Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[DanKegel]

I remember when I lived in another state where there was a shortage of water. So the state asked the consumers to reduce their usage. Out of the goodness of our hearts we did without being penalized.

Then the water utility got all bent out of shape because they did not get the amount of money they needed due to less water being used.

Guess what? They raised the rates. So who got hurt for using less water? We did.

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

[bcroe]

Is this 20% supposed to be for overall energy? Solar capacity would need to be 60% or more when the sun is shinning, to
average out at 20%. The nuke down my road is up better than 90% of the time.

I really get tired of hearing that a renewable can supply X loads, forgetting thats only if you don't mind being
in the dark 2/3s of the time. Bruce Roe

[SunEagle]

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

The point I was trying to make was that the state was trying to get our help to reduce water usage due to a drought by asking for volunteers and not trying to penalize anyone by raising the rates as you have suggested the electric company should do to get people to lower their usage.

We chose to comply and change our culture without any reward or penalty. Yet for some cultures and societies it seems it requires a punishment to motivate them to do the right thing.

The water rates were increased by private water companies so they could keep their investors from leaving. Not to cover any expenses.

[J.P.M.]

You want water bills to be proportional to use (to discourage waste), but you also need to cover expenses, so when supply goes down, the price per unit has to go up. People don't enjoy that, but that's life.

That would be nice, and it makes sense, but only in a simplistic, naïve outlook with respect to the reality of running a utility. My H2O bill for the 31 day period through 11/15/2016 was $104.59. Of that amount, $15.70 was for the cost of the resource. The rest of the bill was made up of fixed charges for delivery of the H2O to the utility, infrastructure and sewer charges. If my usage was zero, I'd still be paying ~ 90 bucks a month. Not a beef - curse the wind or don't take water service - but if the price of the commodity alone ($15.00) had quadrupled, it would have shown up as a $150 bill instead of $105.

[HollySprings]

So... 20% for solar in a decade? If wind energy can in multiple states, why can't solar in some states?

The EIA Monthly energy review, released November 22, 2016, shows under topic "10.1 Production and consumption by source" that for 2015 Iowa had under "Total Electric Power Industry" 56,658,918 MWH and under "ENERGY SOURCE - Wind" 17,872,632. That makes wind at 31.5% of electricity production. Kansas had 10,998,501/45,527,124 or 24.2% wind. In South Dakota, wind as an energy source for electric production exceeded coal in 2015.

As for solar, in CA in 2015... 14,814,384/196,703,956 or 7.5% of total electric power was from "Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic"

But for the county as a whole... I think 20% is a stretch for just solar. 20% from solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro is feasible, IMO, since the US was at 11.78% from these sources in 2015.
All the data is in the EIA historical 2015 tables. My 2 cents.

[J.P.M.]

So... 20% for solar in a decade? If wind energy can in multiple states, why can't solar in some states?

The EIA Monthly energy review, released November 22, 2016, shows under topic "10.1 Production and consumption by source" that for 2015 Iowa had under "Total Electric Power Industry" 56,658,918 MWH and under "ENERGY SOURCE - Wind" 17,872,632. That makes wind at 31.5% of electricity production. Kansas had 10,998,501/45,527,124 or 24.2% wind. In South Dakota, wind as an energy source for electric production exceeded coal in 2015.

As for solar, in CA in 2015... 14,814,384/196,703,956 or 7.5% of total electric power was from "Solar Thermal and Photovoltaic"

But for the county as a whole... I think 20% is a stretch for just solar. 20% from solar, geothermal, wind, and hydro is feasible, IMO, since the US was at 11.78% from these sources in 2015.
All the data is in the EIA historical 2015 tables. My 2 cents.

There is a lot more to the energy production/consumption landscape then electricity production /consumption alone.

The same source you reference, Table 1.2, P.5, "Primary Energy Production by Source (quadrillion BTU)", Might be a better source to show actual energy production and mix in the U.S.
Long story short: through 8 months of 2016:

Fossil fuel (coal, nat. gas, crude oil, nat. gas products) = 43.494 Quad
Nukes: 5.672 Quad

Subtotal fossil fuel + nukes: 49.166 Quad.

Hydro: 1.824 Quad.

Renewables:
Geothermal: 0.152 Quad
Solar: 0.412 Quad
Wind: 1.402 Quad
Biomass: 3.134 Quad

Renewables subtotal, including hydro: 6.921 Quad, with solar and wind contributing ~ 1.8 Quad ~ = 1.8/56.087 = 3.2% of the total energy production, or about as much as hydro and about half as much as biomass.

So, for the first 8 months of 2016, renewables accounted for 6.921/56.087 = 12.3% of the total production.
For the same 8 months in 2014, the same ratio was = 6.505/57.684 = 11.28 %.
For the same 8 months in 2015, the same ratio was = 6.422/59.138 = 10.86%.

It looks to me that, while 3 years does not a trend make, there doesn't appear to be a headlong rush to get to 20 %, particularly when I look at the changing political realities of the last 3 weeks or so.

To your points that solar and wind are larger portions of the electricity mix in some states:

1.) Again, you are referring to electricity production, not total energy production.
2.) The states you mention as having high production are also quite windy and have relatively low populations making for larger ratios of production to consumption.

To your point that in SD wind electrical production exceeded electrical production from coal in 2015, using your cited reference, Table 7.2a, P. 109, for the U.S, for 2015, electrical production from coal was 1,356,057 gigaWatt hrs. Electrical production from wind for 2015 for the U.S. was 190,927 gigaWatt hrs. or wind electrical production was only 14.1 % of the electrical production due to coal, and thus did not exceed it.

Seems like your cherry picking data to me.

[word]

There is a lot more to the energy production/consumption landscape then electricity production /consumption alone.

The same source you reference, Table 1.2, P.5, "Primary Energy Production by Source (quadrillion BTU)", Might be a better source to show actual energy production and mix in the U.S.
Long story short: through 8 months of 2016:

Fossil fuel (coal, nat. gas, crude oil, nat. gas products) = 43.494 Quad
Nukes: 5.672 Quad

Subtotal fossil fuel + nukes: 49.166 Quad.

Hydro: 1.824 Quad.

Renewables:
Geothermal: 0.152 Quad
Solar: 0.412 Quad
Wind: 1.402 Quad
Biomass: 3.134 Quad

Renewables subtotal, including hydro: 6.921 Quad, with solar and wind contributing ~ 1.8 Quad ~ = 1.8/56.087 = 3.2% of the total energy production, or about as much as hydro and about half as much as biomass.

So, for the first 8 months of 2016, renewables accounted for 6.921/56.087 = 12.3% of the total production.
For the same 8 months in 2014, the same ratio was = 6.505/57.684 = 11.28 %.
For the same 8 months in 2015, the same ratio was = 6.422/59.138 = 10.86%.

It looks to me that, while 3 years does not a trend make, there doesn't appear to be a headlong rush to get to 20 %, particularly when I look at the changing political realities of the last 3 weeks or so.

To your points that solar and wind are larger portions of the electricity mix in some states:

1.) Again, you are referring to electricity production, not total energy production.
2.) The states you mention as having high production are also quite windy and have relatively low populations making for larger ratios of production to consumption.

To your point that in SD wind electrical production exceeded electrical production from coal in 2015, using your cited reference, Table 7.2a, P. 109, for the U.S, for 2015, electrical production from coal was 1,356,057 gigaWatt hrs. Electrical production from wind for 2015 for the U.S. was 190,927 gigaWatt hrs. or wind electrical production was only 14.1 % of the electrical production due to coal, and thus did not exceed it.

Seems like your cherry picking data to me.

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

[DanKegel]

That would be nice, and it makes sense, but only in a simplistic, naïve outlook with respect to the reality of running a utility. My H2O bill for the 31 day period through 11/15/2016 was $104.59. Of that amount, $15.70 was for the cost of the resource. The rest of the bill was made up of fixed charges for delivery of the H2O to the utility, infrastructure and sewer charges. If my usage was zero, I'd still be paying ~ 90 bucks a month. Not a beef - curse the wind or don't take water service - but if the price of the commodity alone ($15.00) had quadrupled, it would have shown up as a $150 bill instead of $105.

The boundary between fixed and variable costs is flexible. Utilities and their regulators can and have pushed costs in one category to the other to meet some policy goal.
The goals "use less water" and "don't go broke" can both be achieved by allocating more of the fixed costs to people who use an "unfair" amount of water, and this has been seen as good and fair policy at times.

[SunEagle]

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

I have no connection to any power company or any fossil fuel company. I do have about 45 years of knowledge and experience in the power industry and will out and out tell you that if you think RE will power this world 100% you are completely fooled into believing anything.

If you are so afraid of climate change and feel that us humans are to blame then I will ask you what are you doing to stop the CO2 from getting out there? Have you parked your ICE vehicle? Are you turning off all of your electrical appliances at night when the power comes from fossil fueled generating sources? Are you growing your own food or do you still purchase it from stores that are stocked by trucks? If not then you have nothing to complain about when it comes to wanting more solar and less fossil fuel power generation.

Why don't you get out there and protest to find ways to invent better systems that will capture carbon and methane and other green house gasses? Why aren't you out there planting trees?

There are ways to mitigate higher sea level, and dirty air, and warmer oceans then to just shut down the fossil fuel industry. Go out and find them. Go out and create jobs. Stop complaining. Go do something worth while.

Sorry. To the rest of the forum members for my outbust. Time to get off my soap box and another cup of decaf coffee.

[Sunking]

The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

You are as big of a fool as Dan, completely delusional.

[HollySprings]

Thanks J.P.M. for the civil discussion. You are indeed correct, I am looking at 'energy' only from electricity production. I don't see the drop in renewables from 11.28% in 2014 to 10.86% in 2015 and assume this may have been a cut/paste typo. Clearly some areas are better for 'harvesting' wind or solar, just like most commodities. NC has 0 wind production today. NC also has 0 offshore oil drilling today. Time will tell if those numbers change.

