The Penetration Problem: The More You Do, The Harder It Gets

[cancel2 2022]

.
Superb article on Judith Curry's website.

There seems to be a belief that increasing the level of wind and solar projects will make subsequent progress with these resources easier. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Increasing penetration levels of wind and solar is like a Sisyphean task, except that it is worse. The challenge may be better understood as akin to pushing a huge rock which is getting heavier and heavier, up a hill of a steeper and steeper slope while the ground below gets slicker and more unstable. The problems associated with increased penetration swamp any potential benefits that might be achieved through economies of scale.

The bulk power system has traditionally been strong and very robust. There are generally not significant problems associated with adding small system elements (small amounts of wind and solar) which lean on the system, rather than support it. The system has a limited ability to absorb wind and solar power and can use it to displace generation which relies on costly fuels. But at higher penetration levels this ability is greatly reduced and the economics can degrade and even reverse. Listed below are some reasons why increasing the penetration levels of renewables will lead to rapidly increasing costs as well as rapidly decreasing reliability.

1)Wind and solar do not readily supply essential reliability services. Conventional generation has characteristics that support the stability and operation of the grid. They have inertial mass and spin in synchronism with the wave forms powering the system while readily providing voltage and frequency support. As wind and solar make up a larger percentage of the generation resource base we see an erosion of these desirable characteristics. Some argue that electronic emulation can serve to compensate for the loss of these characteristics but it is costly and the results are inferior. Previous writings going into detail on this topic include:

2)Wind and solar are intermittent resources and their availability/output often does not match or support system needs. While there is hope for battery technology, current goals are modest. Other resources must compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar. The greater the percentage of wind and solar the greater the challenge and cost for backup. Previous writings on this topic include:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/
https://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

3) The success of wind and solar installations is highly location specific. You can pull up maps showing the suitability and appropriateness of various locations for both wind and solar power. Other land use considerations make locations more or less suitable for wind and solar as well. Current effort to increase wind and solar make use of the most optimal sites. Remaining sites are less optimal. As penetration levels increase above current levels the suitability of potential sites will decrease. The posting below cowritten with Rud Istavan provides some discussion of locational problems.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/20/energy-strategies-horses-for-courses/

4) Wind and solar depend on materials which must be mined and their ability may be limited. Greatly increasing solar and wind production will likely increase costs and create supply problems. European wind power is already seeing a fight over scarce materials.

5)As wind and solar generation increase penetration it will become more and more challenging for other resources to subsidize their expansion. It’s one thing to subsidize a small component of the generation mix, another thing entirely to subsidize the major components.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/21/what-should-renewables-pay-for-grid-service/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/clean-air-who-pays/

6)It takes a lot of energy to build wind and solar facilities. Their operation and support consume a lot of energy. Many see that it is doubtful that such facilities can support themselves, serve load and provide enough energy to build replacement facilities of the same sort. Additionally, if electric vehicles are thrown in, the problem is further magnified. The “green” plan to eliminate gas appliances and added losses from increased battery deployment will not help either. There are a class of concerns focusing on all the energy and resources consumed by wind and solar resources. This is referred to as the energy density or power density problem. Here are a couple links (here, here, here and here) discussing these type concerns. These concerns have been outside my area of experience. I hope that readers may add more references in the comments.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/07/transmission-planning-wind-and-solar/

7)Wind and solar make the study, control and operation of the power system more complicated and uncertain. These resources are intermittent and more unpredictable for operators to contend with. To maintain stability good modeling is imperative. Detailed models are run involving complex differential equations. Planners can force builders of large power plants to provide pretty good data on the plant impacts. Getting good data for dispersed projects with many small elements which might change during a project and after installation is much more challenging. Lastly, system operators and planners have years of experience with large rotating machines, not as much with wind and solar.

