this path for years (an early milestone seems to be 10% by 2010) and is adjusting their goals as they are reaching goals previously set FASTER than they originally thought. Said another way, they already have a established path forward that is working and they are adjusting their goals accordingly. Hardly "no practical path forward" wouldn't you say?

Another thing you'd pickup (if you read it) is that they have broken out the move between 40% and 100% saying that this migration "shall be undertaken in a manner that benefits Hawaii's economy and all electric customers, maintains customer affordability, and does not induce renewable energy developers to artificially increase the price of renewable energy in Hawaii." This would appear to be an provision to ensure that the RE percentage has to be done in a financially viable way to be done at all.

[russ]

An example of stupidity - the potential dam sites listed in the attachment - try utilizing even one of those in the NW and listen to the greens scream - not gonna happen.

The greens are insisting on removing dams so fish can migrate even.

The document listed 600 dams that are not producing power that could produce between 1 and 500 mW - Does anyone realize how little that amounts to?

A good sized hydro project (like one near where I grew up in Oregon) produces 45 mW max and usually well less than 50% of that. Stream and river flow regulation and wildlife protection over rule power production every time!