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

[SunEagle]

I am not saying that the costings that I posted proved the point, it is just one of many pieces of evidence that dispute your claim.



You are looking backwards not forwards. The cost of RE, especially storage is coming down very rapidly. Most of the poor countries don't have the capital for the large power grids which large efficient fossil fuel powered power stations need. Small decentralised power systems based around RE reduce the capital cost of putting in large centralised grids.



I totally agree with you that at the moment it is uneconomic and impractical to have RE generate all the power. It does make sense to use RE where it can replace or supplement fossil fuel power generation and be cost competitive. Externalities like pollution and other environmental costs need to be factored into the costs when calculating the cost competitiveness.

The cost reductions of RE, especially energy storage have a long way to go. I think that as this cost reduction occurs, and as the grid control technology gets better we will see a greater and greater percentage of RE being able to compete with fossil fuel generated power, hopefully RE generated power will reach 100% in a reasonable time frame. In my opinion due to global warming it is imperative and will cost less in the longer term if this happens as soon as possible.

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

The simple answer to getting close to 100% RE is to cut the usage by 50%. That will never happen in countries that are still growing and even with RE costs coming down and their fear of climate change will not be enough to come up with the capital to switch from fossil fuel to RE.

You are still thinking that switching to RE is easy because you can afford it while most people in other countries are dirt poor and will never be able to switch to a different power source without a lot of financial support from other countries.

Getting millions to switch to RE is going to take more than just a reduction in cost because "coming down rapidly" is not enough for a lot of people.

[DanKegel]

Getting millions to switch to RE is going to take more than just a reduction in cost because "coming down rapidly" is not enough for a lot of people.

Once it's cheaper than fossil, though, that is enough, right?
As you said, that's already the case on islands like Kauai that have to import fuel.
It's also already the case in parts of Africa that lack grid service; entrepreneurs like m-kopa.com and pegafrica.com are serving that market.

I think Kerrik put his finger on it. The disagreement is probably that you're thinking about areas where RE is not yet economical, and we're thinking about areas where it is already or will soon be economical.

[DanKegel]

You're post is full of errors, mathematical, situational and logical.

If you want to convince grown-ups of something, providing solid evidence is a good way to do it. Improves your credibility, too.

If you just want to blow smoke, claiming there are many mistakes but not pointing out any is a fine way to do it... but it hurts your credibility.

Best of all would be for you to join in the shared search for objective truth, rather than engaging in ad-hominem attacks. Vendettas aren't becoming.

[SunEagle]

Once it's cheaper than fossil, though, that is enough, right?
As you said, that's already the case on islands like Kauai that have to import fuel.
It's also already the case in parts of Africa that lack grid service; entrepreneurs like m-kopa.com and pegafrica.com are serving that market.

I think Kerrik put his finger on it. The disagreement is probably that you're thinking about areas where RE is not yet economical, and we're thinking about areas where it is already or will soon be economical.

As of now RE is not cheaper for me and I live in Florida. The estimation by a number of experts is that it will not be cheap to go with RE in most other countries for decades.

In the meantime if you feel it is cheaper for you then that is what you go with.

I say that relying on RE for a large % of your power generation is similar to painting yourself into a corner. It takes a while and while you are doing the painting it looks great but when you finally find yourself with no way out it becomes ugly.

[DanKegel]

As of now RE is not cheaper for me and I live in Florida.

I imagine it depends on the utility... flaseia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016UtilityReport-1.pdf grades Florida utilities on how friendly they are to residential solar.

Also, the transition may be tiptoeing closer to you than you thought.
Florida Power and Light seems to be replacing a 250MW coal plant with 275MW of solar:
politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/05/florida-utilities-move-toward-solar-energy-as-price-drops-101549
pv-magazine-usa.com/2016/12/26/fpl-to-put-online-floridas-first-large-utility-scale-solar-plants/
They wouldn't do that if it didn't make economic sense, would they?

Anyway, you're absolutely right that there are places that RE is not yet cheaper than fossil fuel.
We seem to be in violent agreement

[DanKegel]

Dan: you seem to believe all the stuff you agree with comes from "good sources" without verification on your part and unassailable simply because someone or some organization put some factoid that fits your reality in writing.

The guy in charge of the SONGS nuclear plant says it's unmaintained because it's due for demolition. Isn't that a fairly good sign that it might actually be unmaintained?

Nothing stopping you or jflorey2 from finding better evidence and posting it. I was just trying to be helpful by sharing what I learned.

[jflorey2]

Once it's cheaper than fossil, though, that is enough, right?

No. Horses are cheaper than cars. I don't think you are going to see many people ditching their cars for a cheaper replacement.

As you said, that's already the case on islands like Kauai that have to import fuel.

And on the ISS. And for remote weather stations. That's great. But they're not going to replace baseline power until something very fundamental changes. (Note that Hawaii in general is having massive problems with solar power; new installations are being prohibited on several islands due to grid instability.)

[solar pete]

I find this thread a bit weird as our Prime Minister is currently running around talking up " clean coal", 100% clean energy by 2050, yeah right

[J.P.M.]

The guy in charge of the SONGS nuclear plant says it's unmaintained because it's due for demolition. Isn't that a fairly good sign that it might actually be unmaintained?

Nothing stopping you or jflorey2 from finding better evidence and posting it. I was just trying to be helpful by sharing what I learned.

