The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

View: California Newspaper Gets the Facts Wrong on Renewable Energy

The true cost of renewable energy, part III.

Tam Hunt, Contributor
September 26, 2012  |  43 Comments

Only very large renewable energy projects are able to obtain federal loan guarantees. The only incentives generally available for medium and smaller-scale commercial solar projects are the 30% investment tax credit and accelerated depreciation. (These incentives are, by the way, far less valuable than the incentives available to new nuclear plants, which include a ten-year production tax credit, Price-Anderson risk insurance, accelerated depreciation, federal loan guarantees and others; I wish the LA Times or the New York Times would do a follow up looking at the incentives for nuclear plants, and I’ve urged both papers to do so, to no avail as of yet). 

Broader Pricing Issues for Renewables

Now let’s look at the cost trends in solar over the last couple of years, to get an idea of the real cost situation and where we’re likely to go in the future. The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) puts out a quarterly report on cost and installation trends in the US. Here’s their latest cost chart, through the second quarter of 2012, showing a remarkable 45-50% drop in cost for utility-scale solar (the segment BrightSource belongs in, as well as the community scale solar segment) since the start of 2010:

Figure 1. Cost of solar in the US (source: SEIA Q2 market report).

What about the longer-term trend? Well, there is a Moore’s Law of renewable energy taking place, where solar panel prices drop about 10% for every doubling of global installed capacity. The long-term trend is clear: solar prices are falling and will keep on falling as we install more and more megawatts.

Wind power price declines have not been as consistent, with the lowest prices achieved in 2003 in the US, then rising far higher and since coming down again. A complicating factor for wind turbines is that their efficiency has improved considerably in recent years, allowing for higher prices per watt but declining prices per watt-hour (due to the increased efficiency). See figure 2 for the long-term trends for wind and solar.

Figure 2. Long-term price trend for solar and wind (source: UN IPCC).

The California Energy Commission also issues a report every couple of years that compares the levelized cost of energy across different technologies. The levelized cost is the average cost of power produced (cents per kilowatt-hour or c/kWh) over the expected lifetime of the facility, allowing an apples to apples comparison across technologies. The most recent report from early 2010 shows that all renewables except solar are as cheap or cheaper than natural gas power plants. Since 2010, natural gas costs and solar costs have dropped substantially (as Figure 1 shows, they’ve dropped by half since 2010), however, the gap has closed remarkably for solar power in general, such that many contracts like the BrightSource contract are in fact coming in below the cost of power from a new natural gas power plant, which are either “simple cycle” or “combined cycle” plants in the chart below.

Figure 3. CEC comparison of levelized cost of different technologies.

Summing Up

Clearly, establishing what is “cost-effective” or not when it comes to renewables is not a simple matter. However, what is simple and clear is this: fossil fuel prices are only going to go up in the long-term. And renewable energy prices are only going to go down. It is that simple. And as more far-sighted jurisdictions like California, Germany, Portugal, etc., promote renewables with wise policy decisions, they help enhance the existing very favorable pricing trends for renewables. Germany’s long-term feed-in tariff is responsible almost singlehandedly for the dramatic price declines in solar power because they brought the global solar power market to scale.

What California began in the 1980s, with its own feed-in tariff under the federal PURPA law, Germany improved and expanded. California is now starting to regain its leadership in this space, after being in the doldrums for about twenty years. And it is not helpful for the state’s paper of record to be running hit pieces on renewable energy during what is still a relatively fragile renewable energy market development phase.

Renewable energy projects face many hurdles in today’s market in California and elsewhere, including: 1) hideously complex and expensive interconnection procedures; 2) very limited number of power purchase agreements; 3) an uncertain incentive environment due to legislative uncertainty; 4) always tenuous permitting procedures, particularly in states like California that have a history of extremely rigorous permitting standards; and 5) an uncertain economic environment more generally.

While I am personally optimistic about our energy future – keep in mind that solar power in the U.S. doubled its installed capacity and is on track to do so again this year – a continuation of the current trend is by no means guaranteed. If we are serious about tackling threats like climate change and peak oil, we’ll need to do everything we can to continue the remarkable growth in renewable energy and energy efficiency for another decade or two. We’ve got a lot of work still to do.  

Viewing Page 2 of 2

  • Previous Page
  • View All

43 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
October 8, 2012
Peter writes in comment #42:
"Pumped storage systems in around 1955 had overall efficiencies of around 90%, and I see no reason to think they would have declined since then. Transmission losses should not be enough to reduce this to 32%, especially since the storage operation would appear to have been at low demand times, when transmission line losses (as a percentage) should be lower."

The 32% figure was not referring to pumped storage, it was referring to a conversion of wind energy to methane (a process referred to in a link from Aligatorhardt) and then back to electricity via a combined cycle turbine.

