CSIRO and Australia grid industry association roadmap to 100% clean energy by 2050

[SunEagle]

Sure, but that's hindsight.

Once Aliso was offline, what would you have done?
it could hold 86 billion cubic feet. Not sure how much a steel tank would cost; might need to liquify the gas to get enough into a practical tank. I suspect an LNG tank costs $200 million per billion cubic feet of gas. Batteries may well be cheaper... At 33 cubic ft per kWh, 300 MWh = 10 billion cubic feet. Check my math, but it seems a tank would have been more expensive.

Dan

My guess is that you will always try to find a way to prove that fossil fuel power generation will always be more expensive that non fossil fuel.

The problem is that except for very few places that import fuel to generate power, fossil fuel will always be a cheaper power source. It is the truth but you just don't like the answer.

[J.P.M.]

Sure, but that's hindsight.

Once Aliso was offline, what would you have done?
it could hold 86 billion cubic feet. Not sure how much a steel tank would cost; might need to liquify the gas to get enough into a practical tank. I suspect an LNG tank costs $200 million per billion cubic feet of gas. Batteries may well be cheaper... At 33 cubic ft per kWh, 300 MWh = 10 billion cubic feet. Check my math, but it seems a tank would have been more expensive.

Among other things, I designed storage tanks for a living. You have no idea where to begin, or what's involved. There's a fair possibility it's neither practical or possible much less cost effective. You're again way out of your knowledge base.

[Sunking]

Dan once again you prove you are an idiot. How many year of school did that take?

[jflorey2]

Sure, but that's hindsight. Once Aliso was offline, what would you have done?

Restarted San Onofre. Add over 1 gigawatt to baseline generation, and "bank" the unneeded natural gas.

[DanKegel]

Among other things, I designed storage tanks for a living. You have no idea where to begin, or what's involved. There's a fair possibility it's neither practical or possible much less cost effective.

That's very much in line with my post.

[DanKegel]

Restarted San Onofre

That's wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The utility tried to bring it back online; it was too expensive.
Also, it hasn't been maintained for several years. It's scrap now, unless you're willing to take some really big chances.

[J.P.M.]

That's very much in line with my post.

Yea, especially the part were I write that you have no idea where to begin or what's involved. Looks like we agree on something.

[J.P.M.]

That's wishful thinking, I'm afraid. The utility tried to bring it back online; it was too expensive.
Also, it hasn't been maintained for several years. It's scrap now, unless you're willing to take some really big chances.

Once the steam generators failed, in a very predictable way BTW, the utilities never seriously considered a fix or a restart. Long story in the failure analysis. The published, redacted failure analysis report tells most, but not all of the story. From some folks I know and once worked with familiar with that autopsy, it should never have happened, as most anyone knowledgeable in heat exchanger design will attest. Recommissioning is theoretically possible, but a practical impossibility, even without the NRC.

[DanKegel]

Once the steam generators failed, in a very predictable way BTW, the utilities never seriously considered a fix or a restart.

Well... when unit 3 failed, they took unit 2 offline, too (or rather, kept it offline; it had been shut down for refueling).
neimagazine.com/news/newssce-reveals-san-onofre-restart-plan describes SCE's plan to restart unit 2 and operate it at 70% power.
That plan was nixed, sealing the fate of the whole plant, I think.

It just occurred to me -- I'm treating this discussion as a friendly, shared search for truth, but perhaps not everyone here is on the same wavelength. It'd be nice if we were.

Does anyone here still think there was a cheaper / better option than the one the utilities chose, given that SONGS is permanently offline and Aliso Canyon is going to be offline for a while yet and will only come back partially? If so, I'd like to hear details.

[karrak]

Dan

My guess is that you will always try to find a way to prove that fossil fuel power generation will always be more expensive that non fossil fuel.

The problem is that except for very few places that import fuel to generate power, fossil fuel will always be a cheaper power source. It is the truth but you just don't like the answer.

