Denial 2.0

Nwdriver, if we were to use photovoltaic for energy production in New Mexico or Arizona, what area would be needed to replace all US electricity consumption over a period of one year? What about the area for our total energy use?

Not only can renewables do it all, it'll be cheaper than what we're doing now.

How World Can Go 100% Renewables By 2050 And Save Money

The Stanford study estimates that it will save each person in the 139 countries an average of $170 a year on fuel costs, and $2,880 a year in air-pollution-damage cost and $US1,930/person/year in climate costs (2013 dollars).

Click to expand...

Getting to zero net carbon is a political problem. It's not a technology problem. It's not an economic problem. It's roughly 90 companies (Guardian.com)with the ears of policy makers. Take the subsidizing fingers off the energy market scales and the old dinosaurs will be buried by fast, small, nimble competitors.

NB: A portion of savings in some sectors would have to go to pay for higher expenses in other sectors - getting enough biofuel to transition shipping and aviation, for instance. Those aren't going to be electrified anytime soon. Again, a political problem....

Bangor Bob said:

Getting to zero net carbon is a political problem. It's not a technology problem. It's not an economic problem.

Click to expand...

Well, it's political in the sense that nation states exist. Without nation states there would be no issue of economic competitiveness, which would make it easy to implement policies that make short-term sacrifices for long-term gains.

But given the existence of nation states, you're always left waiting for cheaper technology.

The biggest thing we're waiting for are cheap batteries and cheaper power electronics, which is why I think electrification of transportation is so important.

Cheap batteries would change _everything_.

ItsNotAboutTheMoney said:

Well, it's political in the sense that nation states exist. Without nation states there would be argument of economic competitiveness.

But given the existence of nation states, you're always left waiting for cheaper technology.
The biggest thing we're waiting for are cheap batteries and cheaper power electronics, which is why I think electrification of transportation is so important.

Imagine if you could pay $600/year to have a 40kWh battery in your house, attached to a smart inverter/rectifier. Boy, things would be different.

Click to expand...

Green Mountain Power is experimenting along those lines with the Powerwall, $450/year for 7kWh of storage, with GMP "running" it.

As for the politics - it's the influence and lobbying the fossil industries have. Hopefully as the "clean" industries expand, their lobbying power will too. The tide is slowly turning already -- more in some countries than others, of course...

William13 said:

Nwdriver, if we were to use photovoltaic for energy production in New Mexico or Arizona, what area would be needed to replace all US electricity consumption over a period of one year? What about the area for our total energy use?

Click to expand...

191,817 square miles: Elon Musk: How to power the US with solar - Tech Insider

Denial is thinking policy is no obstacle to what is physically possible. "opponents of wind and solar"? Hansen is genuinely concerned about CO2. I would agree arguments between carbon-free resources are reckless, in light of the carbon math, or when you blend environmental idealism with a little internet confidence.

Ohio is deciding to subsidize coal - how's that score? We can muse about what's possible, all we want. Geopolitics have a different plan.

nwdiver said:

well... for starters a 10kW array produces ~1800kWh/mo...

Click to expand...

Not true if you live where I do. Near St. Louis, a 9 kW array will only produce just over ~1,000 kWh/mo.

I agree with your premise, but 10 kW @ 1800 kWh/mo is idealistic at best unless you live in Arizona, SoCal, or Florida.

Without crazy incentives, solar PV has a serious problem here in the midwest when compared to the cheap electricity.

Without incentives, payback for the average consumer here is 32.3 years.
With just the federal 30% incentive, payback for the average consumer here is 22.6 years.

This doesn't include (both positive and negative):

* opportunity cost of money (even at 3% this is substantial)
* electricity rate increases as a result of regulation and/or true cost realization
* expected inverter replacement every 15 years
* panel degradation (~20% after 25 years)

You can make the argument all you want that cheap coal country should pay more for their power to reflect true cost, but the power bill is a big chunk of their income and they'll find policymakers who will respect their positions (not to mention the jobs that these industries bring).

As for wind, no one has made any reasonable case out here for wind except in a thin strip throughout north-central Illinois.

Bottom line - incentives are still needed here on a fairly large scale, and states are ending their incentives. Illinois just ended their 25% rebate, up to $10k, because the state is so broke. A few years ago, Ameren in Missouri had an incentive that would pay nearly the entire cost of the system, so people could make money after 3 months - that's gone now.

That article is stupid. Not only are those people not climate denialists, they do not oppose wind and solar. They are all for it. Problem is, wind and solar looks shockingly similar to other grand ideas that never seem to really happen, including fusion power, while fission nuclear is steadily out there delivering significant amounts of real power. Despite being deeply concerned about the climate (I won't vote for anyone who disregards the findings of climate science, regardless of how much I might like them on other issues), I would be among those in so said "climate denialism" if it weren't for one man on a mission: Elon Musk. Our greatest hope for wind and solar to really take off right now lies with Tesla, their gigafactory, and the PowerPack/PowerWall.

Tell you what. I'll stop staying wind and solar can't do it alone as soon as you stop saying fusion is 40 years away and always will be. Deal? (note: this is rhetorical, not directed at anyone in particular)

nwdiver said:

The reason solar PV is so costly (unless you DIY) is the installers; NOT the technology. There's a lot of research trying to figure out exactly why this is...

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Very few installers, they're getting $4/W. We know that the materials are running about $1.5/W. The 9 kW array I had installed on my shed took about 3 days with 2 guys @ 8 hours ea. At 48 man-hours, that's a healthy project margin - likely $400/hr profit.

I've had a couple of electricians come by and ask what it would take for them to get into it. The big learning curve for them appears to be all the planning tools - electricians don't do a lot of planning, that's usually the architect or general contractor's job. They intuitively "get" all of the connections between all the pieces, but it's that modeling and planning that tends to limit them.

Your 9kW array should cost ~$17k. The equipment is $1.20/w that still leaves $6k for profit and fees. $17k / 240MWh = $0.07/kWh.

Click to expand...

It was $36k without incentives. With incentives (25% rebate, then 30% off the remainder), out-of-pocket was ~$19k. Replacing inverter down the road will probably be another $4k or so. Projected production year 1 is 12.4 MWh, with 20% degradation at year 25, that's an average of 11.16 MWh/year, or 279 MWh. So $23k / 279 MWh = 8.24 cents per kWh. I pay $0.09. So I will be able to reach parity.

(My other 9kW system, 3 arrays, isn't as good - some shading issues on my garage roof prevent me from reaching the full potential of the panels. It was the same price to install, but unfortunately will produce only about 11.4 MWh or so...)

I suppose if you wanted to move here and install a bunch of solar you could make it work. No one's doing it though, especially with it looking increasingly like the 30% rebate not getting renewed beyond the end of 2016.

nwdiver said:

Well... nice thing about Texas... no code inspections or permits depending on location

Still... those things aren't hard; I did everything above board and inspected in WA state... I hired a licensed electrician to do the final wiring and pull the permits for $1k.

Click to expand...

Same here. Some counties don't even have building permits.

I love Tennessee. I pulled the permits on my fist 7kw system and they said what took me so long and charged me $25 then add the $50 for the utility. When I added an additional 5 panels the permit was $20 and the utility waived the inspection since nothing changed.