The advantage of storage as a fuel is that there are no capacity restrictions and the storage can be long term so one could address seasonal variability. However, the specific scheme Aligatorhardt refers to is no game changer, because the efficiency is too low and the cost too high. Pumped storage is much more cost effective and has a much higher efficiency (although I'd put this at 70-80% rather than 90%), but there are limited locations where it is feasible and such storage isn't always feasible for long term time periods.
Steven
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
October 8, 2012
Pumped storage systems in around 1955 had overall efficiencies of around 90%, and I see no reason to think they would have declined since then. Transmission losses should not be enough to reduce this to 32%, especially since the storage operation would appear to have been at low demand times, when transmission line losses (as a percentage) should be lower.
ANONYMOUS
October 6, 2012
From Aligatorhardt comment #40:
"Would you rather get a 54% return on the use of your turbines, or shut them off and get nothing when the grid does not need the power?"

My answer depends on the cost of conversion, storage, and the additional generators to use the stuff, etc. However, a 32% efficiency after conversion back to electricity suggests this mode of storage isn't going to be a game changer. The fact that ~24 TWh of wind needed to be curtailed even though its market share is still very low suggests wind integration is going to be bumpier than many expect.
Steven
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
October 5, 2012
A thought for #33; In 2010, over 24 TWH of available wind production was shut down due to lack of energy storage. Would you rather get a 54% return on the use of your turbines, or shut them off and get nothing when the grid does not need the power?
http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/27/25-twh-of-wind-power-idled-in-2010-in-us-grid-storage-needed/
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
October 4, 2012
National Wildlife Federation, Conflict at Powder River. Conservationists, ranchers and tribal allies are fighting to stop a mine that would rip more than 1.3 billion tons of coal from nearly pristine Montana prairies. 01-12-2012, Roger Di Silvestro

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2012/Powder-River.aspx
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
October 4, 2012
6.12 STS kw system (2006) (37)

I'll need to take some time to read the powermag analysis. There is absolutely much discussion on coal right now. Here is one I saved that discusses sequestration. It appears to be a rational analysis.
http://www.energybiz.com/article/12/08/carbon-capture-and-sequestration-where-does-it-fit-part-3-big-picture-issues

Clean coal ads are popping up on major websites. It's the one with the end of a plug attached to a hunk of coal.

I'm going to continue this in a 2nd posting to show another site about plans to mine coal at Powder River in Montana.
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
October 4, 2012
sandcanyongal (post 36),

There are some conversions, or straight out retirements, of coal fired electrical generation facilities to natural gas being used as the fuel source to provide us with electrical power in the US. The advantage that natural gas facilities have over RE is that their output can be adjusted to meet the actual needs of the grid (actually it's the needs of end users of the power).

Brattle Report Projects Doubled Coal Retirement Estimates Ascribed to Low Gas Prices"

http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/5036.html?hq_e=el&hq_m=2535577&hq_l=4&hq_v=bb09315ba5

"An update to a 2010 analysis on the market and regulatory outlook facing coal-fired power plants in the U.S. from economists at The Brattle Group forsees that 59 GW to 77 GW of coal plant capacity are likely to retire over the next five years—about 25 GW more than previously estimated—due primarily to lower expected natural gas prices.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
October 4, 2012
aligatorhardt. This isn't only my paradise, it's yours too that is being trashed. I used to be as clueless as you, with just as little respect for the biodiversity that allows all of us on this planet to survive. We as a global society and species will find ourselves against a wall one day because of our arrogance, ignorance and complete disrespect of nature. Exactly what is an environmentalist? Define it please.

As for coal, there is absolutely no intention of the U.S. or the world to get off of coal...and how about all of the coal seam fires that have been burning for 100 years or more? There is no attempt to put them out even though they're a major source of global pollution. You and I can banter this all we want but if there's not profit to be made they'll continue to burn long after we're all in the dirt. We all need to start being on the same side because what's coming down around us isn't pretty.
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
October 4, 2012
Peter, I concur with you that for most of the state (CA) there is minimal rain, or even clouds in my area, during the May to November time frame.

SMUD is going to be installing a new pumped hydro facility 15 miles away from my home in the foothills. The storage portion of the project is going to be located upstream of one of their current hydro facilities. The design of the project is such that they will being bringing the stored water to a new generation facility that will be built very close to the existing power house to minimize the need for much new transmission infrastructure.

The existing hydro facilities in the foothills are required to keep minimum flows of water in the rivers to ensure water temperatures remain low and to support recreational activities. As such, they couldn't be fully converted to energy storage facilities. It is my understanding that some of the existing hydro facilities do not operate at full capacity to act like a fast acting natural gas generation facility if needed. I think they hold back about 10% of the potential output of the powerhouses to supply this type of rapid energy generation capability.

