Solar to provide 20% of energy by 2027

[DanKegel]

Proving once again that your grasp of the standard is astounding. Thank you for describing the obvious.

"Water Rates and Charges, RATE MAKING 101" from
http://www.allianceforwaterefficienc...spx?ItemID=720
says "Marginal costing methods recognize that the dividing line
between fixed and variable depends on the period of time used for the analysis",
which supports the point I think you were objecting to.
But it's hard to tell, since your reply was ad hominem rather than directed at an actual issue.

[karrak]

Get India and China signed up first. Not going to happen. California's "green" grid is life support and has to import power at peak rates, at peak usage times
Unless it's caused by the sun.

Surely we have to look at per capita consumption, if we look at the following graph from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions



Surely it is up to those that have the largest per capita emissions to reduce their emissions and for the those with the least to limit the increase in their emissions.

Remember, Global warming has been going on since the last Ice Age....

Big difference is the rate of change in temperature and the amount of change. I suppose for all the high emitters who are middle aged and older it probably doesn't matter as it may not effect us too much in our lifetime. Who cares about about the future generations, all the people who are not as fortunate as us and all the other living things on the planet. Then again there are allot of people who could be adversely affected and those people might get very very angry...

Simon

[SunEagle]

Surely we have to look at per capita consumption, if we look at the following graph from here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...xide_emissions



Surely it is up to those that have the largest per capita emissions to reduce their emissions and for the those with the least to limit the increase in their emissions.

Big difference is the rate of change in temperature and the amount of change. I suppose for all the high emitters who are middle aged and older it probably doesn't matter as it may not effect us too much in our lifetime. Who cares about about the future generations, all the people who are not as fortunate as us and all the other living things on the planet. Then again there are allot of people who could be adversely affected and those people might get very very angry...

Simon

What you are looking at is past history. What you are not including is the rate of expansion in some countries that are increasing their usage of electricity much faster then countries like the US. Where we have been reducing our consumption. Also our birth rate has been pretty flat.

While in a country like India both the electrical consumption and birth rate are opposite of ours. Also the power generation is mostly coal generated. That kind of skews the future per capita emission numbers. And I am sure that will happen for other industrial growth countries.

[karrak]

What you are looking at is past history. What you are not including is the rate of expansion in some countries that are increasing their usage of electricity much faster then countries like the US. Where we have been reducing our consumption. Also our birth rate has been pretty flat.

While in a country like India both the electrical consumption and birth rate are opposite of ours. Also the power generation is mostly coal generated. That kind of skews the future per capita emission numbers. And I am sure that will happen for other industrial growth countries.

I don't think it is good enough or equitable that we just reduce our increase in electricity consumption, we have to reduce our consumption. Of course countries like India and China are increasing their consumption. Why shouldn't they have the right to improve their lives by consuming more electricity just like we have done in the last century. It is in all our interests to make sure that their increase in electricity consumption comes with a smaller carbon footprint than ours. We should be helping them to achieve better living standards at a lower carbon footprint.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2_cumulative_emissions_1970-2013.svg

Simon

[word]

Cheap solar and wind will be a boon to the entire world and especially to developing contries.

[SunEagle]

I don't think it is good enough or equitable that we just reduce our increase in electricity consumption, we have to reduce our consumption. Of course countries like India and China are increasing their consumption. Why shouldn't they have the right to improve their lives by consuming more electricity just like we have done in the last century. It is in all our interests to make sure that their increase in electricity consumption comes with a smaller carbon footprint than ours. We should be helping them to achieve better living standards at a lower carbon footprint.


Simon

Simon

I have no problem helping others into the space age by getting them past the low efficient high consumption era of the industrial age that we went through.

What I have a problem with is the lack of cooperation that some of those countries show by their willing to accept our aid and not being open to helping us at all with anything in return. Why should we bankrupt our county and they not help ours. Shouldn't they be giving us resources that help us reduce our carbon footprint if that is the overall goal.

How about free solar panels from China? And I am sure there is some raw material that we need that can come from India. If they need our help there should be some type of sharing that works both ways.

Unfortunately we live in a world where there is a lot of distrust and greed. That does not make for a world united that works together to solve any type of problem. Real or Conceived.

[Mike90250]

......Surely it is up to those that have the largest per capita emissions to reduce their emissions and for the those with the least to limit the increase in their emissions..........

Or not. Maybe let the "COST" of energy not be artificially adjusted with tax breaks, incentives, support, capping exec compensation. Drop the monopolys, and let the market be free. When all the dams are busted down, nukes mothballed, bird shredding turbines halted, desert habitat solar farms banned, we'll have a true price of power, Importing Lithium from foreign countries and banning lead from long lasting electronic gear ought to help too.

[DanKegel]

What I have a problem with is the lack of cooperation that some of those countries show...
Unfortunately we live in a world where there is a lot of distrust and greed. That does not make for a world united that works together to solve any type of problem. ...

India, China, and the United States are currently all cooperating very nicely to increase deployment of clean energy and reduce future carbon emissions; all three are investing heavily to move towards carbon-free sources of energy.

However, the official policy of the United States is about to make a U-turn; the president-elect wrote

There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy--so-called green energy--from renewable sources. That's a big mistake.