8)Widespread deployment of wind and solar would require that power be transmitted across great distances (or you would need an unrealistic and incredible amount of battery storage.) Getting wind’s power from the plains to the population centers involves long transmission lines. Green advocates argue that imbalances between load and generation from solar and wind resources can be overcome by drawing on resources from a broader geographical area. This requires even greater needs for long power lines and a robust grid. Wind and solar produce DC power which must be converted, with the help of the grid, to AC power. Edison and Tesla had a battle years ago over AC and DC power. Tesla won because to transmit power a long distance you need to use an alternating current system. As noted in item 1, solar and wind do not provide sufficient elements like inertia and vars for such a system to remain stable. (Side note-A high voltage DC line can transmit power great distances with lower losses. However, to utilize a high voltage DC line it is imperative to have a strong AC system receiving the power. The system must be robust such that the power can be converted from DC to AC. High voltage DC lines will not be the savior of a wind and solar based system.) While high levels of wind and solar penetration require a robust grid, their greater presence reduces the capability of the grid.

The above is a formidable list of challenges. How might they be overcome? Not by economies of scale from increased wind and solar production. First off, it’s hard to imagine that any economies of scale would allow these resources to leap the formidable challenges described above. Secondly, it does not appear that significant improvements in economies of scale are to be expected. My perusal of the topic shows that attempts to find economies of scale have all failed. Building more and more smaller units likely will not provide greater economies of scale due to increased material costs. Larger wind and solar facilities incur a class of costs not seen by smaller facilities. Promoters of wind and solar argue instead that smaller local projects provide more benefits than might be obtained from larger facilities.

Could nuclear energy be a piece of a lower carbon emission future? Most certainly. None of the above concerns apply to nuclear power. We could see cheaper costs from standardized nuclear facilities and reasonable regulations. Hydro too works well with the power system. Unfortunately, there are negligible to no potential locations to expand hydro generation. (Note-pumped storage is an option for storing energy, but not producing additional net energy).

It is way too soon to be envisioning a 100% renewable future with significant contributions from current wind and solar capabilities. It is not a good strategy to support current “green” technologies and retire and prohibit conventional generation hoping that a miracle will occur when we need it. Perhaps with the extensive deployment of nuclear power, carbon capture and other technologies we might be able to approach a zero-carbon grid. At best, current wind and solar technologies will play at most a small part in such a plan.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/03/...and-solar-the-more-you-do-the-harder-it-gets/

 

[Hawkeye10]

.
Superb article on Judith Curry's website.

There seems to be a belief that increasing the level of wind and solar projects will make subsequent progress with these resources easier. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Increasing penetration levels of wind and solar is like a Sisyphean task, except that it is worse. The challenge may be better understood as akin to pushing a huge rock which is getting heavier and heavier, up a hill of a steeper and steeper slope while the ground below gets slicker and more unstable. The problems associated with increased penetration swamp any potential benefits that might be achieved through economies of scale.

The bulk power system has traditionally been strong and very robust. There are generally not significant problems associated with adding small system elements (small amounts of wind and solar) which lean on the system, rather than support it. The system has a limited ability to absorb wind and solar power and can use it to displace generation which relies on costly fuels. But at higher penetration levels this ability is greatly reduced and the economics can degrade and even reverse. Listed below are some reasons why increasing the penetration levels of renewables will lead to rapidly increasing costs as well as rapidly decreasing reliability.

1)Wind and solar do not readily supply essential reliability services. Conventional generation has characteristics that support the stability and operation of the grid. They have inertial mass and spin in synchronism with the wave forms powering the system while readily providing voltage and frequency support. As wind and solar make up a larger percentage of the generation resource base we see an erosion of these desirable characteristics. Some argue that electronic emulation can serve to compensate for the loss of these characteristics but it is costly and the results are inferior. Previous writings going into detail on this topic include:

2)Wind and solar are intermittent resources and their availability/output often does not match or support system needs. While there is hope for battery technology, current goals are modest. Other resources must compensate for the intermittency of wind and solar. The greater the percentage of wind and solar the greater the challenge and cost for backup. Previous writings on this topic include:

https://judithcurry.com/2014/12/11/all-megawatts-are-not-equal/
https://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/