A few extra percent of the potential output of the existing hydro facilities could likely be held back for load balancing purposes without effecting all the other needs for the water flows. The only issue I see that might be a bit of a problem is that a few of these facilities try to maximize the output of their facilities at certain times of the day to take advantage of the TOD factors-see post 4. To ask them to withhold the optimal flows from their existing facility will likely have their finance and legal departments requesting that any additional system wide load balancing requirements should be revenue neutral (at a minimum) to their organizations. How to ensure that the costs and benefits are allocated in a fair manner for energy storage is something that CASIO, CPUC and the CEC are trying to resolve.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
October 4, 2012
Re comment 27: with a bunch of DG PV systems, a storm will tend to affect only a certain portion of them, so the power fluctuations will be less severe than with a single utility-scale facility. Cloudy or heavy rain days are, at least somewhat, predictable. If hydro-electric generating facilities are converted to pumped-storage facilities, they can become a load-leveling system very readily, with a very short turn-around time. California has about 19% large hydro capacity, which mostly has to last for several months (little or no rain in summer in most of the state), so the effective power-storage needed for a few days at a time can handle a very large change in solar/wind generation. Of course, the transmission line to the plant would need to be increased in capacity. The relative size for other states is different, of course, but several others also have big hydro systems. Many nuclear power stations are associated with pumped-storage plants, to deal with the opposite issue (the nuclear plant needs to run 24 hrs/day, so the storage is used during the day, and refilled at night). There is at least one pumped-storage facility on the California Aqueduct, used so that water can be pumped up when electricity is cheap (normally at night) and drop back down a bit less generating power when electricity is more expensive (normally during the day). With lots of solar generation, this pattern could be used, on a different schedule, to even out solar PV fluctuations.
ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012
Regarding Aligatorhardt's post #32:

It must be very convenient to believe everyone that disagrees with you is a paid stooge of some vested interest. Reality is so complicated I can understand why Aligatorhardt takes refuge is a pleasing fiction.

As for the link Aligatorhardt provides concerning an Aldi pilot plan to convert wind energy into methane, it is worth noting that the article claims a conversion efficiency of 54%. If one were to use this methane in a combined-cycle natural gas turbine having an efficiency in the ballpark of 60% the overall efficiency of this energy storage scheme is only ~32%. Wind generation is hard pressed to compete with natural gas at current price levels and Aligatorhardt's claim that this wind-to-methane process would be competitive with natural gas from fossil fuel sources borders on delusional. Certainly the article he cites contains no such ludicrous claims. Even if you neglect the costs of turbines to generate the resulting electricity, a 32% efficiency factor would more than triple the cost.

As an aside, I note that H2 is a feedstock for the production of fertilizer and this H2 is usually made from methane. It would therefore be far more sensible to use any H2 generated from spare wind energy in the fertilizer industry, directly reducing demand for methane. Of course, this approach does not fit well with Audi's fanciful story that excess wing generation will one day be powering its cars.
Steven
Allen Gerhardt
Allen Gerhardt
October 2, 2012
Fake environmentalists, claiming to care about tortoises and bats, usually eventually reveal themselves as propaganda agents of fossil fuel and nuclear power, trying to protect their market share by any means. Here it seems the natural gas market is too greedy to accept backup status in the future renewable energy environment. That same market will no doubt be unhappy over wind power produced hydrogen, mixed to CO2 for syn-gas, giving fracking a run for it's money. For citizens and consumers, cleaning up the electric supply is a high priority, even if it cost a little more, but those who have installed solar and wind are saving money as well as fighting pollution.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2011/05/egas-20110513.html#more
ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012
Regarding comment #29: Calling someone a NIMBY and a troll merely because they disagree with you isn't a very effective argument. Insults are usually the last recourse of those who think they are losing an argument....
Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012
Correct one little typo and your comment loses all of its formatting. Now comment #26 is unreadable so I'll repeat it:
Peter writes in comment #25: 'My PV panels in Silicon Valley show a July2012/January2012 ratio of 3.22. For 2011, 3.29, for 2010 4.42 (January was low that year), for 2009 3.20. The 'anonymous' factor of 15.5 sounds utterly spurious. No wonder the offerer is anonymous! '

Now Peter, you can read the data yourself: http://www.caiso.com/green/renewableswatch.html
If you don't like the CA data you can look at the EIA data for this year and earlier years at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

The EIA data gives in Millions of kWhs
Year Jan. July ratio
2010 10 161 17.6
2011 31 226 7.29
2012 70 n/a n/a

The July 2012 data for the entire US isn't out yet, but June was 500. June solar production is usually slightly higher than July, but 500/70 = 7.14 gives an approximate result. Three years in a row for nation-wide averaging seems like superior data to something from Peter's back yard (in an unspecified location). However, even the lowest ratio Peter provides--3.20--is still very high compared to overall usage statistics: 1.2 for CA ISO data and lower for national data.

