Installed Solar Energy.

[Daffy]

You completely missed one very important point: Solar, even by itself without energy storage, is not economical. If it were, then would we really be having laws requiring utilities to use it? Would there be big government subsidies? Would we have so called "green quotas" that favor solar and wind? I somehow doubt it. Adding energy storage simply makes an uneconomical system that much more uneconomical, regardless of how inexensive the system itself actually is.

I didn't miss that point---I have not once advocated Solar Energy as the solution by itself. I am just saying that the idea of individuals buying solar systems collapsing the economy is ridiculous.

[Antice]

Ignoring the condescension, your point seems to be that we can't try new energy sources because it will bankrupt the existing power companies. Yet you yourself said that solar will never be a viable alternative to the existing power supplies. Sorry, but as a consumer, it's basic supply and demand---if someone comes along that can provide me energy at a cheaper price, that's where I'll go. That's how supply and demand works. And since solar can never seriously threaten---by your argument---the major power companies, then there is no reason why i shouldn't do that. I imagine the suppliers of animal labor used arguments similar to yours when the Industrial Revolution started.

solar + the required storage will never be cheaper than coal sans CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)
solar by itself may become as cheap as coal or nuclear on a capacity by capacity basis one day, but as soon as you factor in the intermittency of solar/wind and the cost of dealing with those issues the story changes to one of maybe it could work, to the proverbial snowflake in sahara chance of being as cheap as fosil fuels.
That is the gold standard, because it's these sources we have to replace. and we have to do it without forcing the energy price up trough legislation because that hurts the economy.

If you think that solar can replace fossilo fuels without costing more than the currently cheapest alternatives per kw/h produced (and that must take into account all of the subsidies as well) then you better be ready to give some pretty good evidence to back that up. I have spent several years learning and debating energy options. I have yet to see anyone make a truly convincing case for solar as anything but a severely limited highly situational energy source.

There has only been 1 renewable that actually deliver the goods so to say, and that is hydro. unfortunately for us, the available hydro is outrstripped by demand many times over. It's pretty close to being maxed out already.

Lastly. the luddite movement never made arguments similar to mine. Altho both arguments contain the factor of employment, the luddite movement was concered with the destruction of jobs caused by automation and mechanization. in particular the loss of jobs requireing a skill. like weavers.
My argument is about the contraction of the economy caused by high energy prices. Employment rates is just one of the victims of an economic contraction.

[IsaacKuo]

solar + the required storage will never be cheaper than coal sans CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)

That's a bold prediction. Do you really mean NEVER?

[Van Rijn]

Energy Storage Industry Grows To Integrate Wind, Solar
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/...ate-wind-solar
"“We still hear people say storage isn’t ready for primetime, but that isn’t the case because we already have 20-MW storage plants being built all over the country,” said Brad Roberts, executive director of the Electricity Storage Association (ESA)."

Also from that article:

In just three years, the storage industry has grown rapidly from a handful of prototypes to revenue-generating corporations, Roberts said. Current battery technology has a long way to go before renewable energy can be stored and dispatched in meaningful amounts. Meanwhile, revenue is limited to ancillary services, critical observers say. And then there’s the price: At $43.6 million, the 36-MW Notrees system costs $1,211 per kilowatt. Others are down to $400.

“But the price is still way too high for this market,” said Donald R. Sadoway, Professor of Materials Chemistry at MIT.

If you want mass storage for solar, it's going to need to get cheaper, and a great deal of hardware will need to be built. It's not a question of whether it is technically possible, but cost and practicality.

[Antice]

I didn't miss that point---I have not once advocated Solar Energy as the solution by itself. I am just saying that the idea of individuals buying solar systems collapsing the economy is ridiculous.

Nobody argued that. the economy is not affected by single individuals at all. we re talking about major non niche uses of solar as an energy source. someone padding their roof in solar cells has no effect on anyone but themselves as long as there are no subsidies given to the roof owner. when it's your money then you spend it as you see fit. it does not matter at all,
But the moment that everyone else have to help pay for it. (like covering the cost of subsidies) then the overall economy do take a hit. the hit is ofc dependent on how large this amount is compared to the overall value of the economy. if we are talking a few million $ then no big deal, but once we get into the hundreds of billions, then we start getting into some trouble.
the thing is however, that this also holds true for the retail price of energy. we don't need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies to get in trouble. all we have to do is refuse to build new suitable replacement powerplants whenever the old ones expire. thus creating a shortage of energy. suply and demand can easily levy a toll in the trillions if you just double the price on energy trough scarcity.
Big solar has the potential to make this happen. It's unsuitedness for the role of baseload provider means that we get into the energy scarcity scenario where prices go sky high.

[Antice]

That's a bold prediction. Do you really mean NEVER?

Not really. Coal will run out sometime in the future after all, but it will never match the current cost of coal generated power was what i meant to type. (It's getting a tad late here)
Fact is. coal could be replaced with currently existing nuclear. without having an impact on the cost of energy. most of the cost of nuclear is political in nature. I will therefore not discuss details about that problem here, there are plenty of places out there where the politics side is discussed down to the most tedious detail if one cares to search for them.

It all boils down to 2 choices. we either go for a high energy future with all the benefits that entail. (but it will most likely require that we primarily use nuclear until we hopefully get practical fusion power)
Or we go for a low energy future. with all the not so nice benefits that include.

[aquitaine]

I didn't miss that point---I have not once advocated Solar Energy as the solution by itself. I am just saying that the idea of individuals buying solar systems collapsing the economy is ridiculous.

It won't unless we're forced to depend on it and other "green schemes" by regulations, but reducing overall demand will. Largely because demand reduction for electricity is usually caused by a contracting economy in a normal situation.

[Daffy]

solar + the required storage will never be cheaper than coal sans CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)
solar by itself may become as cheap as coal or nuclear on a capacity by capacity basis one day, but as soon as you factor in the intermittency of solar/wind and the cost of dealing with those issues the story changes to one of maybe it could work, to the proverbial snowflake in sahara chance of being as cheap as fosil fuels.
That is the gold standard, because it's these sources we have to replace. and we have to do it without forcing the energy price up trough legislation because that hurts the economy.

If you think that solar can replace fossilo fuels without costing more than the currently cheapest alternatives per kw/h produced (and that must take into account all of the subsidies as well) then you better be ready to give some pretty good evidence to back that up. I have spent several years learning and debating energy options. I have yet to see anyone make a truly convincing case for solar as anything but a severely limited highly situational energy source.

There has only been 1 renewable that actually deliver the goods so to say, and that is hydro. unfortunately for us, the available hydro is outrstripped by demand many times over. It's pretty close to being maxed out already.

Lastly. the luddite movement never made arguments similar to mine. Altho both arguments contain the factor of employment, the luddite movement was concered with the destruction of jobs caused by automation and mechanization. in particular the loss of jobs requireing a skill. like weavers.
My argument is about the contraction of the economy caused by high energy prices. Employment rates is just one of the victims of an economic contraction.

Firstly, I never compared you or anyone else here to a Luddite; my point (which I grant I could have been more clear about) was that people resist change, especially when their own career is threatened. And, no, I don't know you or anything about your career; I am speaking in general.

So what do I tell my neighbors? They tell me their solar system is working "perfectly" and is netting them about $100 per month in energy savings. Do I tell them they are deluded and their system is actually inadequate for them? How do I convince them of that? Or do I tell them they are threatening the nation's economy by saving money? If I tell them they are causing unemployment, what do I say to the fellows that installed their solar system as part of their job?

[TooMany]

Nobody argued that. the economy is not affected by single individuals at all. we re talking about major non niche uses of solar as an energy source. someone padding their roof in solar cells has no effect on anyone but themselves as long as there are no subsidies given to the roof owner. when it's your money then you spend it as you see fit. it does not matter at all,
But the moment that everyone else have to help pay for it. (like covering the cost of subsidies) then the overall economy do take a hit. the hit is ofc dependent on how large this amount is compared to the overall value of the economy. if we are talking a few million $ then no big deal, but once we get into the hundreds of billions, then we start getting into some trouble.
the thing is however, that this also holds true for the retail price of energy. we don't need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on subsidies to get in trouble. all we have to do is refuse to build new suitable replacement powerplants whenever the old ones expire. thus creating a shortage of energy. suply and demand can easily levy a toll in the trillions if you just double the price on energy trough scarcity.
Big solar has the potential to make this happen. It's unsuitedness for the role of baseload provider means that we get into the energy scarcity scenario where prices go sky high.

The government investment is not yet significant (but it is a political football). The argument that someone using solar doesn't help you is wrong, unless you believe that coal mining and emissions help you more?

A fiscal disaster over solar power will not happen. Cuts in the solar investment are already proposed; there are powerful opponents. Instead we will just burn more coal. There is a heck of a lot of it. It could last quite a long time. Are we willing to tear up the landscape and accept the environmental damage? Look at all the excitement over fracking for gas. That and increased oil exploration are hailed as bringing us "energy independence". People believe this stuff (e.g. drill baby drill), but there is no long term future in it, just a few more decades of profits.

The fact is that we are between a rock and a hard place. The public has been propagandized (deliberately or through stupidity) to firmly reject the nuclear option. The interests and power of the fossil fuel industry are obvious. In the last administration, the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all from that industry. The only alternative to fossil fuel acceptable to the public is solar (and less practical approaches like biofuels).

This problem also exists in Germany. The public paranoia lead them to shut down their nuclear plants! They are pursuing a solar/wind solution, but now burning more coal now than they were before the tsunami in Japan.

Is the idealistic solution of nuclear power really going to happen here?

[Antice]

The government investment is not yet significant (but it is a political football). The argument that someone using solar doesn't help you is wrong, unless you believe that coal mining and emissions help you more?

A fiscal disaster over solar power will not happen. Cuts in the solar investment are already proposed; there are powerful opponents. Instead we will just burn more coal. There is a heck of a lot of it. It could last quite a long time. Are we willing to tear up the landscape and accept the environmental damage? Look at all the excitement over fracking for gas. That and increased oil exploration are hailed as bringing us "energy independence". People believe this stuff (e.g. drill baby drill), but there is no long term future in it, just a few more decades of profits.

The fact is that we are between a rock and a hard place. The public has been propagandized (deliberately or through stupidity) to firmly reject the nuclear option. The interests and power of the fossil fuel industry are obvious. In the last administration, the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all from that industry. The only alternative to fossil fuel acceptable to the public is solar (and less practical approaches like biofuels).

This problem also exists in Germany. The public paranoia lead them to shut down their nuclear plants! They are pursuing a solar/wind solution, but now burning more coal now than they were before the tsunami in Japan.

Is the idealistic solution of nuclear power really going to happen here?

The only way to get to the nuclear future is by being an activist. there are lots of ways to put pressure on those in power in order to get what one wants. it's mostly about becoming as large and visible a group as possible. but any further discussion of that kind of activities I think we mayhaps have to take elsewhere lest I outstay my welcome here at cosmoquest.

[Antice]

Firstly, I never compared you or anyone else here to a Luddite; my point (which I grant I could have been more clear about) was that people resist change, especially when their own career is threatened. And, no, I don't know you or anything about your career; I am speaking in general.

So what do I tell my neighbors? They tell me their solar system is working "perfectly" and is netting them about $100 per month in energy savings. Do I tell them they are deluded and their system is actually inadequate for them? How do I convince them of that? Or do I tell them they are threatening the nation's economy by saving money? If I tell them they are causing unemployment, what do I say to the fellows that installed their solar system as part of their job?

I never thought you were comparing anyone to being a Luddite. you were comparing an energy argument to a very different job loss argument against technology. witch i think is a false comparison since the mechanism for job loss is different enough to not be comparable.

We are both arguing for making new energy, our disagreement is about the efficacy of using solar for this task.
As for your neighbor. He did pay a big chunk of the costs himself, so he does deserve to get the use of the facility so that he may recoup his investment. what you should do however is try to convince him to also support the build-out of new nuclear plants. It wont hurt his solar investment any.
Rooftop solar is a case of being not 100% useless, but being a very sub-optimal solution. If people want to build them then fine. let em. as long as they only get to spend their own money and not anyone elses. it's those subsidies that need to go.

As for those chaps that install these panels. they would be just as easily employed building/maintaining nuclear powerplants If we went for a major nuclear rollout. A big drop in the rooftop solar market does not equate to job-loss as long as those jobs are replaced with new job's elsewhere.
We do need energy. so something has to be built. the question is what kind of energy source do we go for, not if we need one.

[Ara Pacis]

How much did it cost?

$300 Million

Given the amount of power we're talking about storing you would need considerably more than a large tank on a hill, probably that lake you mentioned. The problem is, lakes are expensive. Let's get some perspective here. The Bonneville dam cost, in adjusted 2012 dollars about $4.5 billion to build and has a generating capacity of about 1.1 GW. Now, in and of itself that's a pretty good deal, but in this case we're not talking about daming an existing river but rather storing energy generated elsewhere. To be extremely generous I'm going to assume we're using some sort of natural topography, if I wasn't so generous the cost would be many billions higher. Now add to that to the already very high capital costs of a 1 GW wind or solar farm. So, does a system like this make any sense?

I missed this part previously. Tank or lake, as in constructed walls or natural walls. I don't demand that we'd have natural walls. We could put straight walls on an existing or artificial mesa and only the floor would be "natural" although it'd probably be sealed. We could also dig caverns under flat land, which was mentioned in the article. Or we could simply build the hill on the mound of material from which we dig the lower reservoir. It may not be cheap, but that's now where I'm coming from in this discussion.

[Ara Pacis]

There's this excellent site which does order of magnitude calculations on energy, http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/ somewhere on there he does some order of magnitude with hydro storage, and demonstrates that expecting to get a large fraction of our storage requirements from hydro is unrealistic, the available opportunities are just too small. Unfortunately just 1 unit of electricity, 1kWh, for which you'd pay 15 cents or something, is equivalent to 1 tonne of water raised 360m (at 100% efficiency of conversion), so quite enormous amounts of water have to be raised a long way to store much electricity. Many inhabited parts of the world just don't have the topography for it.

Nevertheless in locations where there is substantial installed hydro capacity (in comparison to local requirements), typically it can act as virtual storage for solar - when the solar is on you stop running the hydro, and then run the hydro when the solar is on. Now a few lucky countries, like Norway and Chile and the like, have a lot of hydro capacity in comparison to their overall energy requirements, so this is excellent. In fact Norway is expanding is grid links to further south, because it can be used as virtual storage for excess PV from further south, but in the context of a country the size of Germany its hydro quantity starts to look less overwhelmingly huge. But most countries don't have this huge hydro resource that can be used as virtual storage.

I read it, and though I see his point, his point addresses a different issue, using it to store all the energy need of a country for 7 days for a totally renewable energy scheme. I am not suggesting that. Also, the topology he suggests isn't the only way, as he admits when he refers to the same examples I linked to above.

[Ara Pacis]

solar + the required storage will never be cheaper than coal sans CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)
solar by itself may become as cheap as coal or nuclear on a capacity by capacity basis one day, but as soon as you factor in the intermittency of solar/wind and the cost of dealing with those issues the story changes to one of maybe it could work, to the proverbial snowflake in sahara chance of being as cheap as fosil fuels.
That is the gold standard, because it's these sources we have to replace. and we have to do it without forcing the energy price up trough legislation because that hurts the economy.

If you think that solar can replace fossilo fuels without costing more than the currently cheapest alternatives per kw/h produced (and that must take into account all of the subsidies as well) then you better be ready to give some pretty good evidence to back that up.

Are you taking into consideration the visible and invisible subsidies for fossil fuels when you compare them to subsidized renewables? I didn't see any details indicating that you were. You may also want to consider future subsidies, such as seawalls needed by sea level rise caused by climate chance caused by CO₂ emissions.

I have spent several years learning and debating energy options. I have yet to see anyone make a truly convincing case for solar as anything but a severely limited highly situational energy source.

What do you mean by situational? Did you read my response about local use from Distributed Generation? Solar doesn't have to be a commercial baseload scheme to be useful. If there is a break-even point for solar on a home, then it would appear to be a sound investment. Of course, anyone who's studies economics has probably run across the concept of Robert Kagan's License to Operate and realizes that the Social License is not unimportant to the successful operation of a business, even a competitive business. And then there are those other deferred costs that are paid by somebody eventually, like pollution-related morbidities, climate-change-related agricultural failures, resource wars, toxic effluent remediation, etc.

There has only been 1 renewable that actually deliver the goods so to say, and that is hydro. unfortunately for us, the available hydro is outrstripped by demand many times over. It's pretty close to being maxed out already.

You could create new hydro cycles.

Lastly. the luddite movement never made arguments similar to mine. Altho both arguments contain the factor of employment, the luddite movement was concered with the destruction of jobs caused by automation and mechanization. in particular the loss of jobs requireing a skill. like weavers.
My argument is about the contraction of the economy caused by high energy prices. Employment rates is just one of the victims of an economic contraction.

Or people could work in new jobs that use less energy.

[Cougar]

....climate-change-related agricultural failures....

....which the U.S. seems to be experiencing as we speak....

[Extracelestial]

...Germany's solar capacity is not benefiting the economy but rather is a huge drain on it.[/url]

In reality Germany is actually building more coal fired power plants than any other country in the world except China. They say its a stopgap, but seriously those things have a service life decades long. So instead of nukes they go with solar, wind............and considerably more fossil fuels...

Good point, as this is my main objection against germany's alleged "energy turnaround" - away from nuclear that is. I'm one of the few left here in Germany that isn't opposed to nuclear energy.
So far photovoltaic energy production contributes about 4% to the total energy "production" but consumes almost 50% of subsidies over here. The problem with renewable energies is that it has to scoop up a thinly spread good and needs a disproportionally large area and mass for that. This is not my idea of conserving the environment as this mode of energy harvesting eats up large chunks of nature.
Besides, at nightfall, or when clouds prevail as it is often the case here in Germany, some fossil fueled plant have to compensate for fluctuations. Over in Tchechia, a new power nuclear plant is being built with the sole purpose to sell its output to Germany as the guys over there figured there will be shortfalls when we rely on wind and sun only.
Speaking of economic drain, there are already discussions going on whether electricity may soon become to expensive for less wealthy citizens as every installed "renewable energy" system is guaranteed a compensation in case it can't produce energy. This is a great folly in my book since this money has to earned by utilising "dirty energy".

Ex

[Antice]

Good point, as this is my main objection against germany's alleged "energy turnaround" - away from nuclear that is. I'm one of the few left here in Germany that isn't opposed to nuclear energy.
So far photovoltaic energy production contributes about 4% to the total energy "production" but consumes almost 50% of subsidies over here. The problem with renewable energies is that it has to scoop up a thinly spread good and needs a disproportionally large area and mass for that. This is not my idea of conserving the environment as this mode of energy harvesting eats up large chunks of nature.
Besides, at nightfall, or when clouds prevail as it is often the case here in Germany, some fossil fueled plant have to compensate for fluctuations. Over in Tchechia, a new power nuclear plant is being built with the sole purpose to sell its output to Germany as the guys over there figured there will be shortfalls when we rely on wind and sun only.
Speaking of economic drain, there are already discussions going on whether electricity may soon become to expensive for less wealthy citizens as every installed "renewable energy" system is guaranteed a compensation in case it can't produce energy. This is a great folly in my book since this money has to earned by utilising "dirty energy".

Ex

When the poorer fraction of a population has to start living without proper access to electricity, then I'd say we are well into the range where energy prices are starting to hurt.

[Ara Pacis]

....which the U.S. seems to be experiencing as we speak....

Exactly. But I gotta be careful how I frame it, because short term trends are chaotic and reversible. So I tell them that current events are in line with predictions.

[TooMany]

Over in Tchechia, a new power nuclear plant is being built with the sole purpose to sell its output to Germany as the guys over there figured there will be shortfalls when we rely on wind and sun only.

Now there's a great opportunity for the French. Build some nuclear plants near the German border. They could get carbon credits in addition to the profits.

It's disappointing that some of the most technically advanced and prosperous countries in the world have a nuclear-phobic populace. It's like cavemen being afraid of this new idea called "fire" and banning it's use.

[Extracelestial]

Now there's a great opportunity for the French. Build some nuclear plants near the German border. They could get carbon credits in addition to the profits.

It's disappointing that some of the most technically advanced and prosperous countries in the world have a nuclear-phobic populace. It's like cavemen being afraid of this new idea called "fire" and banning it's use.

Exactly!

Ex