3) The success of wind and solar installations is highly location specific. You can pull up maps showing the suitability and appropriateness of various locations for both wind and solar power. Other land use considerations make locations more or less suitable for wind and solar as well. Current effort to increase wind and solar make use of the most optimal sites. Remaining sites are less optimal. As penetration levels increase above current levels the suitability of potential sites will decrease. The posting below cowritten with Rud Istavan provides some discussion of locational problems.

https://judithcurry.com/2016/03/20/energy-strategies-horses-for-courses/

4) Wind and solar depend on materials which must be mined and their ability may be limited. Greatly increasing solar and wind production will likely increase costs and create supply problems. European wind power is already seeing a fight over scarce materials.

5)As wind and solar generation increase penetration it will become more and more challenging for other resources to subsidize their expansion. It’s one thing to subsidize a small component of the generation mix, another thing entirely to subsidize the major components.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/21/what-should-renewables-pay-for-grid-service/
https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/clean-air-who-pays/

6)It takes a lot of energy to build wind and solar facilities. Their operation and support consume a lot of energy. Many see that it is doubtful that such facilities can support themselves, serve load and provide enough energy to build replacement facilities of the same sort. Additionally, if electric vehicles are thrown in, the problem is further magnified. The “green” plan to eliminate gas appliances and added losses from increased battery deployment will not help either. There are a class of concerns focusing on all the energy and resources consumed by wind and solar resources. This is referred to as the energy density or power density problem. Here are a couple links (here, here, here and here) discussing these type concerns. These concerns have been outside my area of experience. I hope that readers may add more references in the comments.

https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/07/transmission-planning-wind-and-solar/

7)Wind and solar make the study, control and operation of the power system more complicated and uncertain. These resources are intermittent and more unpredictable for operators to contend with. To maintain stability good modeling is imperative. Detailed models are run involving complex differential equations. Planners can force builders of large power plants to provide pretty good data on the plant impacts. Getting good data for dispersed projects with many small elements which might change during a project and after installation is much more challenging. Lastly, system operators and planners have years of experience with large rotating machines, not as much with wind and solar.

8)Widespread deployment of wind and solar would require that power be transmitted across great distances (or you would need an unrealistic and incredible amount of battery storage.) Getting wind’s power from the plains to the population centers involves long transmission lines. Green advocates argue that imbalances between load and generation from solar and wind resources can be overcome by drawing on resources from a broader geographical area. This requires even greater needs for long power lines and a robust grid. Wind and solar produce DC power which must be converted, with the help of the grid, to AC power. Edison and Tesla had a battle years ago over AC and DC power. Tesla won because to transmit power a long distance you need to use an alternating current system. As noted in item 1, solar and wind do not provide sufficient elements like inertia and vars for such a system to remain stable. (Side note-A high voltage DC line can transmit power great distances with lower losses. However, to utilize a high voltage DC line it is imperative to have a strong AC system receiving the power. The system must be robust such that the power can be converted from DC to AC. High voltage DC lines will not be the savior of a wind and solar based system.) While high levels of wind and solar penetration require a robust grid, their greater presence reduces the capability of the grid.

The above is a formidable list of challenges. How might they be overcome? Not by economies of scale from increased wind and solar production. First off, it’s hard to imagine that any economies of scale would allow these resources to leap the formidable challenges described above. Secondly, it does not appear that significant improvements in economies of scale are to be expected. My perusal of the topic shows that attempts to find economies of scale have all failed. Building more and more smaller units likely will not provide greater economies of scale due to increased material costs. Larger wind and solar facilities incur a class of costs not seen by smaller facilities. Promoters of wind and solar argue instead that smaller local projects provide more benefits than might be obtained from larger facilities.