Steven
ANONYMOUS
October 2, 2012
sandcanyongal is the classic NIMBY. She puts a blind eye on the disturbance her house and community created to the environment, the displacement of dozens of species by Hwy 62, the fresh fruit she eats year around from Chili, Israel, etc. All those comforts are OK. God forbid she'd live in a hut, ride a horse buggy and only eat seasonal veggies. But will make a big ado about the smallest of trangressions new disturbances will create to her (imperfect) paradise.

And in internet parlance, sandcanyongal is a troll. She'll throw argument on top of argument just for the sake of having the last word, regardless of how ridiculous the arguments sound. One thing we say about trolls is "don't feed the trolls".
CHARLES REESE
CHARLES REESE
October 1, 2012
wtg is wind turbine generator.
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
September 30, 2012
Peter,

My PV output for Jan and July for the last 4 years is noted below-

6.12 Kw STS rated system
kwh/month output Placerville, CA
Month
Year Jan July

2009 533 1057
2010 570 1062
2011 351 1086
2012 559 1063
AVG 503.3 1067.0
std 102.7 12.9
%CV 20.4 1.2




So my data matches yours fairly closely. Distributed generation from the residential market is not tracked by CASIO. Last month (August) during the statewide Flex Alerts the utility scale PV facilities down in Bolder City NV had some rather large within hour rapid drop off's in output as they experienced a few summer storms. How CASIO, PG&E, SCE, etc. manage the grid when this happens I am not to sure. Unfortunately the hourly summary of RE generation published by CASIO doesn't show the within hour variation caused by storms. The daily RE curves that CASIO generates show the up and downs in system wide PV output when a storm comes through better then the hourly summary data. I am sure they have minute to minute data somewhere.
ANONYMOUS
September 30, 2012
Peter writes in comment #25: 'My PV panels in Silicon Valley show a July2012/January2012 ratio of 3.22. For 2011, 3.29, for 2010 4.42 (January was low that year), for 2009 3.20. The 'anonymous' factor of 15.5 sounds utterly spurious. No wonder the offerer is anonymous! ' Now Peter, you can read the data yourself: http://www.caiso.com/green/renewableswatch.html If you don't like the CA data you can look at the EIA data for this year and earlier years at: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf The EIA data gives in Millions of kWhs Year Jan. July ratio 2010 10 161 17.6 2011 31 226 7.29 2012 70 n/a n/a The July 2012 data for the entire US isn't out yet, but June was 500. June solar production is usually slightly higher than July, but 500/70 = 7.14 gives an approximate result. Three years in a row for nation-wide averaging seems like superior data to something from Peter's back yard (in an unspecified location). However, even the lowest ratio Peter provides--3.20--is still very high compared to overall usage statistics: 1.2 for CA ISO data and lower for national data. Steven
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
September 30, 2012
My PV panels in Silicon Valley show a July2012/January2012 ratio of 3.22. For 2011, 3.29, for 2010 4.42 (January was low that year), for 2009 3.20. The "anonymous" factor of 15.5 sounds utterly spurious. No wonder the offerer is anonymous!

Yes, sandy, concrete kilns are often a significant source of pollution, including mercury and sulfur, as well as CO2. Yes, the kilns should be improved to cut down on these, and at least some are being forced to do so. The concrete used to hold up wind turbine towers has to be a small fraction of total concrete, and cuts down on the use of coal-fired electric power and its mercury, sulfur and CO2 emissions, probably improving the total dumped on the environment within a few days, or at most weeks.

Not sure what a "wtg fire" is, but massive reduction of herbicide use is another aim of the environmentalists. And for those of us in cities, 600 ft from my property line includes dozens of houses, part of a school with a nice playground, and a street corner where a body was dumped a few months ago. I wish it included more solar PV arrays, and I probably wouldn't mind a wind turbine. Our previous house in a Dallas Texas suburb was close to a water tower, which I almost always failed to notice after a few weeks.
Don Schmadel
Don Schmadel
September 30, 2012
I read in a comment above: "Any technology that was developed with open air propellers, the cement that is used is from the 2nd highest polluter of mercury from coal fired kiln operations (just to touch the tip of the issue) is not green."

Please, Sir, tell us the name of this "cement" and how much is used per Joule generated over the lifetime of the blade.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
September 30, 2012
dave-click-74565. Have you ever seen some of the famous photos of the wind farms in the Tehachapi Pass? Well, I can see them from my property. The difference is that they're being replaced with 486 foot tall turbines. And no. Any technology that was developed with open air propellers, the cement that is used is from the 2nd highest polluter of mercury from coal fired kiln operations (just to touch the tip of the issue) is not green. Those garbage turbine are not acceptable technology and should all be shut down. Industrial solar, the new presidential boondoggle is experimental, just like today's wind turbines. Also, there is a wtg fire every couple of months. These are being placed in old forest and so the companies use herbicides and pesticide for the life of the operational facility, poisoning the water shed for 25-30 years. Don't get me started on my neighbors in Mojave having turbines as close as 600 feet from their property line, in essence causing reverse takes of their land.

