Solar power farm coming to Disney

[GoofGoof]

Dont forget to factor in they are having to import power from countries that use fossil fuels and nuclear more and more at greater expense. Some Germans call their electric bills 'their second mortgage'. Renewables are very expensive. The poor and lower middle class are most affected.

Importing power because they decided to stop using nuclear abruptly...what does that have to do with renewables?

Old style nuclear plants are being phased out. New ones are coming on line mostly overseas.

Bill Gates and others are championing smaller and safer modular technology. It will happen.

TerraPower? They haven’t even built a demonstration reactor yet and you are assuming that’s the future of energy. If I had a dollar for every technological innovation I’ve seen in the energy industry that worked on paper but wasn’t scalable in the real world I’d be a wealthy man. I’m not trying to be a downer on new technology, but they are years away from even possibly making this technology economic and who knows what will change by then. I like the concept but from years of experience I need to see it at scale and see the economics. Generally speaking we still make power the way we did 100+ years ago, boil some water, make steam, use steam to make turbine spin, throw in a few magnets and you are done. All that changes is the heat source to boil the water. Ironically solar along with wind and hydro are a few of the few proven methods of producing electricity without boiling water.

As far as nuclear goes, smaller doesn’t work economically. The most economically at risk nuclear plants in the US today are smaller ones. Larger plants have economies of scale. There’s huge overhead costs around nuclear. A few decades ago there was a thought that using a number of smaller reactors would work, but cheap shale gas and renewables have priced them out of the market.

I'll believe it when I see it. I know nuclear and coal work.

Almost 20% of power produced in the US in 2018 was from renewables. What do you need to see? You don’t believe renewables will work when they use proven technology but you are all-in on some theory that hasn’t even been proven to work because Bill Gates likes it? Come on man, seriously

 

[jt04]

Importing power because they decided to stop using nuclear abruptly...what does that have to do with renewables?

TerraPower? They haven’t even built a demonstration reactor yet and you are assuming that’s the future of energy. If I had a dollar for every technological innovation I’ve seen in the energy industry that worked on paper but wasn’t scalable in the real world I’d be a wealthy man. I’m not trying to be a downer on new technology, but they are years away from even possibly making this technology economic and who knows what will change by then. I like the concept but from years of experience I need to see it at scale and see the economics. Generally speaking we still make power the way we did 100+ years ago, boil some water, make steam, use steam to make turbine spin, throw in a few magnets and you are done. All that changes is the heat source to boil the water. Ironically solar along with wind and hydro are a few of the few proven methods of producing electricity without boiling water.

As far as nuclear goes, smaller doesn’t work economically. The most economically at risk nuclear plants in the US today are smaller ones. Larger plants have economies of scale. There’s huge overhead costs around nuclear. A few decades ago there was a thought that using a number of smaller reactors would work, but cheap shale gas and renewables have priced them out of the market.

Almost 20% of power produced in the US in 2018 was from renewables. What do you need to see? You don’t believe renewables will work when they use proven technology but you are all-in on some theory that hasn’t even been proven to work because Bill Gates likes it? Come on man, seriously

How much of that 20% was not wind and solar?

 

[GoofGoof]

How much of that 20% was not wind and solar?

Hydro was 7% of it, wind and solar 10% and about 2% from biomass and other. That’s utility scale power. Small-scale solar projects less than 1 MW (home solar) was about 1% of the total.

 

[GoofGoof]

Some more info from EIA

Electricity, coal, renewables, and emissions

• EIA expects the share of U.S. total utility-scale electricity generation from natural gas-fired power plants to rise from 35% in 2018 to 37% in 2019 and to 38% in 2020. EIA forecasts that the share of electricity generation from coal will average 24% in 2019 and 22% in 2020, down from 27% in 2018. The nuclear share of generation was 19% in 2018, and EIA forecasts that it will stay near that level in 2019 and in 2020. The generation share of hydropower averages 7% of total generation in EIA’s forecast for 2019 and 2020, similar to 2018. Wind, solar, and other nonhydropower renewables together provided about 10% of electricity generation in 2018. EIA expects they will provide 11% in 2019 and 13% in 2020.
• EIA forecasts that all renewable fuels, including wind, solar, and hydropower, will produce 18% of U.S. electricity in 2019 and almost 20% in 2020. EIA expects that wind generation will surpass hydropower generation for the first time to become the leading source of renewable electricity generation in 2019 and maintain that position in 2020.
• EIA estimates that U.S. coal production in the first quarter of 2019 was 170 million short tons (MMst), 22 MMst (12%) lower than the previous quarter and 17 MMst (9%) lower than production in the first quarter of 2018. EIA expects that coal production will fall during the forecast period as demand for coal (domestic consumption and exports) declines. EIA forecasts that coal production will total 700 MMst in 2019 and 638 MMst in 2020 (declining by 7% and 9%, respectively).

 

[DisneyCane]

Importing power because they decided to stop using nuclear abruptly...what does that have to do with renewables?

TerraPower? They haven’t even built a demonstration reactor yet and you are assuming that’s the future of energy. If I had a dollar for every technological innovation I’ve seen in the energy industry that worked on paper but wasn’t scalable in the real world I’d be a wealthy man. I’m not trying to be a downer on new technology, but they are years away from even possibly making this technology economic and who knows what will change by then. I like the concept but from years of experience I need to see it at scale and see the economics. Generally speaking we still make power the way we did 100+ years ago, boil some water, make steam, use steam to make turbine spin, throw in a few magnets and you are done. All that changes is the heat source to boil the water. Ironically solar along with wind and hydro are a few of the few proven methods of producing electricity without boiling water.

As far as nuclear goes, smaller doesn’t work economically. The most economically at risk nuclear plants in the US today are smaller ones. Larger plants have economies of scale. There’s huge overhead costs around nuclear. A few decades ago there was a thought that using a number of smaller reactors would work, but cheap shale gas and renewables have priced them out of the market.

Almost 20% of power produced in the US in 2018 was from renewables. What do you need to see? You don’t believe renewables will work when they use proven technology but you are all-in on some theory that hasn’t even been proven to work because Bill Gates likes it? Come on man, seriously

I always assumed that natural gas power plants were gas turbines. Are modern natural gas plants really stream turbines with gas used to boil water? Is that more efficient?

 

[Lensman]

I'll believe it when I see it. I know nuclear and coal work.

In some sense, it doesn't matter what you, @GoofGoof, or I believe.

The U.S. Department of Energy projects that 24 GW of (utility scale) electrical generating capacity will come online 2019:
46% wind (10.9 GW)
34% natural gas (6.1 GW combined cycle and 1.4 GW combustion turbine)
18% solar (4.3 GW)

In addition, they project 3.9 GW of behind-the-meter distributed generation solar.

But like you said, we'll just have to see how things pan out. I had high hopes for V.C. Summer units 2 and 3 (1.1 GW each), but it's abandonment after SCE&G spent over $5 billion deflated my enthusiasm. Estimates to finish the project seemed to range between $16 billion and $25 billion. That's $7,000 and $11,000 per kW. Even with the high utilization factor of nuclear, that's uneconomic. I might be willing to pay it as a ratepayer, but I wouldn't begrudge anyone else from shying away, especially since you're talking about what's supposed to be cheap baseload power.

 

[Lensman]

I always assumed that natural gas power plants were gas turbines. Are modern natural gas plants really stream turbines with gas used to boil water? Is that more efficient?

There are two kinds:
1. The combustion turbines that you mention. Power plants using this technology are commonly called "gas peakers" in the industry because they are typically used on an on-demand basis during peak demand periods of the day. They run at about 35% thermal efficiency.
2. Newer combined cycle gas turbine plants have a conventional gas turbine that generates electricity, but then uses the waste heat from the exhaust to boil water in a secondary steam generator. It's really two power plants in one. Overall, the thermal efficiency of these can be as high as 62%.

The downside of the combined cycle plant is that it is inefficient to run it for dispatchable power, as it takes time for the secondary steam generator to "get up to speed" and be effective at producing electricity. However, in this mode it is no less efficient than a gas peaker. However, running it in this mode means that the expensive steam generator that you built mostly goes to waste, so most combined-cycle plants are run to provide baseload power.

 

[jt04]

Just to clarify, it seems to me WDW has installed an ideal amount of solar. Enough to help offset peak demand for air conditioning but not so much as to stress the 'grid' during several days of consecutive overcast skies.

 

[GoofGoof]

I always assumed that natural gas power plants were gas turbines. Are modern natural gas plants really stream turbines with gas used to boil water? Is that more efficient?

As @Lensman said, a lot of the new construction natural gas plants are combined cycle using a gas turbine and then using the exhaust heat to boil water for use in a 2nd steam turbine. These plants are the ones typically replacing older coal plants and run almost continuously. In the case where a company is converting a coal or oil burning plant to natural gas they are usually simple cycle steam turbines. Basically you just replace the heat source and it’s a relatively cheap conversion.

Gas turbines alone are mostly just used for peaking plants that ramp up and down fast and often. Back in the day they used jet engines running on kerosene or in some cases natural gas as peakers.

I don’t have a breakdown on types, but I would guess the overall capacity of natural gas steam turbines probably exceeds combined cycle, but combined cycle probably produces more MWHs in a year due to the continuous run time.

 

[GoofGoof]

Just to clarify, it seems to me WDW has installed an ideal amount of solar. Enough to help offset peak demand for air conditioning but not so much as to stress the 'grid' during several days of consecutive overcast skies.

IMHO they have some more to go. There comes a point where without better battery storage you max out on the amount of effective renewables for a grid. Florida is nowhere near that point. Hawaii probably is. CA might get close pretty soon.

Remember this, TWDC is not a charity and they don’t like to incur excess costs. If solar prices continue to drop they will be moving that direction for pure economics without even considering the environmental impact. If you don’t believe that look at the Texas market today. ERCOT (the grid manager for most of Texas) released a report showing 5,000 MWs of new renewables (mostly solar) planned to come online in the next 3 years. The Texas market is completely de-regulated so those plants are being built based on economics alone. There is a federal investment tax credit but that starts phasing out after 2019. The point is there isn’t a state mandated renewable portfolio standard driving this growth, it’s just that these projects are cheaper and easier to build than fossil plants.

Here’s the ERCOT press release.

ERCOT expects record electric use, increased chance of energy alerts

News releases published by ERCOT.

www.ercot.com

 

[jt04]

IMHO they have some more to go. There comes a point where without better battery storage you max out on the amount of effective renewables for a grid. Florida is nowhere near that point. Hawaii probably is. CA might get close pretty soon.

Remember this, TWDC is not a charity and they don’t like to incur excess costs. If solar prices continue to drop they will be moving that direction for pure economics without even considering the environmental impact. If you don’t believe that look at the Texas market today. ERCOT (the grid manager for most of Texas) released a report showing 5,000 MWs of new renewables (mostly solar) planned to come online in the next 3 years. The Texas market is completely de-regulated so those plants are being built based on economics alone. There is a federal investment tax credit but that starts phasing out after 2019. The point is there isn’t a state mandated renewable portfolio standard driving this growth, it’s just that these projects are cheaper and easier to build than fossil plants.

Here’s the ERCOT press release.

ERCOT expects record electric use, increased chance of energy alerts

News releases published by ERCOT.

www.ercot.com

I support sun setting the tax credits until more is understood about renewables and energy storage costs etc.

 

[Lensman]

IMHO they have some more to go. There comes a point where without better battery storage you max out on the amount of effective renewables for a grid. Florida is nowhere near that point. Hawaii probably is. CA might get close pretty soon.

Remember this, TWDC is not a charity and they don’t like to incur excess costs. If solar prices continue to drop they will be moving that direction for pure economics without even considering the environmental impact. If you don’t believe that look at the Texas market today. ERCOT (the grid manager for most of Texas) released a report showing 5,000 MWs of new renewables (mostly solar) planned to come online in the next 3 years. The Texas market is completely de-regulated so those plants are being built based on economics alone. There is a federal investment tax credit but that starts phasing out after 2019. The point is there isn’t a state mandated renewable portfolio standard driving this growth, it’s just that these projects are cheaper and easier to build than fossil plants.

Here’s the ERCOT press release.

ERCOT expects record electric use, increased chance of energy alerts

News releases published by ERCOT.

www.ercot.com

Regarding Hawaii, here's a one-day graph of demand and PV production on Oahu:

1. Net system load - this is the actual electrical demand at the meter. Note: The x-axis for this is 500 MW, not zero.
2. Gross system load - this adds back in an estimate for behind-the-meter solar. Note: The x-axis for this is 500 MW, not zero.
3. Utility-scale PV generation - this includes all utility scale PV generation. Note: The x-axis for this is 0 MW

So for example, at 11 am, utility scale PV is generating about 160 MW and demand is 610 MW. Note: I hate this graph, it's terrible!

Pretty much all the new PV projects they have planned include some amount of storage (generally 4x the nameplate MW in MWh of storage). I'm not sure whether this is because they've reached the amount of pure PV that they've calculated that they need or whether they've decided to address their early evening peak first. I do know that in the summer, you get >6 MWh generation per MW, so those PV+storage facilities will be dumping some power onto the grid during the day.

Also note that they have a 90 MW waste-to-energy plant that they have to keep running (and using the power from).

Here's a link to the Hawaiian Electric daily renewables watch:

Renewable Watch

clean_energy_hawaii/integration_tools_and_resources/promo_lvm_stacked.jpg

www.hawaiianelectric.com

 

[GoofGoof]

Regarding Hawaii, here's a one-day graph of demand and PV production on Oahu:
View attachment 370636

1. Net system load - this is the actual electrical demand at the meter. Note: The x-axis for this is 500 MW, not zero.
2. Gross system load - this adds back in an estimate for behind-the-meter solar. Note: The x-axis for this is 500 MW, not zero.
3. Utility-scale PV generation - this includes all utility scale PV generation. Note: The x-axis for this is 0 MW

So for example, at 11 am, utility scale PV is generating about 160 MW and demand is 610 MW. Note: I hate this graph, it's terrible!

Pretty much all the new PV projects they have planned include some amount of storage (generally 4x the nameplate MW in MWh of storage). I'm not sure whether this is because they've reached the amount of pure PV that they've calculated that they need or whether they've decided to address their early evening peak first. I do know that in the summer, you get >6 MWh generation per MW, so those PV+storage facilities will be dumping some power onto the grid during the day.

Also note that they have a 90 MW waste-to-energy plant that they have to keep running (and using the power from).

Here's a link to the Hawaiian Electric daily renewables watch:

Renewable Watch

clean_energy_hawaii/integration_tools_and_resources/promo_lvm_stacked.jpg

www.hawaiianelectric.com

I know they did away with net metering a few years back for any new installations. Lack of net metering with the grid strongly encourages battery backup. If you can’t sell excess MWHs back to the grid at retail prices then it makes it more economic to store that power and use your own power at night instead of drawing from the grid. My guess is that’s what is going on there. It’s encouraging to see people are still adding solar despite losing net metering. Could be a model for the rest of the country to follow. Hawaii is unique because it’s an island so no gas pipelines or railroads so you can’t easily get coal or nat gas delivered, at least not economically.

 

[GoofGoof]

I support sun setting the tax credits until more is understood about renewables and energy storage costs etc.

Those credits are a drop in the bucket compared to the tax benefits fossil fuel energy companies receive. The credits do phase out so you will get your wish, but it really hasn’t slowed things much.

 

[Lensman]

I know they did away with net metering a few years back for any new installations. Lack of net metering with the grid strongly encourages battery backup. If you can’t sell excess MWHs back to the grid at retail prices then it makes it more economic to store that power and use your own power at night instead of drawing from the grid. My guess is that’s what is going on there. It’s encouraging to see people are still adding solar despite losing net metering. Could be a model for the rest of the country to follow. Hawaii is unique because it’s an island so no gas pipelines or railroads so you can’t easily get coal or nat gas delivered, at least not economically.

After net metering expired, the next grid supply program credited customers $0.15 per kWh. That program filled up (50 MW) and the next program only credited customers $0.10 per kWh and is still open (35 MW capacity). There's also an additional program that only allows grid export from 4pm to 9am but credits you $0.15 per kWh (25 MW capacity).

Something I just remember that you'd be interested in is that most islands' grids are seeing curtailment at some point during the year, so you're right and Hawaii has reached the point where they have to only build out dispatchable solar+storage. It was in the news that their latest (utility-scale) solar+storage PPAs came in at less than $0.10 per kWh. Last I checked retail electricity was about $0.33 per kWh.