Renewables Just Keep Getting Better

[Rick C]

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

--

Rick C.

- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

While implementing any increased demand with renewable, talking about
replacing 22 GW of coal power plants doesn't make sense.

Since both solar and wind have a capacity factor of 20-35 %, in order
to produce the same energy as the coal plants, the renewable nominal
capacity needs to be 3-5 times or 60-100 GW. If 60 GW would be
implemented with 3 MW wind turbines, 20000 turbines would be
required, thus the distance between turbines would be 2 km if evenly
spread out across the state. I guess this would cause a strong NIMBY
effect

Even with even distribution between solar and wind, there are several
days each year when production is much lower than expected. For
instance thick clouds for a week and low winds. Thus energy storage
for a week would be required.

The realistic really large scale storage system is hydroelectricity,
but there is no way that it could handle the deficiency. The current
installed hydro capacity is less than 0.1 GW and since Indiana is so
flat, it would be hard to build more.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:01:59 PM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

While implementing any increased demand with renewable, talking about
replacing 22 GW of coal power plants doesn't make sense.

Since both solar and wind have a capacity factor of 20-35 %, in order
to produce the same energy as the coal plants, the renewable nominal
capacity needs to be 3-5 times or 60-100 GW. If 60 GW would be
implemented with 3 MW wind turbines, 20000 turbines would be
required, thus the distance between turbines would be 2 km if evenly
spread out across the state. I guess this would cause a strong NIMBY
effect

Yeah, a wind turbine every mile is a lot like cell phone towers, eh? People hate those things. Maybe it would be better to put them all in a few locations kinda like growing crops on farms rather than a plant here and a plant there. We can call them "wind farms"... my idea.

Even with even distribution between solar and wind, there are several
days each year when production is much lower than expected. For
instance thick clouds for a week and low winds. Thus energy storage
for a week would be required.

The realistic really large scale storage system is hydroelectricity,
but there is no way that it could handle the deficiency. The current
installed hydro capacity is less than 0.1 GW and since Indiana is so
flat, it would be hard to build more.

Since they have companies bidding on the job and already have an idea that the storage cost will be around a cent per kWh, I think your rational is not complete in some way.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:01:59 PM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

Indiana again, the Indiana legislators once tried to define pi as
exactly 3.2 by a law

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57˘/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

While implementing any increased demand with renewable, talking about
replacing 22 GW of coal power plants doesn't make sense.

Since both solar and wind have a capacity factor of 20-35 %, in order
to produce the same energy as the coal plants, the renewable nominal
capacity needs to be 3-5 times or 60-100 GW. If 60 GW would be
implemented with 3 MW wind turbines, 20000 turbines would be
required, thus the distance between turbines would be 2 km if evenly
spread out across the state. I guess this would cause a strong NIMBY
effect

Yeah, a wind turbine every mile is a lot like cell phone towers, eh? People hate those things. Maybe it would be better to put them all in a few locations kinda like growing crops on farms rather than a plant here and a plant there. We can call them "wind farms"... my idea.

Unfortunately you can't put wind turbines too close together, since
they will "shadow" each other.

Wind turbines can be installed pretty close into a line that is
perpendicular against the prevailing winds, but you need to leave
quite a lot of space, before you can install the next line.

If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

Even with even distribution between solar and wind, there are several
days each year when production is much lower than expected. For
instance thick clouds for a week and low winds. Thus energy storage
for a week would be required.

The realistic really large scale storage system is hydroelectricity,
but there is no way that it could handle the deficiency. The current
installed hydro capacity is less than 0.1 GW and since Indiana is so
flat, it would be hard to build more.

Since they have companies bidding on the job and already have an idea that the storage cost will be around a cent per kWh, I think your rational is not complete in some way.

So the battery capacity for the 100 kWh Tesla would cost a full
dollar???

 

[Rick C]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 3:18:09 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 16:25:28 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 7:01:59 PM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 13:23:24 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

Indiana again, the Indiana legislators once tried to define pi as
exactly 3.2 by a law

Actually, the didn't. It was not their idea, it was a goofy guy who thought he was good at math and could square the circle and had a formula that set pi to be 3.2 even though nearly everything in his idea was wrong. The hook he used to get the Indiana house to pass the bill was to offer them free use of his idea in their text books. Yes, the lack of basic knowledge is amazing in this event. But by the time it reached the Indiana Senate had been advised to let it die quietly.