Could nuclear energy be a piece of a lower carbon emission future? Most certainly. None of the above concerns apply to nuclear power. We could see cheaper costs from standardized nuclear facilities and reasonable regulations. Hydro too works well with the power system. Unfortunately, there are negligible to no potential locations to expand hydro generation. (Note-pumped storage is an option for storing energy, but not producing additional net energy).

It is way too soon to be envisioning a 100% renewable future with significant contributions from current wind and solar capabilities. It is not a good strategy to support current “green” technologies and retire and prohibit conventional generation hoping that a miracle will occur when we need it. Perhaps with the extensive deployment of nuclear power, carbon capture and other technologies we might be able to approach a zero-carbon grid. At best, current wind and solar technologies will play at most a small part in such a plan.

https://judithcurry.com/2022/10/03/...and-solar-the-more-you-do-the-harder-it-gets/

What maybe 3% of JPP want to think this much?

What R U Thinking!

 

[cancel2 2022]

Precious few I've no doubt, it's a moron rich environment.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Precious few I've no doubt, it's a moron rich environment.

"They are not stupid, they are Evil".
Candice

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue, the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

The alternative to this is to have some other method of producing electricity when the solar panels don't work. This would mean you install one kilowatt of generation by say using natural gas driven turbines in addition to your 1 kilowatt of electricity. One source or the other sits idle roughly half the time.

The first method results in a grotesquely expensive system due to the cost of the batteries and having to install so much extra generation capacity to charge them. The second duplicates the system resulting in a far more expensive system. It'd be better to just build the natural gas turbine system and generate the power reliably 24/7 and not install the solar panels at all.

Either way, solar just adds massive costs to electrical generation while reducing the reliability of the grid it's on.

In fact, going nuclear for roughly 70% of our total electrical generation capacity would cost about 10% to 20% of what building 70% of it using solar and wind would cost. That's how awful solar and wind really are.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Wtf is this silliness? We had the thing licked and these idiots wanna undo all the progress made in the 20th Century for all humans?

 

[Matt Dillon]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue, the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

The alternative to this is to have some other method of producing electricity when the solar panels don't work. This would mean you install one kilowatt of generation by say using natural gas driven turbines in addition to your 1 kilowatt of electricity. One source or the other sits idle roughly half the time.

The first method results in a grotesquely expensive system due to the cost of the batteries and having to install so much extra generation capacity to charge them. The second duplicates the system resulting in a far more expensive system. It'd be better to just build the natural gas turbine system and generate the power reliably 24/7 and not install the solar panels at all.

Either way, solar just adds massive costs to electrical generation while reducing the reliability of the grid it's on.

In fact, going nuclear for roughly 70% of our total electrical generation capacity would cost about 10% to 20% of what building 70% of it using solar and wind would cost. That's how awful solar and wind really are.

I don't even wanna hear about kilowatts of electricity with the way my power company is doing. I'm ready to haul out my bills from yesteryears and make a case against their criminality and all those that enabled it. Ready to name names and get to

the bottom of this mass theft foisted upon an unsuspecting populace.

"It'll be cheap and reliable" They said.. "We won't overcharge ya; Trust us." They said.

And then they lobby the government to do exactly that, and the government takes their side. That's fucked up. Ofc they bribed the government to take their side, the sad thing is that it worked.

That did not work with my cousin back in the day, but that was a long time ago now.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue, the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

The alternative to this is to have some other method of producing electricity when the solar panels don't work. This would mean you install one kilowatt of generation by say using natural gas driven turbines in addition to your 1 kilowatt of electricity. One source or the other sits idle roughly half the time.

The first method results in a grotesquely expensive system due to the cost of the batteries and having to install so much extra generation capacity to charge them. The second duplicates the system resulting in a far more expensive system. It'd be better to just build the natural gas turbine system and generate the power reliably 24/7 and not install the solar panels at all.

Either way, solar just adds massive costs to electrical generation while reducing the reliability of the grid it's on.

