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

[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.

[Celticguy]

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.

run hydrolyzers to make hydrogen.

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

Heat island issue. Dark materials absorb and hold heat, then release it when the sun goes down. An example here in Phoenix to reduce this is coating streets in a lighter color material that reflects and doesn't absorb energy as much as asphalt does.



Building roofs are often painted white here for the same reason. Sticking up a gazillion solar panels increases urban heat island effect.


As for this below:

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.

There is no problem with my calculations, there is an issue with you understanding the problem. You clearly don't know much, if anything, about how large electrical systems work.

I will address this part: I stated that in a 24-hour period to produce 1 KW and hour for that whole period--A Kilowatt-day-- that assuming the sun is up 50% of the time, a 1 KW solar array would produce about 8 to 10 KW hours of power at a rate of 1 KW per hour. That means to get 24 hours' worth of power at 1 KW you need to install 2.5 to 3 times the number of panels so that when they are producing, they accumulate a total of 24 KW hours of power. You also need 14 to 16 KW worth of battery storage to hold that amount of power that will be consumed when the panels aren't producing.

The alternative is have another source of power generation available.

Storage is simply an added cost that in a conventional generation system wouldn't be necessary at all.

SOLAR SUCKS AND IS THE SINGLE WORST WAY TO PRODUCE RELIABLE ELECTRICAL POWER THERE IS!

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Heat island issue. Dark materials absorb and hold heat, then release it when the sun goes down. An example here in Phoenix to reduce this is coating streets in a lighter color material that reflects and doesn't absorb energy as much as asphalt does.



Building roofs are often painted white here for the same reason. Sticking up a gazillion solar panels increases urban heat island effect.

I already pointed out that energy is absorbed based on color. The problem is that every place is not Phoenix. Roofs in the northern states are darker because they absorb sunlight in the winter and reduce energy needed to heat buildings. Having been in Phoenix, I can tell you the roofs are not all white. The most common color for residential is red tile. Most of the cars in Phoenix are white but if you go out on a hot day and touch a white car that is in the sun it is not the same temperature as the air temperature. White also absorbs energy from the sun, just not as much. The only question is does the white reflect more than 20% of the energy it receives assuming that the black doesn't reflect any. A solar panel is turning 20% of the sun's energy into electricity and not heat. If you were to place raised solar panels above all the pavement in Phoenix you would actually see a decrease in the heat island effect because the pavement now gets none of the sun's energy and the solar panels convert some of it.

As for this below:



There is no problem with my calculations, there is an issue with you understanding the problem. You clearly don't know much, if anything, about how large electrical systems work.

I will address this part: I stated that in a 24-hour period to produce 1 KW and hour for that whole period--A Kilowatt-day-- that assuming the sun is up 50% of the time, a 1 KW solar array would produce about 8 to 10 KW hours of power at a rate of 1 KW per hour. That means to get 24 hours' worth of power at 1 KW you need to install 2.5 to 3 times the number of panels so that when they are producing, they accumulate a total of 24 KW hours of power. You also need 14 to 16 KW worth of battery storage to hold that amount of power that will be consumed when the panels aren't producing.

The alternative is have another source of power generation available.

Storage is simply an added cost that in a conventional generation system wouldn't be necessary at all.

SOLAR SUCKS AND IS THE SINGLE WORST WAY TO PRODUCE RELIABLE ELECTRICAL POWER THERE IS!

Oh.. you don't know the difference between a Kw and a kwh. That explains it. You are saying you need 24kwh per day. That is not the same thing as 1 kw/day. (1 kwh is 1 kw per hour, 1 kw/day would be .041 kwh for 24 hours) To produce 24kwh per day is simply multiplying my numbers by 24. It results in the exact same cost per kwh. In fact my numbers just got better if you are only relying on 16kw of battery storage per day.

You need 24kwh of power each day. If each 1kw panel produces 8 kwh. That would mean you need 3 kw of panels to produce 24kwh if they produce 8 kwh per 1kw panel. Worst case is each kw of panel produces 3 kwh per day in the winter that means you need 8kw of panels. Solar panels run about $3000 per kw installed. (Actually less but we will go with the highest number and not include any rebates.) To install 8kw of panels would run about $24,000.
Then you need 16kwh of batteries. (Batteries are rated by kwh, not kw.) 16kwh of batteries will run about $14,000.

That means for a 20 year life span the cost per kwh is 21 cents. If we replace the batteries after 10 years the cost per kwh is 29 cents. The cost to purchase electricity produced from gas will run you about 15 cents and will only go up over time. A natural gas plant has ongoing cost of the natural gas and maintenance of the moving parts.

If you double the batteries to 32kwh to have enough for 5 days of cloudy rainy weather then the cost is 29 cents. 45 cents if you replace the batteries after 10 year.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

run hydrolyzers to make hydrogen.

That is certainly one of the suggestions. Of course then you have to store the hydrogen and have a way to use it. One possibility is you could use it instead of natural gas to produce electricity when the sun isn't shining.