Not everyone is a mathematician, but it seems pretty clear that these energy projects are sound and actually have nothing to do with the Indiana legislature since they are being funded by the utilities. You do know the difference, right?

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

While implementing any increased demand with renewable, talking about
replacing 22 GW of coal power plants doesn't make sense.

Since both solar and wind have a capacity factor of 20-35 %, in order
to produce the same energy as the coal plants, the renewable nominal
capacity needs to be 3-5 times or 60-100 GW. If 60 GW would be
implemented with 3 MW wind turbines, 20000 turbines would be
required, thus the distance between turbines would be 2 km if evenly
spread out across the state. I guess this would cause a strong NIMBY
effect

Yeah, a wind turbine every mile is a lot like cell phone towers, eh? People hate those things. Maybe it would be better to put them all in a few locations kinda like growing crops on farms rather than a plant here and a plant there. We can call them "wind farms"... my idea.

Unfortunately you can't put wind turbines too close together, since
they will "shadow" each other.

Wind turbines can be installed pretty close into a line that is
perpendicular against the prevailing winds, but you need to leave
quite a lot of space, before you can install the next line.

If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

Oh, my mistake. I guess someone photoshopped all the images of wind farms you see everywhere. Sorry.

Even with even distribution between solar and wind, there are several
days each year when production is much lower than expected. For
instance thick clouds for a week and low winds. Thus energy storage
for a week would be required.

The realistic really large scale storage system is hydroelectricity,
but there is no way that it could handle the deficiency. The current
installed hydro capacity is less than 0.1 GW and since Indiana is so
flat, it would be hard to build more.

Since they have companies bidding on the job and already have an idea that the storage cost will be around a cent per kWh, I think your rational is not complete in some way.

So the battery capacity for the 100 kWh Tesla would cost a full
dollar???

That's the storage cost added to the kWh of generation, not the capital investment to be able to provide the kWh of storage over and over and over. Did I really need to explain that to you? I did provide the original quote.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 13/10/19 8:03 pm, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

Larger windmills are also taller, otherwise the blades would hit the ground.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

Is this some new elliptical-geometry blade you're talking about? Sounds
fancy.

CH

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

In the UK you can expect to get about 2W per square
metre, but that depends sensitively on the typical
windspeed; over much of the UK it would be only
0.6W per square metre.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml
and succeeding pages.

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 00:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

Even with even distribution between solar and wind, there are several
days each year when production is much lower than expected. For
instance thick clouds for a week and low winds. Thus energy storage
for a week would be required.

The realistic really large scale storage system is hydroelectricity,
but there is no way that it could handle the deficiency. The current
installed hydro capacity is less than 0.1 GW and since Indiana is so
flat, it would be hard to build more.

Since they have companies bidding on the job and already have an idea that the storage cost will be around a cent per kWh, I think your rational is not complete in some way.

So the battery capacity for the 100 kWh Tesla would cost a full
dollar???

That's the storage cost added to the kWh of generation, not the capital investment to be able to provide the kWh of storage over and over and over. Did I really need to explain that to you? I did provide the original quote.

Sorry I missed that point.

Still your numbers sound way too optimistic.

What is the cost of 1 kWh storage ? $300 ?

How many cycles does the battery last ? 1000 full cycles or 3000
partial cycles ? Thus the battery could store 1000-3000 kWh before
being replaced. Thus the added cost for each kWh stored would be 10 to
30 cents.

Some energy is lost in charging (rectifying) electronics, some in
discharging (inverting) electronics and in the battery itself.
Multiple this loss with electricity cost. Unless you assume that the
electricity is completely free, this will add to the storage cost.
Thus, your 1 cent/kWh is off by a least one order of magnitude.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/10/19 10:09, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 13/10/19 8:03 pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

Is this some new elliptical-geometry blade you're talking about? Sounds fancy.

Read the reference I gave (and you snipped)

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:03:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

In the UK you can expect to get about 2W per square
metre, but that depends sensitively on the typical
windspeed; over much of the UK it would be only
0.6W per square metre.

Some back of the envelope calculations: To replace the Indiana 22 GW
coal production with wind, at least 60 GW (nominal) wind power needs
to be installed due to low capacity factor.

The area of Indiana is 94 000 km˛, thus 0.64 MW/km˛ or 0.64 W/m˛. If
the wind speeds are similar to the UK, you could barely fit those wind
turbines when equally spaced across the state of Indiana.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml
and succeeding pages.

One interesting note is that the power density obtainable from solar
panels is much higher for a specific land area. Even at high
latitudes, in which you have to use ample space between panels in
north/south direction to avoid shadowing other panels during the
winter. Tens of wats / square meter land area can be obtained, but is
not of much use, if there are clouds for many months :-(

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/10/19 11:20, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:03:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

In the UK you can expect to get about 2W per square
metre, but that depends sensitively on the typical
windspeed; over much of the UK it would be only
0.6W per square metre.

Some back of the envelope calculations: To replace the Indiana 22 GW
coal production with wind, at least 60 GW (nominal) wind power needs
to be installed due to low capacity factor.

The area of Indiana is 94 000 km², thus 0.64 MW/km² or 0.64 W/m². If
the wind speeds are similar to the UK, you could barely fit those wind
turbines when equally spaced across the state of Indiana.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml
and succeeding pages.

One interesting note is that the power density obtainable from solar
panels is much higher for a specific land area. Even at high
latitudes, in which you have to use ample space between panels in
north/south direction to avoid shadowing other panels during the
winter. Tens of wats / square meter land area can be obtained, but is
not of much use, if there are clouds for many months :-(

That book (and website) has /many/ *solid* interesting
points. It is highly recommended by *everybody* from
hardcore greens to Big Energy.

One point about windmills vs solar is that the land
underneath windmills can be used for other purposes,
especially growing food. Solar cannot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:20:06 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:03:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

In the UK you can expect to get about 2W per square
metre, but that depends sensitively on the typical
windspeed; over much of the UK it would be only
0.6W per square metre.

Some back of the envelope calculations: To replace the Indiana 22 GW
coal production with wind, at least 60 GW (nominal) wind power needs
to be installed due to low capacity factor.

The area of Indiana is 94 000 km², thus 0.64 MW/km² or 0.64 W/m². If
the wind speeds are similar to the UK, you could barely fit those wind
turbines when equally spaced across the state of Indiana.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml
and succeeding pages.

One interesting note is that the power density obtainable from solar
panels is much higher for a specific land area. Even at high
latitudes, in which you have to use ample space between panels in
north/south direction to avoid shadowing other panels during the
winter. Tens of watts / square meter land area can be obtained, but is
not of much use, if there are clouds for many months :-(

Light cloud doesn't matter for non-centrated solar cells. Clouds scatter light rather than absorbing it, though enough cloud eventually scatters most of the incident sun-light back into space.

Inland areas don't see that much cloud cover - by the time an air mass has gotten over any coastal ranges, most of the water it has picked up over the oceans has fallen out as rain.

The UK isn't a good example - the most "inland" area in the UK is only 70 miles from the nearest sea-water.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:37:19 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 00:55:34 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

> What is the cost of 1 kWh storage ? $300 ?

IEEE Spectrum recently published an article on an MIT study - I posted a link to it here - which said that the current capital cost was around $150 per kWhr.

A complete switch to intermittent renewables would need something cheaper - around $20 per kWhr - but even 5% dispatchable backup reduces the amount of storage required enough that $150 per kWhr would do the job.

How many cycles does the battery last? 1000 full cycles or 3000
partial cycles ? Thus the battery could store 1000-3000 kWh before
being replaced. Thus the added cost for each kWh stored would be 10 to
30 cents.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery

last a lot longer - at least some 15,000 to 20,000 cycles.

Some energy is lost in charging (rectifying) electronics, some in
discharging (inverting) electronics and in the battery itself.
Multiple this loss with electricity cost. Unless you assume that the
electricity is completely free, this will add to the storage cost.
Thus, your 1 cent/kWh is off by a least one order of magnitude.

It's not his estimate. And your battery lifetime estimate is roughly an order of magnitude too low for vanadium redox batteries.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 10:53:42 PM UTC+11, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:
I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.


Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

Anthropogenic global warming is a world-wide issue, even if some of Australia's politicians think they can afford to keep mining interests happy by ignoring it.

The record-breaking typhoon which has just hit Japan may be the kind of thing that may get their attention, though drought and a spectacualry early start to the bush-fire season in Australia doesn't seem to have registered yet.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Maybe they think they can buy extra power from neighboring states?

My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.

Seems unlikely. Rain clouds are usually thicker and darker than regular clouds - there has to be a thick enough layer of suspended small water droplets in a cloud to give them a chance to collide and fuse into droplets big enough to fall fast enough to survive until they hit the ground.

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/10/2019 7:23 am, Rick C wrote:

I ran across this article about an Indiana utility having rejected a bid for fossil fuel generation based on cost and risk.

"Vectren’s 2016 proposal to replace coal with a gas plant was declined as too large and financially risky for the small utility, requiring a new bid – which recently came in showing wind, solar and storage dominating the list of offers."

In addition it seems another Indiana utility is going hard on for renewables...

"The Northern Indiana Public Service Company (NIPSCO) learns fast. In 2018, the utility published research suggesting that closing coal plants early, and replacing them with renewables and energy storage, would save customers $4.3 billion. Around the same time as the above bids, the utility announced it would be closing a majority of its coal facilities by 2023 (thus the need for the following procurement), and all coal facilities by 2028. Coal lobbyists, expectedly, have flooded the state’s legislature."

They are looking at adding "2.3 GW of capacity from solar power plants coupled with energy storage". The costs they are expecting to see...

"A preview of where pricing might come in could be seen in the below image, from a summer of 2018 NIPSCO RFP, where we saw bids for solar power at 3.57¢/kWh for 1.3 GW-AC, and 705 MW-AC of solar+storage at an extra charge of $5.90/kW-Mo."

If I understand the storage costs, they seem pretty trivial. I'd love to have my power supplied this way. It would cut my electric bill in half. Good thing my power is local, but not so local it comes from the expensive nuclear power plant next door.

I'm wondering how soon it will be until no one even thinks of any other energy source. Certainly nuclear is a bad idea going forward.

Their desire to get rid of coal seems to be related to some issues
specific to them regarding coal supply. They wouldn't apply world-wide.

The referenced 2018 document is

https://www.in.gov/iurc/files/2018%20NIPSCO%20IRP.pdf

From that document I have extracted the following diagram

https://www.dropbox.com/s/dg09th5086y6d7i/capacity.png?dl=0

DSM stands for demand side management - essentially, some customers
agree to stop using power if necessary.

I find it difficult to see how the diagram on the right for 2028 can
possibly represent a secure supply. Or even a supply during the evening
and night. The battery storage component is very small - it's really
just about levelling out the short term variations in solar. It
certainly doesn't represent storing solar generated energy for use at
night, or during prolonged periods of rain [*].

Sylvia

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 03:57:14 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 9:20:06 PM UTC+11, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 10:03:46 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/10/19 08:18, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
If there are no prevailing winds, you need to keep the turbines well
apart.

The magic number is 5 times the rotor diameter.

A consequence is that larger windmills don't extract
more power per unit of land area, because the distance
between them increases.

In the UK you can expect to get about 2W per square
metre, but that depends sensitively on the typical
windspeed; over much of the UK it would be only
0.6W per square metre.

Some back of the envelope calculations: To replace the Indiana 22 GW
coal production with wind, at least 60 GW (nominal) wind power needs
to be installed due to low capacity factor.

The area of Indiana is 94 000 km˛, thus 0.64 MW/km˛ or 0.64 W/m˛. If
the wind speeds are similar to the UK, you could barely fit those wind
turbines when equally spaced across the state of Indiana.

Taller windmills help, to an extent which is very
dependent on location and surface texture.

http://withouthotair.com/cB/page_263.shtml
and succeeding pages.

One interesting note is that the power density obtainable from solar
panels is much higher for a specific land area. Even at high
latitudes, in which you have to use ample space between panels in
north/south direction to avoid shadowing other panels during the
winter. Tens of watts / square meter land area can be obtained, but is
not of much use, if there are clouds for many months :-(

Light cloud doesn't matter for non-centrated solar cells. Clouds scatter light rather than absorbing it, though enough cloud eventually scatters most of the incident sun-light back into space.

Inland areas don't see that much cloud cover - by the time an air mass has gotten over any coastal ranges, most of the water it has picked up over the oceans has fallen out as rain.

Indiana is close to lake Michigan and based of the snow figures, they
get quite a lot of rain and hence they also have a lot of clouds, i.e.
conditions similar to the Baltic sea basin area.

The UK isn't a good example - the most "inland" area in the UK is only 70 miles from the nearest sea-water.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 13/10/19 14:14, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:39:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


One point about windmills vs solar is that the land
underneath windmills can be used for other purposes,
especially growing food. Solar cannot.

While at low latitudes you can pack the panels so densely that not
much light will reach the ground, but at medium to high latitudes you
have to leave some space between panels in north/south direction to
avoid shadowing each other during the winter, so at least grass will
still grow quit well beneath the panels.

In practice rows of east/west panel rows can be built and animals can
graze between these rows. It might be a good idea to leave some space
between panels in the east/west rows too, so that the animals don't
feel too claustrophobic. Alternatively, mount the panels higher up so
that animals can freely graze below them.

To overstate the counterpoint, if enough light is reaching
the plants to grow, then the solar plant is inefficient.

Basically you can use the energy in the light for
photosynthesis or electricity; make your choice

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:39:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

One point about windmills vs solar is that the land
underneath windmills can be used for other purposes,
especially growing food. Solar cannot.

While at low latitudes you can pack the panels so densely that not
much light will reach the ground, but at medium to high latitudes you
have to leave some space between panels in north/south direction to
avoid shadowing each other during the winter, so at least grass will
still grow quit well beneath the panels.

In practice rows of east/west panel rows can be built and animals can
graze between these rows. It might be a good idea to leave some space
between panels in the east/west rows too, so that the animals don't
feel too claustrophobic. Alternatively, mount the panels higher up so
that animals can freely graze below them.

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 14:18:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 13/10/19 14:14, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 11:39:57 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:


One point about windmills vs solar is that the land
underneath windmills can be used for other purposes,
especially growing food. Solar cannot.

While at low latitudes you can pack the panels so densely that not
much light will reach the ground, but at medium to high latitudes you
have to leave some space between panels in north/south direction to
avoid shadowing each other during the winter, so at least grass will
still grow quit well beneath the panels.

In practice rows of east/west panel rows can be built and animals can
graze between these rows. It might be a good idea to leave some space
between panels in the east/west rows too, so that the animals don't
feel too claustrophobic. Alternatively, mount the panels higher up so
that animals can freely graze below them.

To overstate the counterpoint, if enough light is reaching
the plants to grow, then the solar plant is inefficient.

Basically you can use the energy in the light for
photosynthesis or electricity; make your choice

If you are using fixed panels in order to keep costs down and want it
to producing something also in mid-winter and try to avoiding casting
shadow on the next row of panels, then you have to leave some space in
north/south direction.

During mid-summer, the sun is 47 ( = 2 x 23.5) degrees higher, then
evitable some light will hit directly the ground.

Of course, you could mount the panels on wheels and move them closer
together during the summer, freeing some areas for full power
photosynthesis , but that is hardly cost effective.

 

On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 05:29:40 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

[*] My own solar panels do reasonably well under cloud, but their output
drops to pretty much zero in rain, presumably because the drops of rain
on the panels mess them up optically.

Seems unlikely. Rain clouds are usually thicker and darker than regular clouds - there has to be a thick enough layer of suspended small water droplets in a cloud to give them a chance to collide and fuse into droplets big enough to fall fast enough to survive until they hit the ground.

A layer of water on top of a solar panel would be an extra optical interface, but only reflects about 4% of the incident light. The rest would go straight through.

If we assume that light clouds scatters light in all directions, half
of the incoming radiation will be scattered back to space and newer
reach the ground.

An empirical test, why do you have to turn indoor lights on much
earlier on a cloudy evening compared to a clear evening ?.