That is a very brave statement to make

This graph from http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-ene...omparativeCost paints a different picture. The original report from Lazard https://www.lazard.com/perspective/l...y-analysis-90/ is also an interesting read.



The other thing to bear in mind is whether you take into account environmental costs as part of the overall costings.

Simon

Off grid 24V system, 6x190W Solar Panels, 32x90ah Winston LiFeYPO4 batteries installed April 2013
BMS - Homemade Battery logger github.com/simat/BatteryMonitor
Latronics 4kW Inverter, homemade MPPT controller

---

[J.P.M.]

It just occurred to me -- I'm treating this discussion as a friendly, shared search for truth, but perhaps not everyone here is on the same wavelength. It'd be nice if we were..

The truth is an often slippery commodity.

Some versions of the truth, whatever that is, usually wind up being a matter of perception.

Perception better reflects reality with knowledge.

IMO, your demonstrated lack of that last quality with respect to energy matters in general and the particulars of nuclear based power generation leaves me with the conclusion that such a discussion wouldn't come to much more than another way to draw attention to yourself.

Why don't you go find a forum that says "Nuclear Power Talk" instead of "Solar Panel Talk" and regale the pro nuke crowd over there with your insights and sagacity.

[DanKegel]

Dan please stop looking for articles that are pie in the sky. I would rather see proven technology that is already working.

SunEagle, now that LA has 200 MWh or so of battery storage on its grid, how close is grid-scale battery storage to "proven technology that is already working" from your point of view? What are the criteria?

[J.P.M.]

That is a very brave statement to make

This graph from http://www.awea.org/falling-wind-ene...omparativeCost paints a different picture. The original report from Lazard https://www.lazard.com/perspective/l...y-analysis-90/ is also an interesting read.



The other thing to bear in mind is whether you take into account environmental costs as part of the overall costings.

Simon

Off grid 24V system, 6x190W Solar Panels, 32x90ah Winston LiFeYPO4 batteries installed April 2013
BMS - Homemade Battery logger github.com/simat/BatteryMonitor
Latronics 4kW Inverter, homemade MPPT controller

---

Noting the dangers that cherry picking one slide out of a power point presentation can present, I'd still note the LCOE rooftop solar vs. coal generated power.

[Sunking]

That is a very brave statement to make

Simon you are as stupid as Dan is. Your source is from a very biased propaganda org. Like Dan you have no credibility here.

[DanKegel]

How are Lazard's figures inaccurate?

Karrak quoted their unsubsidized figures, so it's not that they're hiding costs that way.

Maybe it's that they're quoting prices for new generation, but there's already sufficient fossil generation in place?

Or maybe you mean Lazard doesn't include the cost of conditioning the power for retail use?
For that you'd also need to add storage, peaker plants, and/or demand management... which aren't cheap.

It's fair to say that renewable is not competitive for "baseload" power except in special circumstances yet.

But now that utility scale storage is proving itself, and as costs keep falling, it's going to be a practical option in more circumstances as time goes on.

(Data from LBL confirms the low daytime solar prices listed by Lazard.
blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/the-price-of-solar-is-declining-to-unprecedented-lows
says "The latest data show that the 2015 solar PPA price fell below $50 per megawatt-hour (or 5 cents per kilowatt-hour) in 4 of the 5 regions analyzed"
It also confirms their wind price figures;
emp.lbl.gov/publications/2015-wind-technologies-market-report says "the average [subsidized] levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements has dropped to around 2 cents per kWh.
I think the PTC is about 2.3 cents per kWh, so that puts both wind and solar around 4 to 5 cents per kWh in regions where they are plentiful.
Wholesale electricity is 3 to 4 cents per kWh, so costs need to fall by a cent or so, or about 25%, to really bite into old fossil's market share.
Removing the existing subsidies for fossil fuel would also help.

Another interesting site that just popped up: energy.utexas.edu/the-full-cost-of-electricity-fce/ has a report on cost of energy, and a map of the cost of various kinds of energy that lets you fiddle with things like co2 pricing to see at what carbon price does wind or solar become competitive.)