My tolerance for BS is over.
Dave Click
Dave Click
September 30, 2012
sandcanyongal, I'm confused by your posts. Coal is terrible. Natural gas is roughly half as terrible, which makes it still terrible. Solar and wind are better unless I'm missing something in my post above. It's not enough to prove your point to just say that the manufacturing processes involve potent GHGs. These processes need to emit enough of those GHGs to be substantial, and it appears that the "equivalent CO2" emissions figure includes those factors. 98% of the baby seals I've spoken with agree that solar is better than natural gas.
ANONYMOUS
September 30, 2012
Continuation of comment #20

Much of the new capacity additions to meet the new 33% standard are to come from solar and wind. Intermittency concerns are already well discussed, but seasonal variability also needs to be considered. The CA ISO grid covers most of the state and they post detailed records of renewable generation and generation by other sources (hourly and daily totals are available back to mid 2010). In order to smooth out some of the daily variability I averaged the results for the month of January 2012 and did the same for July 2012. Total system demand was a factor of 1.21 times higher in July than in January, but solar and wind generation were higher by factors of 15.5 and 2.45 in July compared to January. There have been some capacity additions in recent months but most of these differences are due to seasonal variation. With such a large disparity between summer and winter generation, adding significant amounts of solar and wind to the generation mix is going to ultimately lead to additional costs meeting winter demand and probably to curtailment costs in spring and fall. The Ivanpah development that the LA Times specifically criticizes at least is set up for natural gas cogeneration so it isn't especially sensitive to seasonal variability and short-term intermittency concerns. The same cannot be said for a lot of the PV generation that CA is rushing into service at premium prices compared to what the cost will be a few years from now.

Steven
ANONYMOUS
September 30, 2012
The LA Times piece was not a careful consideration of the issues, this much can be stipulated. However, in evaluating the appropriateness of new investment in solar power and other renewables some other factors should be considered. CA's 2011 generation mix is tabulated here: http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html
It is: 1.6% coal, 45.3% natural gas, 18.3% nuclear, 16.6% renewables, and 18.3% large Hydro. The 33% renewables standard does not include large hydro, so the true renewables target is about 50%. Because the hydro and nuclear generation is unlikely to be retired, a 16% increase in non-large-hydro renewables will cut significantly into the market share of natural gas, decreasing this by more than a third. This will lower utilization rates and lead to increasing prices; most of the natural gas capacity will be needed to meet peak demand so retirements to increase utilization rates are not likely. Tam criticizes the Times for comparing long-term contract prices to current short-term rates, and while he is right that the two should not be conflated, it could be argued that when adding generation capacity before it is needed the short term prices are the proper comparison benchmark. In fact, because the cost of new solar PV capacity is declining so rapidly, a decision to delay new solar generation capacity to reap the benefits of lower installation costs might make sense even if short term prices were higher than they are now.

CONTINUED
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
September 30, 2012
Darrel Issa interviewed labor department representatives recently, challenging their determination of the jobs that are designated as "green" jobs.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/08/labor-dept-counts-oil-lobbyists-garbage-men-bus-drivers-as-green-jobs-video/
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
September 30, 2012
dave-click-74565. I think you and I read different materials. There are absolutely zero plans on the part of big coal oil, gas or manufacturing giants to change anything. Here are a few examples. "Clean Coal" advertisements pop up on many of the major journalism sites. Here is something worth reading from National Wildlife Federation: http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Animals/Archives/2012/Powder-River.aspx

In the same month's magazine is another article about the number of baby harp seals falling into the soft ice and drowning thanks to ignoring climate change and acting aggressively.