So, while there will probably be a lack of cooperation on renewable energy, India and China will probably continue cooperating on it as they have been (as will California); it's the United States which will probably stop cooperating... at least for four or so years.

[jflorey2]

The EU is an existence proof for having a high standard of living with less than half the power, so that's clearly possible (but not easy).

Sure - and even easier if most people live in apartments.

2. During even overcast days, PV can provide enough energy; you just have to have enough panels and/or transmission lines.

When you say things like this it makes me wonder if you have any experience with solar. You say that you do; strange.

3. Wind is usually blowing somewhere; you just need to have enough wind turbines and/or transmission lines.

Transmission lines are the key here. HVDC transmission can help there but to do it on a countrywide basis (which is what you'd need) you are talking hundreds of billions, if not trillions.
. . .

7. Modern 100MW solar power towers which use molten salt and can store energy for use all
night are commercially available; several are in operation already.

None that I know of operate can operate at full power 24/7. Some can operate with additional natural gas input - but we already have those.

There are certainly ways to do this. By far the simplest/fastest is to add a lot of nuclear capacity for baseline generation, use natural gas for peakers and use renewables for opportunistic energy harvesting. Unfortunately there's a lot of resistance to that (and almost all on the nuclear slice.)

[SunEagle]

India, China, and the United States are currently all cooperating very nicely to increase deployment of clean energy and reduce future carbon emissions; all three are investing heavily to move towards carbon-free sources of energy.

However, the official policy of the United States is about to make a U-turn; the president-elect wrote


So, while there will probably be a lack of cooperation on renewable energy, India and China will probably continue cooperating on it as they have been (as will California); it's the United States which will probably stop cooperating... at least for four or so years.[/COLOR]

Dan. You strike me as an intelligent person. Do you truly believe everything you read and hear that is being posted in the media and other news outlets from around the world as being solid enough to take it to the bank?

I am not saying that India and China are not making some concessions to reducing their carbon footprint but you do understand that to save face "heads of state" have to say things in public but then will do what is necessary behind the scenes to keep their country moving forward.

Cooperation comes in many forms. Actions are always stronger then words.

[DanKegel]

"During even overcast days, PV can provide enough energy; you just have to have enough panels and/or transmission lines."

When you say things like this it makes me wonder if you have any experience with solar. You say that you do; strange.

Maybe I was unclear. I was trying to say that solar can cover a particular daytime load on a large percentage of days
if the array is large enough and/or you have enough transmission lines to reach an area with better illumination.
Even without transmission lines reaching over to the next state, you can reduce the number of days
when PV is insufficient for daytime loads as low as you like by making the array bigger.

bcroe did this with his system -- it's oversized to provide enough power even on most cloudy days, if I recall correctly.

And as I mentioned, my system is also oversized, and provides enough daytime power on well over 90% of days,
even overcast ones. My time-of-use net meter says I've used 11 kWh during peak daytime hours in the last eight months,
despite rainy days.

Make more sense now? I don't think that point was saying anything surprising.

[jflorey2]

And as I mentioned, my system is also oversized, and provides enough daytime power on well over 90% of days

Yep. Mine too. It's those 10% of days that the utility has to plan for that costs all that money.

[DanKegel]

Actions are always stronger then words.

Right, then, let's see how much PV India, China, and the US installed in 2015:
http://www.iea-pvps.org/fileadmin/da..._2016_-_mr.pdf
says
China 15 GW
Japan 10,8 GW
USA 7,3 GW
UK 4,1 GW
India 2,1 GW

I'd say China's cooperating nicely there, and given how poor India is, they're not doing bad at all.

It'd be sad if we discouraged that cooperation by badmouthing renewable energy and winding down our national commitment to it, but it appears that's what's being promised.

I do understand that populist rulers like to say things that are divorced from reality to fire up their base, and so one should wait to see what actually happens... but the badmouthing cannot possibly be improving the climate of distrust you were talking about.

[DanKegel]

Yep. Mine too. It's those 10% of days that the utility has to plan for that costs all that money.

Right, and the nighttime. But the question was, how do we get to a very high percentage of our energy needs covered by renewable energy, right? I apologize if I was stating the obvious, but you were asking how it was possible, and I was listing the things that contribute to making it possible.

[DanKegel]

Modern 100MW solar power towers which use molten salt and can store energy for use all
night are commercially available; several are in operation already.


None that I know of operate can operate at full power 24/7

Oh, we don't need them to operate 24/7; they need to soak up power during the day, and spit it out in the evening peak hours. That's enough to reduce need for gas peakers significantly.


Anyway, do you agree now that it's clearly possible to get to something like 90% renewable energy? Whether a country does it comes down to cost, science, and politics, I think. (Although of course as we ramp up, engineers will keep bringing down the cost, don't want to minimize the need for more engineering. Just trying to say no technical miracles or quantum leaps are needed, we've got the basic tools we need already.)

You said earlier:

I don't think solar is going to get much cheaper. It bottomed out at about 70 cents a watt (panels only) and has since rebounded a bit.

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/67142.pdf shows it was at 61 cents a watt at the end of Q1 2016, so it doesn't seem like solar has stopped getting cheaper yet. Rough market for solar panel makers...