In fact, going nuclear for roughly 70% of our total electrical generation capacity would cost about 10% to 20% of what building 70% of it using solar and wind would cost. That's how awful solar and wind really are.

Also don't forget that China is the source of most of the worlds' monocrystalline silicon using slave labour in many cases.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue, the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

The alternative to this is to have some other method of producing electricity when the solar panels don't work. This would mean you install one kilowatt of generation by say using natural gas driven turbines in addition to your 1 kilowatt of electricity. One source or the other sits idle roughly half the time.

The first method results in a grotesquely expensive system due to the cost of the batteries and having to install so much extra generation capacity to charge them. The second duplicates the system resulting in a far more expensive system. It'd be better to just build the natural gas turbine system and generate the power reliably 24/7 and not install the solar panels at all.

Either way, solar just adds massive costs to electrical generation while reducing the reliability of the grid it's on.

In fact, going nuclear for roughly 70% of our total electrical generation capacity would cost about 10% to 20% of what building 70% of it using solar and wind would cost. That's how awful solar and wind really are.

Inefficient, end of story. I've been hearing solar is the new and better stuff since I was a kid. You know, back in the "There's an impending Ice Age" coming days. The thing is it really hasn't gotten much more efficient, and that's untenable.

When I was kid, I designed a totally solar house and the efficiency has not gotten that much better since. Plus all that stuff's toxic and the sun kills it. It's just not a good way. Nuclear is doable.

Some things just aren't going to work and one has to pursue a different avenue.

Now the ventilation I designed for that house with floor level and ceiling level vents is a good Idea, solar power is NOT.

 

[Trumpet]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue, the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

The alternative to this is to have some other method of producing electricity when the solar panels don't work. This would mean you install one kilowatt of generation by say using natural gas driven turbines in addition to your 1 kilowatt of electricity. One source or the other sits idle roughly half the time.

The first method results in a grotesquely expensive system due to the cost of the batteries and having to install so much extra generation capacity to charge them. The second duplicates the system resulting in a far more expensive system. It'd be better to just build the natural gas turbine system and generate the power reliably 24/7 and not install the solar panels at all.

Either way, solar just adds massive costs to electrical generation while reducing the reliability of the grid it's on.

In fact, going nuclear for roughly 70% of our total electrical generation capacity would cost about 10% to 20% of what building 70% of it using solar and wind would cost. That's how awful solar and wind really are.

So now, you're an expert on nuclear energy.

 

[Trumpet]

Inefficient, end of story. I've been hearing solar is the new and better stuff since I was a kid. You know, back in the "There's an impending Ice Age" coming days. The thing is it really hasn't gotten much more efficient, and that's untenable.

When I was kid, I designed a totally solar house and the efficiency has not gotten that much better since. Plus all that stuff's toxic and the sun kills it. It's just not a good way. Nuclear is doable.

Some things just aren't going to work and one has to pursue a different avenue.

Now the ventilation I designed for that house with floor level and ceiling level vents is a good Idea, solar power is NOT.

Another brilliant professor of nuclear energy.

 

[Matt Dillon]

Another brilliant professor of nuclear energy.

Better than being a cum-swilling dumbfuck faggot like you. Small nuclear reactors are the future. (If mankind wants to progress as a society)

My classmates designed a nuclear bomb. You couldn't do that, you're too much of a dumbfuck.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So now, you're an expert on nuclear energy.

Moreso than you'll ever be. I was in Naval Nuclear Power (NEC 3384). So, I have the background and have actually operated a nuclear reactor. That makes me something of an expert. Oh, I also took courses on power plant design and in nuclear engineering in college too...

 

[Trumpet]

Better than being a cum-swilling dumbfuck faggot like you. Small nuclear reactors are the future. (If mankind wants to progress as a society)

My classmates designed a nuclear bomb. You couldn't do that, you're too much of a dumbfuck.