Again, there are no plans to move away from fossil fuels, namely coal.
William Fitch
William Fitch
September 28, 2012
Hi: I swear they need to teach critical thinking starting in elementary school and continue right through the top end. The simple undeniable difference is sun, wind, geo them, etc. are direct energy not fuel! Not only are the conventionals fuels, but they are non replaceable fuels, unlike bio-fuels! Try this. Imagine the conventionals as corn. Yes corn. Except the worlds corn crop was a one time growth and not duplicatable. In short, once your corn was gone the party was over. Would you design a whole food industry based on corn availability? Not if you had half a brain you wouldn't.... and that's not even taking into account that harvesting the corn was killing the planet, and you.. So as the greeders bicker over wealth and power with dollar numbers, all the while they are on the wrong path in the first place, we continue just like a virus unable to control our own population and consuming everything in sight... even if it kills us.... .....Bill
Dave Click
Dave Click
September 28, 2012
sandcanyongal, I don't think you're getting the whole story and your words are misleading. "The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases" doesn't mean that the PV industry is one of the largest emitters. For SF6 see here (http://www.cleanenergyauthority.com/solar-energy-news/green-illusions-distorts-solar-on-environment-060712); the entire semiconductor industry (of which solar is a part) is responsible for well under 7% of these emissions. This NREL site (http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_pv.html) tracks GHG emissions as CO2 equivalents, which would take into account the effect of these higher-impact gases that occur at a much, much lower volume than CO2. If you think this impact is bad, it should be very easy to persuade you that we shouldn't use "clean" natural gas either (methane, radon, CO, CO2). Clearly we need to modify traditional semiconductor processes to make them cleaner, so I'm not denying that it's an issue-- but I do believe that PV isn't in fact killing us all. As a point of comparison, PV is about 45g CO2e/kWh and natural gas is about ten times higher. Natural gas is good only when you compare it to coal (yay?). "Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases" is inaccurate as grid-tied PV directly offsets GHG production from fossil fuel sources.
Peter Bradshaw
Peter Bradshaw
September 28, 2012
The San Jose Mercury News had an article Thursday based, I think, on the LA Times article that is the subject of this item. The information, bad or good, is spreading.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
September 27, 2012
Paul, we're on the same planet but not the same mindset. From different vantage points of my property I can see at least 400 wind turbines. What I no longer see is wild life, raptors, songbirds or many bats.

We have a coal fired cement plant less than 2 miles away. I photograph the plumes as they travel across our valley and have presented the photos at Kern County planning hearings.

RedOrbit ran an article dated Jun 4, 2012 Solar Cells Linked to Greenhouse Gases Over 23,000 Times Worse than Carbon Dioxide. Here is an excerpt: Solar cells do not offset greenhouse gases or curb fossil fuel use in the United States according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska Press), written by University of California – Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. Green Illusions explains how the solar industry has grown to become one of the leading emitters of hexafluoroethane (C2F6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These three potent greenhouse gases, used by solar cell fabricators, make carbon dioxide (CO2) seem harmless.

Hexafluoroethane has a global warming potential that is 12,000 times higher than CO2, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It is 100 percent manufactured by humans, and survives 10,000 years once released into the atmosphere. Nitrogen trifluoride is 17,000 times more virulent than CO2, and SF6, the most treacherous greenhouse gas, is over 23,000 times more threatening.

The solar photovoltaic industry is one of the fastest-growing emitters of these gases, which are now measurably accumulating within the earth's atmosphere according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). A NOAA study shows that atmospheric concentrations of SF6 have been rising exponentially. A paper published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters documents that atmospheric NF3 levels have been rising 11 percent per year.
Paul Gardener
Paul Gardener
September 27, 2012
Sandcanyongal, I have to wonder if we're living on the same planet. You wrote, 'This word is tossed around as if wind and solar energy is legitimate technology when in fact, neither is real clean, like natural gas. Where are you getting your information, or do you work for one of the fossil fuel giants? First, how are solar and wind 'not real', or not clean? Solar is the cleanest of all energy resources and wind is second. Clean like natural gas??? You've got to be kidding me. Natural gas cleanliness, when measured with a brain, doesn't include the emissions NOT avoided by NOT using coal or oil. When measured on its own merits, natural gas, which is mostly methane, also contains ethane, propane, butane and pentane--and EACH ONE of the 500,000+ natural gas plants across this country emit EVERY YEAR: 3 million pounds of toxic air pollutants 40 pounds of lead 28 pounds of mercury 33,000 pounds of hazardous pollutants--including hundreds of known carcinogens. Multiply these numbers by 500,000 to see the REALITY of natural gas emissions of JUST the natural gas plants in the US. By the way, just one ton of natural gas methane traps as much radiation in the atmosphere as 20 tons of CO2 and when it escapes into the atmosphere as unburned methane, it is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases there is--20 TIMES more power than CO2 in trapping heat--and persists up to fifteen YEARS. Paul
Edward Leaders
Edward Leaders
September 27, 2012
Why was the 2008 MPR chosen as a basis? Was it higher than the 2009 - 2011 MPR? How does the 2008 MPR stack up to other years?
Peter Chase
Peter Chase
September 27, 2012
Tam,

Solar module prices are dropping much faster than "solar panel prices drop about 10% for every doubling of global installed capacity". The generally accepted rate is 20% and the chart of module prices ($/W) vs cumulative global capacity that you present shows a rate of over 25%.

Your chart show prices decreasing from $65/W to $1.40/W for capacity increasing from 4 to 30,000, which is a doubling of capacity almost 13 times - actually 12.87 times. So a 10% decrease repeated 12.87 times equals a total decrease of 74.2% decrease or a drop in module prices from $65/W to $16.75/W, not the $1.40 shown on the chart.

A repeated 20% decrease would give a total decrease of 94.3% and a module price of $3.68/W; a 25% repeated decrease would yield a total decease of 97.5% and a module price of $1.60/W.

These number are enough to give mid-career PGE executives some sleepless nights as they face increasing competition with solar at the retail level.
william mcdonald
william mcdonald
September 27, 2012
Here is the Times link:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bigsolar-20120921,0,4991127,full.story
So the author of this piece thinks that the Times reporters were unfair and probably biased? Well go read the article yourselves and see what you think.

To this article's writers' credit, he did point out that the prices contracted for in the power purchase agreements are secret, just as the Times reporters did. However he failed to mention the PUC member who showed how Abengoa Solar's project was going to cost ratepayers an additional 1.25 billion dollars over 25 years and that
made the cost of power generated about $200 per megawatt, an outrageous amount to be paid! Now the renewable csp advocates can say what they want, but I can assure you that the average person will take this data and extrapolate a higher figure heading their own way, because to their way of thinking, the projects are all the same- virtually free government land, virtually free money, and total secrecy on prices to be paid for the energy, and a long proven history of ratepayers being left on the hook for decades paying for it all. Does anybody here remember WHOOPS bonds? Some might very well argue that all the same conditions are in place with this new green energy landrush, with all the money and promises being bandied about, and the same old secrecy in place for certain important matters,that we are setting the tables for another Whoops scandal to take place.

I think this article at the Times is more than fair. They are attempting to take a tiny pin and let a little air out of this dirigible that is trying to take off, one that every day looks more and more like a trainwreck waiting to happen- with destruction occurring all around to one of California's ecological treasures, all supposed to provide safe, green energy. What the Times article is pointing out that it has been misspelled, it should be called GREED energy, all getting rich but the users.
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
September 27, 2012
Don,

When we put our little PV system in (2006) we had the cu wire between our inverter and our PG&E net meter upsized to minimize line losses. For us we still see a bit of a line loss in the 150 feet or so between the two locations when it gets really hot out. Last time I checked all three ISO's use an Average line loss value of around 9% system wise.

The excess kwh that I sent into the grid from our system (7 kwh at peak times yesterday) feed into the distribution line the other side of my transformer. I happen to live in an area that has some fairly long (in distance) distribution lines so having my local generation would be beneficial to PG&E when they are in a flex alert situation for sure. We haven't used any grid kwh at peak times during the summer for 7 years (on a daily average usage basis). We try to manage our load so that we don't use any grid power at peak times, but this is not possible for us each and every day.

As we just had a few utility scale RE facilities come on line it would be interesting to see what the SPECIFIC (not the system wide average) line loss calculations are for say:

1) the Google funded wind facility up in Oregon that the folks in SCE are going to be using as part of their RE portfolio http://www.environmentalleader.com/2012/09/26/google-funded-845-mw-wind-farm-goes-online/

2) the Agua Caliente facility in AZ that will be supporting PG&E's RE portfolio http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/First-Solars-250-MW-Agua-Caliente-is-the-Worlds-Largest-Solar-Plant/
Don Schmadel
Don Schmadel
September 27, 2012
Another important consideration for solar power is the fact that almost all installations are point-of-use. As such, there is no transmission grid loss bringing the power to the customer. Grid loss is estimated at around %50 for centralized plants, which are the only reasonable designs for coal, gas, oil, or nuclear.

With this consideration, one should multiply the locally consumed power produced by a point-of-use solar installations by a factor of 2 before making any comparisons.

Of course this applies to many point-of-use generation types, including wind turbines.
Marcus da Cunha
Marcus da Cunha
September 27, 2012
Good stuff, Tam!

A half-trained chimp could've come up with better/almost believable bashing than the Times. I don't get the war on renewables. Cost of renewables will disappear against the cost of re-storing all the carbon and aerosols to restore a decent life-style for our grandchildren. It's a pity that the saying "nobody cares for what happens in 50 years" is a truism.

Keep up with the good work!

Marc.
Don Schmadel
Don Schmadel
September 27, 2012
There are other costs and problems involved in coal fired plants that somehow are always overlooked in these discussions: green house gas emission, mercury and heavy metal emissions, fly ash generation, which has polluted many sites, and essentially permanent environment destruction from mining. Green house gas emission is also a problem with natural gas fired plants, though less so.

These costs, along with others, need to be internalized before an intelligent comparison can be made regarding cost.
CHARLES REESE
CHARLES REESE
September 27, 2012
People hear what they want to hear and it's good that you present the opposing view. I think the case for renewable energy requires one to take a longer view to be compelling. What is shocking to me about the LA Times is not the unfair cost comparison presented, but the myopic, short-term view. It's always good to understand when you're measuring marginal cost or full cost.