Dan: Do you think it's possible that what you think someone means when they say or write "unmaintained" may actually be different than the meaning of the word in the context they are intending it to be used, or, for that matter that they were actually quoted correctly ? You want specifics ? Another example of you throwing stuff around without understanding what's written or it's context.

BTW, If what you wrote about what Palmisano said is correct, I believe his statement referred to plant equipment not being maintained, not the entire plant. Big difference. You want specifics ? Seems you can't even get your own references correct. If you had any idea of the type and quantity of equipment in a power plant, you might understand how ignorant your statements and assumptions are.

FWIW, coincidentally, and maybe a bit off topic, I've got several pieces of ancillary equipment in that plant that I designed a long time ago.

Everyone agrees that the plant is shut down, off line, inoperative, whatever. However, until the fuel is removed, the plant, and some of it's systems still requires some maintenance and has activity. After that, decommissioning and site remediation will take years. Drive by some time and note the cars and people. I have, and recently. That seems evidence of activity to me. Good enough for ya' ? Since no power is being generated, I'd assume it's activity having other purposes dealing with keeping things not associated with generation maintained in a safe condition until decommissioning and demolition. BTW: Thank you for granting me permission to look for evidence of activity at SONGS and post it here.

Seems to me what you call learning and sharing here is another example of you simply repeating what you read, passing it along and calling it proof while reinterpreting it to fit your version of reality and not really gaining anything from it like knowledge.

[jflorey2]

The guy in charge of the SONGS nuclear plant says it's unmaintained because it's due for demolition. Isn't that a fairly good sign that it might actually be unmaintained?

And a friend of mine is still in charge of an operations shift there. Odd that there would be ongoing operations and maintenance in an "unmaintained" plant, eh?

Nothing stopping you or jflorey2 from finding better evidence and posting it. I was just trying to be helpful by sharing what I learned.

Not interested in proving anything to you; believe whatever you like.

[karrak]

I find this thread a bit weird as our Prime Minister is currently running around talking up " clean coal", 100% clean energy by 2050, yeah right

I wonder how big a donation from the coal industry this took?

[SunEagle]

I find this thread a bit weird as our Prime Minister is currently running around talking up " clean coal", 100% clean energy by 2050, yeah right

It does seem like a contradiction, but if you take into the consideration the new technology of "carbon capture" as well as use existing ways to filter the noxious by products of fossil fuel then "clean coal" might be part of that 100% clean energy mix.

All I am saying is that while I see a lot of cheering for better batteries and more RE people don't seem to look at the news concerning carbon capture. It is almost like they are totally against fossil fuel which unless they have parked their ICE vehicle and turn off their appliances when RE is not available seems to be a contradiction to what they are yelling about.

[SunEagle]

I imagine it depends on the utility... flaseia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/2016UtilityReport-1.pdf grades Florida utilities on how friendly they are to residential solar.

Also, the transition may be tiptoeing closer to you than you thought.
Florida Power and Light seems to be replacing a 250MW coal plant with 275MW of solar:
politico.com/states/florida/story/2016/05/florida-utilities-move-toward-solar-energy-as-price-drops-101549
pv-magazine-usa.com/2016/12/26/fpl-to-put-online-floridas-first-large-utility-scale-solar-plants/
They wouldn't do that if it didn't make economic sense, would they?

Anyway, you're absolutely right that there are places that RE is not yet cheaper than fossil fuel.
We seem to be in violent agreement

FPL is under a lot of pressure by multiple sources to install more Solar. While I am all for that action it may have nothing to do with them reducing their costs because they have been allowed to pass on their generating costs to their customers.

For that matter FPL still has nuclear power generation along with natural gas which with your reasoning must make economic sense to keep on line then switching totally to solar.

[DanKegel]

And a friend of mine is still in charge of an operations shift there. Odd that there would be ongoing operations and maintenance in an "unmaintained" plant, eh?

Not at all. Until the plant is fully decomissioned, there will always be something going on there.

Looks like they cut employment by two thirds, and auctioned off a bunch of equipment ( ocregister.com/articles/plant-602845-edison-equipment.html ) a while ago.
The update at songscommunity.com/cep-events/111016_event.asp says "all systems retired" and plant is in "cold and dark" state; they've moved power for essential equipment to a separate set of lines that can remain operating during demolition, and they've awarded the decomissioning contract.
They've also been granted an exemption for recordkeeping about maintenance on systems no longer needed, see www . nrc.gov/docs/ML1535/ML15355A268.pdf

Sounds like they're about ready to rip stuff up. It's quite plausible that they're no longer maintaining equipment that is vital to safe operation of a functioning nuclear power plant, but is not needed to maintain safety during decomissioning.

I hear there's a pro-nuclear group arguing to restart the plant; maybe they have more details about what's being maintained and what's not.

[J.P.M.]

It's quite plausible that they're no longer maintaining equipment that is vital to safe operation of a functioning nuclear power plant, but is not needed to maintain safety during decommissioning.

And just where did you get that sage wisdom ? Your extensive engineering, and background, in nuclear plant operation and maintenance ? You're way out of your knowledge base.

Yet another example of irresponsible brain spoor from you.

Ever think someone equally ill informed as you living in, say, San Clemente might read what you just wrote, incorrectly think you know something and go bat guano ?

What you just did is irresponsible, thoughtless and potentially quite dangerous. Who do you think you are ?