Looks like I succeeded in getting you wound up

 

[Trumpet]

Moreso than you'll ever be. I was in Naval Nuclear Power (NEC 3384). So, I have the background and have actually operated a nuclear reactor. That makes me something of an expert. Oh, I also took courses on power plant design and in nuclear engineering in college too...

I have worked in commercial nuclear plants, and I have had nuclear training, does that make me an expert?????????????

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I have worked in commercial nuclear plants, and I have had nuclear training, does that make me an expert?????????????

Yea, right... What, as a janitor? I doubt you have any real knowledge of how a nuclear plant or reactor for that matter, works.

 

[Trumpet]

Yea, right... What, as a janitor? I doubt you have any real knowledge of how a nuclear plant or reactor for that matter, works.

You are a pathetic case.

 

[Celticguy]

Curry is a smart cookie. People need to listen to her.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Solar, in particular, is awful as a power source. Here's why:

The best solar panels are about 20% efficient. That is, they convert about 20% of the sunlight hitting them to energy. They also produce waste heat from warming as the sun hits them.

The later aside as an urban heat island issue,

A heat island issue? You do realize that the sun provides the same energy per sq meter whether it is a solar panel, a shingle roof or an asphalt road, don't you? A solar panel is taking 20% of the sun's energy and not turning it into heat which would happen on a shingle roof or an asphalt road. The only question is absorbed energy turned to heat vs reflected energy. Solar panels don't really contribute to any heat island issues.

the sun shines roughly 50% of the time on any given location. Solar panels produce less than their full capacity when the sun hits them at an angle other than 90 degrees to the panel. That is, in the morning and evening as the sun rises and sets, they produce less energy.

The result is that over a 24 hour period, to produce 1 kilowatt day of electricity you need something like 5 to 8 KW of installed solar panels. Since production is also intermittent, you need about 3 to 5 KW of installed battery capacity. That will give you the capacity for 1 KW / day of power.

One small problem with your calculation. You said the sun shines 50% of the day and then you assume that the solar panel only produces energy for one hour. That is complete nonsense. A 1 kw panel would produce about 5-8 kwh or more during a normal day. On a sunny day in the middle of summer it would likely produce 10kwh of electricity or more. (1 kw for 5 hours, .75kw for 4 hours and .5 kw for 4 hours give or take) Even in the middle of winter on a sunny day it would probably produce 2-3kwh per day. I don't know why one would need 3-5kwh of battery if they only need 1kwh per day. Solar panels produce power even on a cloudy day. A 1kw panel on a cloudy day with high clouds would likely produce 25-40% of what it would on a sunny day. That would mean for most of the year on a cloudy day your 1kw solar panel would produce more than the 1kwh you need for the day. (.25kw for 5 hours) A 2kwh battery would last you several days with heavy cloud cover. On a day when it rains all day, my panels still produce about 10% of what they produce on a sunny day. It has never rained for 5 days straight where I live. Your cost analysis is off by a factor of 10 or more.

Then to compensate for the times when you produce more than you need vs when you produce less, one only needs to schedule what needs electricity for when the electricity is being produced. You can do laundry on a sunny day and restrict extraneous electricity jobs at night. So the days you are producing 8kwh you use 2kwh and the days you are producing .5 kwh you use .25kwh. The problem is not the production but the fact that you don't want to inconvenience yourself.

So the result is to meet your minimum of 1kwh per day, with current prices it will cost you between .4 and .6 per kwh over 20 years. But that means those times when you are producing 2-10 times more than you need the electricity is free if you can find a use for it. While that .4 and .6 is 2-4 times more than the current electric prices you have to remember that your costs are locked in and you will see no inflation over the next 20 years. If we run inflation and assume 6% inflation per year, then to cover your costs for that 1kwh you need your current cost this year would be .15 which is comparable to average pricing for the US.

The real key to using solar is finding ways to store the excess energy by using it in different ways than we currently do. It's free after all since we are only paying for the first 1kwh we produce.

 

[AProudLefty]

I expected a porn story. I'm disappointed.