Charles Reese
Mark Miller
Mark Miller
September 27, 2012
Tam,

The 2012 MRP is noted here: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/Feed-in+Tariff+Price.htm and the details of the Time of Delivery (TOD) factors for each of the three ISO's (PG&E, SCE, San Diego Gas and Electric) is delineated starting on page 18 of the resolution in Appendix B http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/WORD_PDF/FINAL_RESOLUTION/154753.PDF . It been a few years since I checked out the summer TOD Super Peak time factors (2009 actually) that the ISO's will be paying the investors for a kwh of energy via of the long term RE PPA contracts.

The resolution noted above shows these TOD factors for super peak times in the summer:

PG&E- 2.38
SCE- 3.13
SD- 2.50

By my math that means that the minimum price (per kwh) that the ISO's will be paying for the RE generation at Super Peak, for a contract started in 2012, will be:

PG&E- 22.1 cents per kwh
SCE- 29.0 cents per kwh
SD- 23.2 cents per kwh


The Rate Design Window Cases that the three ISO's present to the CPUC note the costs to comply with the RE standards these days. "Table 2-4 PG&E Cumulative Impacts of 33%RPS on Non-Care Residential Rates" of the Prepared Testimony by PG&E for the "Rate Design Window 2012" indicated that the RPS Premium for 2015 is $1,159,000,000. There are LOTS of assumptions built into how this value is calculated. I didn't receive any comments back from PG&E on my questions so I can't tell you if the RPS Premium estimate is spot on the money, an over estimate or an under estimate
Alan Taber
Alan Taber
September 27, 2012
Tam,
Interesting article. But I have to take exception with one phrase in it - solar contracts coming in "below the price of a new natural gas plant, either simple or combined cycle, as shown in the graph below." The graph (lcoe) shows nothing of the sort for a combined cycle power plant compared to a solar installation. Who's hitting whom there? CC LCOE is listed as 100-120 $/MWH, solar at just over $200/MWH.

Second - in your conclusion, you tie electricity generation to peak oil. The two markets have little to do with each other here in the US - maybe Japan cares having shut down N-plants and having to import heavy oil for generation, but we don't. Now, if you want to talk about renewables displacing natural gas power generation so that CNG vehicles take off, then I'll grant you the point.
Penny Melko
Penny Melko
September 27, 2012
Bill. The movie Avatar was pure science fiction, merely the imagination of a team of writers and producers. I live in the Tehachapi Pass so my view of the wind and solar is from a direct perspective. Renewables. This word is tossed around as if wind and solar energy is legitimate technology when in fact, neither is real clean, like natural gas. What everyone neglects to see clearly is that none of these technologies address or put a dent on the rapid heating up of our planet, moving our mindset toward sustainable stewardship of our planet. Here, our earth's poles are melting and many are rallying behind the profiteers to get their drills, mining equipment and fracking exploration started. Another gold rush! Until and unless our species use our abilities to clean up emissions in earnest, heating of the atmosphere will continue to escalate. We'll all probably be in the dirt when the proverbial dung hits the fan. All those coal mines burning away in China pollute the entire planet just like the hundreds of coal seam fires. I'm sure earth will survive but most of our species will die off.

From my viewpoint, those turbines should all be shut down. They are garbage technology that should never have been put into production. There is no room for this nonsense and no more room for compromise. Between the politicians and greedy profiteers they don't care if they kill all of us in the process of getting rich.
William Fitch
William Fitch
September 26, 2012
Hi: Tam, quickly skimmed your article. To steal a movie line from, "X-Men first Class", "The Neanderthal is running scared". LOL... The conventionals know the clock is ticking and unstoppable. Their days are numbered for all non RE energy sources being used for energy in isolation (non manufacturing). I suspect as grid parity occurs in more and more places and the electric car then taps grid RE to displace fossil fuels, more and more of this type of reporting with skewed or misinformation will occur.
Seriously and objectively, anyone with half a brain knows man's infinite need for energy can not be supplied by finite resources, that in the process of being used, are burning the very "house" we live in, which not only fails the need but may cause a mass die off or the extinction of us, as well.... I am sort of reminded of the falling of "Home Tree" in, "Avatar". After all the thermals and H.E. missiles were fired upon Home Tree (Analogy: Man to Earth), it still stood, but not for long.... Something so huge takes a while to fall, even though its fate has been sealed....

.....Bill

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt

Tam Hunt is managing member of Community Renewable Solutions LLC, a renewable consulting and project development company focused on community-scale wind and solar. He is also a lecturer at UC Santa Barbara’s Bren School of Environmental...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 15
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 7
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Sunetric
  • American Solar Energy Society
  • ImagineSolar
  • Standard Solar Inc.
  • Arena Solutions
  • ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
  • 2GreenEnergy.com
  • Schletter Inc.
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information