Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

The Goldilocks Problem

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

10 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 10
December 31, 2008
Goldilocks

Goldilocks, says energy is fine,
For all three sizes needed on the line,
Papa bear utility needs some bigger chucks you see,
For opening up the solar power mine,
The Moma size wouldn't be so bad,
Add a few more panels to make us glad,
And the Baby size is nice, despite the higher price,
Especially for the rural lonely pad,
Yes our Goldilocks is pleased and three different ways has seized,
To increase the sum of power we can use,
For the sun is there to stay, let it shine on us each day,
On a chair to sit, and on porridge now to dine.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
2 of 10
December 31, 2008
Great article and one that I believe deserves a follow up.
It's not clear what's included in the "total societal costs" but in addition to minimizing the needs for transmission lines the medium size project(s) can be distributed around an area of use which increases the resilience to failures, also these projects can use local labor to construct and can be locally maintained thereby contributing to the local economy.
One thing we all need to lobby for is for medium size projects to allow local ownership and to have the same tax and rebate treatment as if the energy sources were on the same property as the owners. In addition Net Metering should be allowed so that everyone in the community has the same benefits, not just the residents or businesses that can install the renewable energy on their property. There are many properties that don't have good solar access, so providing the opportunity to own or lease panels in an "optimal" location would benefit all property owners. I wonder if the "societal costs" chart takes into account the efficiency hit due to shading effects that are prevalent with small rooftop systems. This will not be an issue on a medium or large system.
The new Virtual Net Metering approach recently approved by the CPUC is a step in the right direction, but needs to be expanded to allow remote siting of the renewable energy and to include all residents, not just low income.
Comment
3 of 10
December 31, 2008
Do the cost comparisons include transmission line costs? Do they also account for efficiency losses in the lines as well?
Comment
4 of 10
December 31, 2008
If you have a system on your roof, you are not selling the power to the utility. The power you use and the power you generate both go through the same meter and the reading on the meter determines whether you pay or not. Typically you pay for what you use and get credit for any excess for a year. If you don't use it you lose it.
As far as storage, the grid is the storage. If the utility is getting more from the renewable energy generation than they need, they can cut back generation from other sources.
In the not too distant future (probably within 2-3 years) most homes in California will have time of use metering. This will bring forth a whole new way for the utilities to price power. From what I've read they will have the ability to change rates in 15 minute increments based on the time of day/day of the week. One way or another they'll get their pound of flesh.
Comment
5 of 10
January 1, 2009
As usual, an excellent article by Tam Hunt, which clearly and accurately states the relevant issues.

However, I recall seeing much lower costs for large Concentrating Solar Thermal Electric installations, such as the 280 MWe one under planning/construction at Gila Bend south of Phoenix, Arizona. It has been reported that it will start producing electricity at a much lower cost than even the largest scale PV – around $0.08 from 2011.

Also I believe that NREL has predicted/projected STE costs to come down even more in the next 8 years – to about $0.06 for large parabolic trough installations, and $0.05 for large central receiver (power tower) stations.
An important feature of these technologies is that at large scale it is economical to store heat in a molten salt mixture (with melting point in the region of 150 degrees C) in large insulated tanks before passing this fluid through a heat exchanger to generate steam for a turbine driving a generator.

Thus solar electricity can be generated also at night, with out any need for expensive batteries!

Of course this storage (thermally insulated tank and nitrate salt mixture) costs money. But as the expensive turbine and generator can then work for about twice as many hours per day, the costs of electricity thus generated can be LOWER than without thermal energy storage.
Comment
6 of 10
January 2, 2009
Bernhard, thanks for the kind words. Re cost figures, the cost figures I cite are particular to California, but they shouldn't be too much different in other Western states. The alternative figures you cite are cost of generation figures only, whereas the figures I cite are "all-in costs" that include integration and transmission cost estimates. Certainly, we will see some cheaper and some more expensive projects come online in the next couple of years, including cheaper thin-film projects that are starting to get quite large (OptiSolar's is planned at 550 MW). And the long-term trend should be downward, as long as supply and demand imbalances start to get straightened out and pricing policies encourage long-term cost reductions.
Comment
7 of 10
January 3, 2009
--------" Using solar PV, without storage, as distributed grid support only works if peak demand and peak sun coincide."---------

I think in the case of solar, this is already the case. Air conditioner use is the primary cause of peak load use in most cases---and the grid tie in margin would be highest during the period of peak demand, when the sun is hottest. This would use the same energy(solar) which creates peak load to reduce peak load. This would reduce demand the most exactly during the period when utilities are trying to generate the most electricity with the least economical systems, the peak load capacity equipment is often left idle for long periods(no ROI)--is often older and harder to maintain(more expensive)---and with reduced peak load demand would not be needed(good for the utility---it would reduce costs, and allow the fuller use of more efficient systems). That seems to be a win-win situation to me. Homeowner reduces bill, utility reduces expenses(each $ that costs are reduced = one $ in net profit).
During periods when the homeowner draws power from the utility, the cost of the line efficiency is already figured into the price of the power the homeowner draws. When the homeowner inputs power, the utility does not need to generate enough power to overcome resistance to that point of input. This seems like a self canceling situation to me.
Comment
8 of 10
January 3, 2009
Tam;
I wonder if anyone has managed to do a useful study of Residential RE owners to see how much their personal energy habits have changed as a result of their new awareness, and of knowing that a fraction of their KWH are now 'paid for', and any reductions that they can come up with will now be deductions from the utility bill.

When I read testimonials in Homepower Magazine and such, it seems that PV owners report taking an immediate interest in their power consumption as a result of owning some of their own generating capacity, and start routing out all the negawatts that they can find. This would add a significant additional benefit for the emphasis on Home Scale solar/wind installations.

If you will, I guess this would be the 'enlightened self-interest' argument for pushing the small-scale end of RE, even if the most immediate Cost-Benefit Analysis doesn't always show it as the strongest choice.

Bob
Comment
9 of 10
January 4, 2009
Bob, I'm not aware of any such study at this point, but your point is well-taken.
Comment
10 of 10
January 5, 2009
The extra dimension to the 3 bowls of porridge are the 3 competing chefs. How do you see the confusion of Federal, State and Municipality policy setting coming together to set targets and grant subsidies? I see this as being a particular concern in the US when Obama et al attempt to design an integrated climate change policy, which can in some way be compatible with international efforts.

Any thoughts?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Tam Hunt

View Tam Hunt's Profile
About: Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and sol... more »

Advertise With Us

Intersolar Stoel Rives LLP Natural Power Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc Free Hot Water Astenik Solar The Stella Group, Ltd.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters