As we green our grids and replace petroleum with electricity the carbon footprint of batteries decreases. A few years out the carbon footprint of batteries should be very low.

Wind turbines and solar panels have already “greened” themselves. We have enough wind and solar on the grid to produce more electricity than we use each year to manufacture turbines and panels.

The difference is that I can postpone my reply until I feel like making it. Can’t do that with the problem child in Whatever 1010.

Whether you or I think it best that our energy future be based wholly/largely on finances, that is what is going to happen.

I can imagine that once the climatic problems get bad enough there will be political will to price carbon adequately to swing the transition away from fossil fuels faster. But that is not happening now, so it comes back to finances.

You seem to continue to believe that nuclear is less expensive than renewables and/or that renewables are unable to power the world, to give everyone all the energy they desire. The facts simply do not support your beliefs.

The way I see it is that eventually humanity will use NO fossil fuels because it will have to be that way. Either the excess CO2 would have fried the biosphere or it would simply be too high priced far after the peak. This is where I’m looking.

However, you’re looking at the more immediate future. in which case I must agree. Switch to NG to reduce (slightly) the excess CO2, develop all the renewables and hydro.

But I do NOT agree with biofuels. We need that to go back into the ground for obvious reasons and for the natural SEQUESTRATION of CO2. Sure, some wood for fireplaces, but even that should be limited as there are too many people because we need all the trees as well!

A biofuels based economy would require on the order of TEN TIMES that of a solar economy! Thus, biofuels is just a waste of our collective efforts (although great for “backyard” projects). And solar would take hundreds of thousands of square miles (unless we scrap our already entrenched urban sprawl way of life for the most efficient “way” possible). This is acceptable in my view. I already did the math… solar WILL take at least 400,000 sq mi in order to power its storage, its inefficiency of storage AND to power 10 billion people. Albeit, for the least expensive steam generators from molten salt! The “battery” infrastructure would reduce such land requirements by half! But all the batteries on the planet could only store about ten minutes of the world’s energy needs, or so they say.

If we rebuild in the most efficient way, we will need more coal and oil to do so (unless we actually do the the large scale solar and storage thing).

Thus, I have, a long time ago, come to the conclusion that we must scrap anything that is lessor than solar, wind and hydro, and that we will need on the order of TEN times the amount of energy the world now requires in order build up all of China, India, etc, AND to have power to clean up the excess CO2 mess via the same kind of advanced machine automation needed to make cheap solar, wind and batteries.

If it is not fission, then it will have to be fusion (which I have no hope in as it is too hard to contain 100,000,000 degrees). Or it will have to be space solar power (which requires MASSIVE amounts of cheap energy in order to overcome the Earth’s gravity well). If it is not any of these powerful options, then it will have to be very cheap storage and lots of land.

Also, some countries will HAVE to resort to nuclear (or fusion or space solar), or be dependent on their neighbors. There is just no getting around that pesky intermittent and dilute nature of the renewables when there is simply not enough of that resource in the first place.

No, global atmospheric temperatures have not been rising as rapidly as they had been. (Possibly due to strange ENSO behavior.)

If you look at the temperature record for air, earth and ocean it’s clear that we heating things up quite nicely….

There’s one flaw in that mix – the natural gas part. But NG is simply a placeholder for better storage.

In today’s America the movement away from coal will not happen if the cost is too high. Without including NG – at this specific point in time – we don’t have the financial package to push coal over the edge. If the cost of replacement is too high then utilities will just stick scrubbers on existing coal plants in order to comply with EPA regulations and keep on spewing CO2.

Using NG is not what we would do if our goal was to slow/stop global warming. But at this time we do not have the collective will to make that our goal. Our nationwide goal. (Lots of us have it as a personal goal, but we don’t have control.)

You’re arguing that nuclear would be cheaper. I just can’t see that. I’ve seen no credible person or organization claim that new nuclear could be brought on line for less than about 11c/kWh. I’ve seen informed, thoughtful people estimate the cost would be 15c/kWh or more.

Wind is 6c/kWh and will drop before a new reactor could get built. (Remember, even the Chinese take six years or more to build a reactor.)
Solar is now hitting 10c/kWh and should be fairly close to 5c/kWh six years from now.

Geothermal is under 10c/kWh.

CCNG is about 7c/kWh.

Storage is running 6c to 10c/kWh.

Biomass, in a converted coal plant would be under 10c/kWh.

Those are all cheaper than the lowest estimates for nuclear.

If you want to argue that nuclear could be built for less than 11c/kWh then you need to explain why it has not been done. No fair arguing that we can invent something that will make it cheaper, has to be done with the technology we have at hand.

We have seen multiple open bids for new nuclear in the last few years. The submitted bids have run from 15c/kWh (UK) to 20c/kWh (Ontario, San Antonio, Turkey). If someone knew how to build cheap nuclear they could have stepped forth and turned in a sub-10c/kWh bid and gotten the contract. (None of the 15+c bids were accepted.)

If the industry hasn’t offered to build for less than 15c then how could one possibly think that new nuclear could be built for less than 10c?

You can find people who claim that new nuclear could be cheap. But the people who actually build nuclear reactors are not saying that.

We’ve got all the rooftop and parking lot space we need for solar. We can spare a few Disneylands to build the wind we need. Don’t forget, we’re already using/screwing massive amounts of land for coal and uranium mining.
It’s not an issue of how safe or unsafe nuclear might be. It’s the cost, pure and simple. Companies that own nuclear reactors are stating that new nuclear is too expensive to consider. Their new generation is wind, solar and natural gas.

When grid ability to transition to wind and solar was investigated the acceptance numbers ranged from 25% (eastern grid, IIRC) to 35% (western grid) to 45% (Hawaiian grid). Since then we’ve increased the amount of natural gas generation on the grid and cut coal by over 10%. The NG is dispatchable which means 25% has risen appreciably.

With more electric vehicles (EVs/PHEVs) coming on line the upper limit increases. We’re adding more dispatchable loads which will also raise the penetration numbers. And we’re closing reactors which will free up the existing 21 GW of large scale storage we already have.

Storage for renewables is quite a distance away.

Now, let’s look at this –

” There is NO way that the physical design of a little MSR would cost more than wind, its backup and more backup for storage inefficiency. Period.”
Nuclear reactors are nuclear reactors. They are complex machines and are basically built by hand. (Even building a few hundred in a factory would still be mostly hand work. That scale production does not pay for automation.) And there is no rational explanation why small reactors would be cheaper, MW to MW, than a large reactor. In fact, the opposite holds since many systems would have to be replicated if capacity was split over multiple reactors.

With molten salt reactors you’re just moving something other than water through the pipes. You’ve still got to build the reactor containment system, the steam generator, and all the plumbing to tie them together.
Then, don’t forget, new nuclear would require new storage in most cases. The grid does not need more capacity. Capacity is needed during peak demand hours. We ran into that problem when we were building reactors back in the 1970s and 80s. Had to build 21 GW of storage to move late night nuclear production to the daytime where it was needed.

Our grids are oversupplied during offpeak hours. That is why nuclear reactors are going bankrupt. You can’t turn off a reactor so the operator has to unload the power somewhere. The only way to do that on a grid is to undersell the competition. Since wind has no fuel cost and can sell for close to 0c/kWh nuclear pretty much has to give its power away, even pay the grid to take it.

If you sell below operating costs for part of the day then you have to increase your selling price during the rest of the day to break even. The operating costs for a paid off reactor (one of the stand-alones), is running about 5c/kWh. If you have to sell half the time for around 0c/kWh then you’ve got to sell at 10c/kWh for the other half.

Utility solar is now selling for under 10c/kWh. Natural gas combined cycle plants are selling for less than 10c/kWh. Nuclear is dead. And, remember, I’m talking about paid off nuclear plants. Add in 5c to 15c per kWh for loan payments and you should be able to see that new nuclear makes no financial sense.

Wind, without subsidies, is selling for 6c. Solar, without subsidies, is selling for 10c and dropping fast. Natural gas, without subsidies, is selling for 7c. Electricity from the Vogtle plant now being constructed looks like it will be in the 12c to 15c range.

Wind is cheaper than nuclear. That’s just a simple fact. Even paid off reactors are going bankrupt because they cannot compete with wind and natural gas. There is no possible way to build any sort of new nuclear reactor and be competitive.

Additionally, solar prices are falling very rapidly. Utility scale solar in the US is already cheaper than new nuclear. Were we installing at China’s cost then utility scale solar would be competitive with paid off nuclear (the standalone reactors which are failing).

Thus, based on your figures, we need at least 480,000 (150k x 1.33 for more accurate capacity factor x 1.2 for efficiency loss of battery storage x 2 for powering electric transport) and at most, 1.2 million such if molten salt and the steam generator is used.

What would be cheaper, a million turbines and cheap molten salt and turbines, or far fewer turbines and more expensive batteries?

Or simply re-developing the molten salt reactor?

( http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm )

I compared the almost-sunniest parts of the lower 48 states (SW) with the almost-least-sunny parts (NE). Death Valley and the Seattle coast are not included.

( http://www.wholesalesolar.com/Information-SolarFolder/SunHoursUSMap.html )

At $2.10/W (US 2nd Qtr, 2013 Avg) = 8.9c/kWh in SW, 11.5c/kWh in NE.

At $1.50/W (Europe Price) = 6.6/kWh in SW, 8.4c/kWh in NE.

At $1/W (China Price) = 4.7c/kWh in SW, 5.9c/kWh in NE.

US 2nd Qtr prices are generated by Greentech Media.

( http://www.greentechmedia.com/research/ussmi )

These price do not include subsidies. I think we can safely say that utility scale solar is being installed in the US right now for 9c to 11.5c/kWh. And as we catch up with Europe and later with China we should see utility scale solar for 5c to 6c/kWh.

These prices do not include land costs, transmission or solar farm owner profits.

LCOE is strictly the cost of generating power.

A Swiss report says 3 to 6 cents per kWh for pump-up if it is being cycled frequently. In use at least 1,000 hours per year. About 3 per day, which should be easy.

http://www.infosperber.ch/Artikel/Politik/Strom-Wer-zu-fruh-baut-den-bestraft-der-Markt

Vanadium flow batteries are apparently about 8c/kWh, but I have no link.

In the video on their link EOS Systems claims 10c/kWh for their zinc-air batteries.

http://www.eosenergystorage.com/media-information

Storage costs are hard to find. Partly because storage is a very immature field and partly because cost jumps all over the place based on cycles/time.
—

Any price info that anyone has will be appreciated. I’ll add it to my notes so that we can keep on top of where the market is headed.

It will take me time to assimilate. I’m copying it over to google docs.

I’m doing a big ‘notes drop’ here. If something doesn’t make sense post back and I’ll try to clarify.

Here’s the very, very, very big number. China seems to be installing utility solar at $1 per Watt.

—

City of Roseville, CA 7.4 Cents

“Roseville Electric purchased 325,000 MWH of renewable energy for $24 million for 10 years. The contract cost $6.5 million less than similar renewable energy purchase offers in 2012. “

First Solar Farm in Kern County

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/first-solar-roseville-sign-contract-120000550.html
—————-

Palo Alto 6.9 Cents

The price is an eye-opening 6.9 cents per kilowatt-hour for the 30-year PPA.

“Try building a new nuke or coal plant at that price,” was Adam Browning of Vote Solar’s take on the number. The price compares favorably to the typical market price referent and would seem to be able to take on prices paid for natural gas or wind. The projects still include the 30 percent federal Investment Tax Credit.

The utility calculates the impact of its renewables contracts to be in the range of 0.11 cents per kilowatt-hour compared to conventional generation. The math looks to adjust for time-of-delivery, transmission costs, and capacity value.

6.9 cents includes 30% ITC subsidy. Without subsidies the price would be roughly 10 cents per kWh.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Palo-Alto-Ca-Goes-Solar-Cheaply-80-Megawatts-At-6.9-Cents-Per-Kilowatt-Ho
—

Last week, the San Jose municipal authority wrote contracts for 80MW of solar PV at 6.9c/kWh, which after a 30 per cent investment tax credit works out to be around 10c/kWh.

Randolph says he has just approved more contracts for distributed solar systems of between 3 and 10MW in and around the same price. “I just signed off on a couple of contracts and they are competitive with fossil fuels,” he says.

The other point of note is that California has not had to add to fossil-fuel generation capacity to support renewables. About 10GW of old, inefficient gas-fired generators will be closed in coming years for environmental reasons– these are mostly 50-year-old generators which use sea-water cooling through a method known as “once-through cooling”. Randolph says these will be replaced by newer gas turbines that can provide the flexibility to respond to renewables.

Storage though will be critical, Randolph says, especially as the penetration of renewables goes beyond 35 or 40 per cent. “If we want to be doing it and have it being environmental meaningful, we will need storage. If you doing that (filling in the gaps) with gas, you are not getting an environmental benefit.”

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/california-finds-clean-energys-magic-ingredient-ambition-83435
—

New Mexico 5.8 cents

Adding in state (2.7 cents ) and federal (2.3 cents) subsidies makes it about 10.8 cents.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/03/thin-film-solar-power-to-be-sold-for-less-than-coal/
—

UK Solar Farm at $1.59/Watt

The site near Leicestershire in the English Midlands is now the location of Britain’s largest solar farm. The facility is 34 megawatts in size and will prevent the emission of approximately 170,000 tonnes of CO2 over its lifespan, which is equivalent to shovelling about 58,000 tonnes of coal back into the ground.

The solar farm cost just over one pound a watt or $54 million. That’s in either Australian or US dollars as they currently both convert into exactly the same number of British pounds. (No doubt a fun day for currency traders.) This gives a cost of $1.59 a watt and according to a report commissioned last year by the British Government’s Department of Energy and Climate Change, it is 20% less than their figure for large scale solar in 2012.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/21/uk-solar-costs-pounded-largest-solar-farm-one-pound-or-1-59-per-watt/
—

South of Rome for $1.20/Watt

Deutsche Bank said that although the market in Europe had contracted, at least one third of new, small to mid size projects were being developed without subsidies. Multi-megawatt projects were being built south of Rome for €90c/W. This was delivering electricity costs (LCOE – with 80 per cent self consumption) of around €80/MWh (€8c/kWh)

Deutsche Bank said that although the market in Europe had contracted, at least one third of new, small to mid size projects were being developed without subsidies. Multi-megawatt projects were being built south of Rome for €90c/W. This was delivering electricity costs (LCOE – with 80 per cent self consumption) of around €80/MWh (€8c/kWh)

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/deutsche-sees-solar-distributed-energy-at-major-inflection-point-10487

€90c = $1.20
—

China $1/Watt

“Yingli chief strategy officer Yiyu Wang said that project costs for its current pipeline of 130MW in utility-scale solar projects in China are about $1.03-$1.05 a watt.”

“Wang suggested that Yingli would generate a return in the “higher mid teens” for these projects. “

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/09/12/how-the-solar-pv-industry-became-a-global-phenomenon/#comment-1045117247
—

Unsubsidized Solar $1.43/watt

A completely unsubsidized 250 MW solar energy project is currently being developed in the north-western region of Cádiz, Spain — near the town of Trebujena.

The €275 million project will be built over a period of 2–3 years in five separate phases of 50 MW each. The first phase is expected to be connected by the end of 2015, and the final phase by the end of 2017.

Once completed, the solar park will feature somewhere around 90,000 PV panels, which will generate about 420,000 MWh a year. That’s enough to power around 117,000 homes in the region, according to Tentusol.

250 MW for €275 million.

€1,1/watt.

$1.43/watt.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/06/28/unsubsidized-solar-power-project-totaling-250-mw-going-up-in-spain/$1.43/watt

In the sunny Southwest. that would mean electricity at less than $0.06/kWh.
—-

Australia Rooftop As Low As $2.Watt

Updated monthly under “Price” on left margin.

http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/solar-pv-price-index-may-2013/
—

Germany Solar System Average $2/watt

Average system price in Germany. Includes utility, commercial and residential.

Mai 2013 € 1.570

http://www.photovoltaik-guide.de/pv-preisindex
—

$1.55/watt in India

The solar park will be located in the Ramanathapuram district of Tamil Nadu. This solar park is expected to attain 70 MW of capacity by January, and the full 100 MW goal by April 2014.

A crore in South Asia is 10 million. So the report says the project will cost 9.2 bn rupees, or $155 million, at $1.55 a watt.

http://cleantechnica.com/2013/07/26/indian-solar-power-plant-100-mw/#comment-978218226

“The prices offered by wind projects to utility purchasers averaged $40/MWh for projects negotiating contracts 2011 and 2012, spurring demand for wind energy.”

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2013/08/06/new-study-finds-that-the-price-of-wind-energy-in-the-united-states-is-near-an-all-time-low/

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_technologies_market_report.pdf

$40/MWh means $0.04/kWh. Add back in the $0.022 PTC and it’s $0.062/kWh.

This is a low number. It’s not just the LCOE of wind. It includes real estate, transmission, taxes and wind farm owner profits. It’s the “delivered to the door” cost of electricity, not just the generation price.

I’ve read a couple of comments lately from people in the utility business who report that PPA for wind are being signed for ~2.5c/kWh in the Midwest. Add in the subsidy and that’s 4.5c/kWh wind. They couldn’t report detail as that was privileged information.