Almost All New US Electricity Comes from Solar

Hundreds of thousands is nothing for infrastructure. We can claim solar will solve the problem, but at tiny rates, we have heard this for years, and it is not a solution. It will take decades in the northeast to make any inroads at a high percentage to relieve the problem of bad infrastructure. You can't make those excuses.

Right now marginal ccgt is about 3 cents/kwh nationally IIRC, I do know its only $0.02/kwh in texas. It is extremely unlikely that in 7 years in the north east solar is at parity. In the north east there are not enough natural gas pipelines or grid infrastructure.

The way people can give panels to people is because wholesale and retail rates after subsidies are quite different. If solar is to be even 5% there would be screaming about the costs. I therefore wish that those that say it is so cheap, would simply build 2%. It should be easy if costs are much lower than natural gas and wind. Until you can get to one percent, you should at least try to understand the costs. I am in favor of subsidiesing solar, but am against these fairy tails that its cheaper than natural gas.

well there are grid problems if you are paying 46 cents for many days. The question is if you invest in fixing the grid would you have more money say 5 years from not to invest in solar. We know that the north east is grid constrained but people don't seem to want to fix it.

Here is eia estimate for much more wind and natural gas then solar in the near future.
Vermont Yankee nuclear plant closure in 2014 will challenge New England energy markets - Today in Energy - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

 

After reading the above posts the funny thought hit me. Solar may actually get a strong push as a way of avoiding fixing the grid infrastructure. (I'm kidding I think, but Corwyn's note that solar was installed to avoid putting in a line made me think that. If you can get 46 cent/kWh, no utility would want to "fix" that gold mine of a problem.)

 

Its probably true, but the 46 cents/kwh is likely an idled petroleum generator being turned on, on a cold winters night, instead of pulling in more power from hydro-Quebec, or gathering it from the rest of that part of the grid. That at least is the scenario where the north east part of the grid is most constrained. Natural gas pipelines don't have enough gas to provide both heating in homes and electric power, so generation is curtailed. Those utilities that own those infrequently used generators make more money if the grid is antiquated, but its not good for consumers or business.

Natural gas generation has dropped prices so much on summer nights that the nuke can't make enough money to stay open, so its shutting down. You can see their are plans in the works to make more of a profit from natural gas and wind when the nuke is gone, and natural gas and wind are being built. The most pressing needs are modernizing the grid and getting better pipelines to supply enough natural gas from the US during the winter.

Which leaves the story for solar. The north east has done a great job since 2001 in finally shutting down most diesel generators, and is ahead of most the country in shutting down coal. The low prices of natural gas will shut down one of the nuclear power plants, leaving utilities non-diversified with over 60% of power from natural gas. Say solar is about 3x more expensive than natural gas power, you can build 0.5% solar and only increase electricity prices 1% a year. After 10 years the solar portion would be 5% of the grid and have likely added less than 10% to the cost. This seems like a worthwhile investment to reduce the chance of natural gas price increases hurting consumers even more.

 

I have an existence proof, that you are wrong. This did in fact help.

Correct. It is at parity NOW. In seven years it will be a no brainer.

So you don't think natural gas is subsidized in any way, for any amount? Look at the history of solar PV panels and make a prediction when PV will be at parity given no subsidies.

Nope. Not even sure why you would say that. The grid handles the load fine (otherwise we would get blackouts, not expensive electricity). The problem is peak generating capacity. Which solar would be perfectly fitted to.

 

Here is a graphical representation of our available resources. On the right, limited resources (total known), on the left yearly amounts for renewables, on far left consumption for 2009 and 2050.

 

Was I not clear enough that this was on a summer afternoon? Cold winter nights are off peak rates.

The 46 cents is the wholesale price that the utility is PAYING. The rate that individual user is paying is around 15 cents, and is set by the government. The utility has great incentive to get rid of that 46 cent rate.

Current year forward natural gas price prediction is an increase by 11%.

 

Hey its according to the ferc for new england. There are congestion charges, especially for Connecticut, and vermont may not be able to get the electricity it wants to buy from quibec. This requires less efficient local power plants to run on that part of the grid. Last major new england black out was 2003, but that does not mean the grid is ready for the new wind, and shutting of the nuclear power plant. I understand you may disagree with the ferc, but I don't understand how solar on homes in maine are going to help with these other problems. Then again you may not care about the rest of the grid, ercot separated with only dc interconnects, but since the focus was north east, which to me includes new england and new york, the ferc definitely says for that region there are problems.

No you were clear, I just looked up the problems, which said in 2013, the highest amount of expensive electricity for the north east is January. How your utility and regulators choose to serve you is different from the regional problem.

Because of the regional changes the previous slide detailing likely additions make sense

Who is the utility paying the rate to, the pope. Its paying it to the utility that owns and runs the generaters. Yep that is the utility I am talking about. In the summer there is a lot of inexpensive natural gas generation, and some expensive generation. The utility then often works with the regulator to pass those costs to customers. By all mean if you are the customer, and are getting charged more than solar will cost you, its a good investment. If you are a utility, the regulator decides whether its worth it to the utility.

The risk is a reason for regulators to incentivise solar. Our local regulators, for my municipality have decided on 3% solar by 2020. This has led to 65% subsidies to homes to put up solar, but utility solar is the most expensive power we buy. Since we are adding less than 0.5%/year it doesn't add much to rates, but wind and natural gas interests want to stop the incentives at that 3% level.

 

Not in Maine you're not. The electric utility is forbidden by law from generating electricity.

 

Actually we do have a lot of solar in the PAC. NW, more everyday. Currently, if you install Washington made PV, (a small fractional increase in cost per watt) you get paid $.36/KWH. if you couple those panels to Washington made inverters that rises to $.54/kwh. This with a retail cost of power of about $.15/kwh. With a 30% tax credit, it is a no brainer, with pay back in less than five years. The utilities like it because it they can buy solar cheaper than they can buy peak demand any other way.

And for the record, if you do a PVWatts analysis of Seattle, the solar potential is about 80% of that in sunnier eastern WA.

Icarus

 

Available solar capacity in this context would be actual generation capacity installed and operating. This 2011 chart shows that at 0.04% of US Generation in 2011 - even after addition of over 1000 MW capacity for the year.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/2011_US_electricity_generation_by_source.png

In 2012 new solar installations appeared to have about 20% growth over 2011. Wind is posting impressive gains, but these will likely fall as government incentives for these installations fall. In addition, legal and regulatory concerns are starting to crack down as installations become more widespread. See the Duke settlement in the recent news.

North American Windpower: Duke Reaches $1 Million Settlement For Bird Deaths At Wind Farms

Wind will be hard pressed to be a reliable source when a birdwatcher in the distance can call in and shutdown a generation facility as recommended in this settlement.

We all want the cleanest electricity possible, but at the end of the day - we just want electricity when we need it. Enter natural gas and the shale gas glut.

 

Many of the coal plant closures scheduled won't be final until the 2015 timeframe for EPA HAPS rules compliance. Market forces will then do what they will. I suspect plants will be back running at relatively high capacities due to these closures.

Interesting about renewables requirements in blue states. Will be more interesting to see whether folks are really willing to pay a premium electric rate from the artifically legislated demand for this niche renewables market.

 

It would seem to behoove us to be increasing that then. Which is precisely what I am advocating. Nobody complained that natural gas was a miniscule percentage of then current capacity, before they started making power plants using that fuel did they? No. Why should anyone CARE what current percentage is, when the question is what should we be building NOW?

 

I for one am quite willing to pay less for renewables. Which is the current situation for me, with regards to local solar. Even if I weren't, our renewable percentage is rising in Maine, and our electricity prices are going down. So I don't think you will get to see your hypothetical.

 

Hope not. Time will tell.

If you've installed solar, you've chosen to spend up front for the privilege and are insulated from market forces. Among the big reasons Maine grid electricity prices are falling are deregulation and the cost differentials between fuels. With little knowledge of that market, I doubt that much of the deregulated market generation in the state is supplied from in state - therefore the relative increase in renewables by shutting down market inefficient generating units in the state.

If the sources I've seen are anywhere near correct, wind averages around $0.12/kwh installed, with solar and tidal around double that. Power is selling in your state significantly under those prices (around $0.07/kwh). Other than government incentives, why would anyone borrow money to install renewables at those prices?

Maine uses relatively little electricity as a state, and I doubt the accomplishments of that market are scalable.

 

Wrong. Try again.

Wrong. Deregulation was years ago, and prices went up.

I guessed.

Wrong again. Care to try again.

Nope. Solar is under $0.14/kwh installed here. (with no up-front costs).

According to DOE "[T]he average levelized price of wind PPAs signed in 2011/2012—many of which were for projects built in 2012—fell to around $40/MWh nationwide" That's $0.04 per kilowatt-hour (wholesale).

Can we say wrong again. Around $0.15/kWh.

Right, because it based on population density? Everyone has their pet 'reasons' why things won't work in their circumstances. Usually it is stubbornness against change, not their unique-snowflake-ness.

 

I nominate Corwyn for king.

 

Best of luck.

Clearly I'm inflammatory by citing examples, history, and sources. Wasn't my intention getting involved in this thread.

Reality is that renewables are a niche in much of the country. Believe what you'd like.

Contrary viewpoints are clearly not welcome.

out.

 

Said largest power plant in Maine, you know the fuel oil one that costs 45 cents/kwh is now on sale by nextera. I guess you may call nextera a power producer instead of a utility, excuse me if that is your semantic problem, but it is a spin off of a utility (florida light and power) to own these things. It does appear that the wyman power plants days are numbered, but here is the graph of when it is needed

Power Plant of the Week - William F. Wyman Station — Energy Tariff Experts



The needs are greatest in January and February, but it appears more natural gas pipeline, grid upgrades, and perhaps more natural gas generation capacity may soon close the plant that pays over $2M in taxes and employs 53. There is even a plan to run natural gas to the plant, not to generate energy, but to keep it spinning on cheaper natural gas instead of oil when its not in use.

Solar can then reduce natural gas and/or biomass (mainly wood in maine) during the time its available. Wind can also reduce this. In maine it appears wind installed by the power producers like nextera, and solar by utility consumers.

 

Be Happy! It's a good start.

 

Not yet, it would help get him closer to his coronation if he'd supply references and cites to his declaratory charge of "wrong" to each statement that goes against his POV.