[T. A. Gardner]

I already pointed out that energy is absorbed based on color. The problem is that every place is not Phoenix. Roofs in the northern states are darker because they absorb sunlight in the winter and reduce energy needed to heat buildings. Having been in Phoenix, I can tell you the roofs are not all white. The most common color for residential is red tile. Most of the cars in Phoenix are white but if you go out on a hot day and touch a white car that is in the sun it is not the same temperature as the air temperature. White also absorbs energy from the sun, just not as much. The only question is does the white reflect more than 20% of the energy it receives assuming that the black doesn't reflect any. A solar panel is turning 20% of the sun's energy into electricity and not heat. If you were to place raised solar panels above all the pavement in Phoenix you would actually see a decrease in the heat island effect because the pavement now gets none of the sun's energy and the solar panels convert some of it.



Oh.. you don't know the difference between a Kw and a kwh. That explains it. You are saying you need 24kwh per day. That is not the same thing as 1 kw/day. (1 kwh is 1 kw per hour, 1 kw/day would be .041 kwh for 24 hours) To produce 24kwh per day is simply multiplying my numbers by 24. It results in the exact same cost per kwh. In fact my numbers just got better if you are only relying on 16kw of battery storage per day.

You need 24kwh of power each day. If each 1kw panel produces 8 kwh. That would mean you need 3 kw of panels to produce 24kwh if they produce 8 kwh per 1kw panel. Worst case is each kw of panel produces 3 kwh per day in the winter that means you need 8kw of panels. Solar panels run about $3000 per kw installed. (Actually less but we will go with the highest number and not include any rebates.) To install 8kw of panels would run about $24,000.
Then you need 16kwh of batteries. (Batteries are rated by kwh, not kw.) 16kwh of batteries will run about $14,000.

That means for a 20 year life span the cost per kwh is 21 cents. If we replace the batteries after 10 years the cost per kwh is 29 cents. The cost to purchase electricity produced from gas will run you about 15 cents and will only go up over time. A natural gas plant has ongoing cost of the natural gas and maintenance of the moving parts.

If you double the batteries to 32kwh to have enough for 5 days of cloudy rainy weather then the cost is 29 cents. 45 cents if you replace the batteries after 10 year.

[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/a...are-not-equal/
https://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/m...he-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/e...s-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/w...-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/t...ind-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/t...arder-it-gets/

.

[NiftyNiblick]

We wouldn't have to be looking at the radical changes required now if idiot humans didn't fuck themselves into such serious overpopulation.
Seven billion people on this tiny planet is a ridiculous situation.

The anti-abortion people are the first that need to be culled.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Is that to remind you that you don't know the difference between kw and kwh?
Or that you don't know that heat is created by energy that is absorbed and turned into heat and energy that is turned into electricity can't also be heat?

[T. A. Gardner]

Is that to remind you that you don't know the difference between kw and kwh?
Or that you don't know that heat is created by energy that is absorbed and turned into heat and energy that is turned into electricity can't also be heat?

A kilowatt is a measure of power / energy. A kilowatt hour, day, month, etc., is that energy applied over a specific time period. One kilowatt day = 24 kilowatt hours. It is one kilowatt applied for a day. It is YOU that doesn't understand this stuff.

In the case of solar, it isn't "heat" that is absorbed, but light. Photons react with the bimetallic dielectric material in the panel and cause a current to be generated between them. Heat creates a similar current in bimetallic thermocouples using a similar principle, but that isn't how solar panels work in specific.

[Poor Richard Saunders]

A kilowatt is a measure of power / energy. A kilowatt hour, day, month, etc., is that energy applied over a specific time period. One kilowatt day = 24 kilowatt hours. It is one kilowatt applied for a day. It is YOU that doesn't understand this stuff.

In the case of solar, it isn't "heat" that is absorbed, but light. Photons react with the bimetallic dielectric material in the panel and cause a current to be generated between them. Heat creates a similar current in bimetallic thermocouples using a similar principle, but that isn't how solar panels work in specific.

You really need to go back and look at your original post. You are all over the place in the use of kw instead of kwh. I am curious where anyone uses kw day? Can you provide a link to any actual electricians or engineers using that term. In all my years dealing with electricity and electrical engineers I have never once heard anyone use that term. Batteries are not rated based on kw as you stated in your post. They are rated based on kwh or amphours. Your attempt to now claim a kw day is one kw per hour is ridiculous since no one would assume that any house has a perfect 1 kw per hour for 24 hours.

Energy comes from the sun as light. (electromagnetic waves to be exact since much of the energy is not visible light.) The light is absorbed and becomes heat. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. That means when some of the light becomes electricity it cannot become heat since that would violate the laws of thermodynamics. Since a black solar panel converts 20% of the energy it receives into electricity, it can't heat up as much as black asphalt.

Your attempt to now pretend you know what you are talking about is rather pathetic. It is also an attempt to avoid discussing the math that shows your claim about how expensive solar is to be bullshit.