In the complete energy picture, I don't think that carbon based fuels are going away anytime soon. Capital life cycles are long.

Not sure if I am allowed to post the links below, but from what I can tell some states have more wind energy production that their coal fired counterparts... and I speculate that if trends continue solar PV could in some states do the same at some point. Maybe 10 years?

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_14_b

Table 1.14.B. Utility Scale Facility Net Generation from Wind
by State, by Sector, Year-to-Date through August 2016 and 2015 (Thousand Megawatthours)
South Dakota 1,957 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/month...?t=epmt_1_04_b
Table 1.4.B. Utility Scale Facility Net Generation from Coal
by State, by Sector, Year-to-Date through August 2016 and 2015 (Thousand Megawatthours)
South Dakota 1,506

[J.P.M.]

You are including data for heating which is misleading since the thread was implicitly discussing electricity, not total energy. It is amazing how much money fossil fuel interests and electric companies make, and it is amazing how much people will mislead when it is in their economic interest. The electric companies and especially the fossil fuel companies are rightly afraid of competition. Wholesale solar panels prices are now at 39 cents a watt vs $1.60, with prices headed drastically lower. The world will have cheap energy and fossil fuels and their companies will be remembered as a sad footnote to human greed.

Well, I actually cited production data by source of fuel, and to repeat, from Holly Springs cited source BTW, not only for heating as you incorrectly state, but for total energy production from all sources.

You may think the discussion was, is, or ought to be confined to electrical production to the exclusion of everything else.

I do not.

IMO, seeing the situation as one of electrical production only, as you seem to want to do, is a sociologically and economically limited and somewhat ignorant outlook, and is, of its own right, misleading. I'd respectfully suggest you get informed and look at the bigger picture instead of repeating out of context information of which you seem to be at best, incompletely informed. Consider the concept that there may be more to this than you know.

Furthermore, limiting the discussion only to electrical consumption seems a bit simplistic and perhaps deceiving when talking of energy matters. An example: At this time the portion of total U.S. electrical production that goes to power vehicle transportation is miniscule. I don't know what the future holds, but at some point the amount of electrical production devoted to transportation may well increase, perhaps substantially if/when EV's take off, changing the mix a bit - or a lot. Looking at the bigger picture of how energy is produced as well as used helps to broaden one's outlook.

If you consider energy companies as a contributor to a sad footnote to human greed, I'd further and also respectfully suggest you make your actions follow what seems to be the sense of your words and concentrate your efforts more on using less of their product. It'll be better for the planet, you'll get the most bang for your buck, and you'll save the most $$.

Take what you want of the above. Scrap the rest.

[J.P.M.]

The boundary between fixed and variable costs is flexible. Utilities and their regulators can and have pushed costs in one category to the other to meet some policy goal.
The goals "use less water" and "don't go broke" can both be achieved by allocating more of the fixed costs to people who use an "unfair" amount of water, and this has been seen as good and fair policy at times.

I'll share that salient and insightful wisdom will my water company, and, while I'm at it, with SDG & E. I'm sure they'll treat it as profound, something no one's thought of yet, and give it all the attention it deserves.

[word]

The most fair and practical way to combat climate change is to implement a carbon tax so that the effect of dumping carbon in the atmosphere is account for in the price of fossil fuels. The USA then should get rid of all subsides for fossil fuels, wind and solar. What I do personally has little effect on carbon since I only make up %,000000001 percent of the human carbon output. Solar is dropping rapidly in price and the fossil fuel companies are scared and putting serious money in a disinformation campaign. Solar energy is already produces 7.5% of California's electricity. With much cheaper solar panels solar panels will provide for cheaper and cleaner energy. We already have utility scale solar at 2.99 cents a watt and within 5 to 10 years 1 cent a watt will be achieved and if you think at a penny a watt people won't be building solar power plants like crazy, you aren't super sharp.

[SunEagle]

The most fair and practical way to combat climate change is to implement a carbon tax so that the effect of dumping carbon in the atmosphere is account for in the price of fossil fuels. The USA then should get rid of all subsides for fossil fuels, wind and solar. What I do personally has little effect on carbon since I only make up %,000000001 percent of the human carbon output. Solar is dropping rapidly in price and the fossil fuel companies are scared and putting serious money in a disinformation campaign. Solar energy is already produces 7.5% of California's electricity. With much cheaper solar panels solar panels will provide for cheaper and cleaner energy. We already have utility scale solar at 2.99 cents a watt and within 5 to 10 years 1 cent a watt will be achieved and if you think at a penny a watt people won't be building solar power plants like crazy, you aren't super sharp.

I guess time will tell who is correct. 'Those that think that price is the only thing holding back more solar or those that think (or know) a little more about the physical science of how power is generated and how it is delivered to the consumers of the US and other countries.

Heck even Bangladesh which is a developing country that wants to go with more RE will still be building coal fired generating plants because it needs more cheap power for it's people.

Solar, even assisted with other forms of RE just can't supply enough power 24/7/365 to fill 100% of the needs of the worlds appetite. Fossil fuel has to be part of the mix even if you don't believe so.