Neither wind nor solar needs storage to be economically viable.
It does need storage to be more than 4% of the total energy budget.
DEFINITELY needs storage (or intercontinental transmission) to provide
100% of our needs.
Solar
in particular complements the usual daily load curve,
Yes. And that's the point. If you want it to be more than 30% of the
power at its peak, or more than 4% of the total energy in a year, you
need storage.
so its energy
can be sold at top-dollar peak pricing.
These are arguments conventional solar folks use (who are dependent on
oil companies and major energy companies to fund their losses). This
is not a recipe to dominate the energy marketplace.
There are places where 20 or even 25% of the total load is furnished
by essentially unpredictable wind power, and the existing grid (which
used to handle 100% anyhow) adapts.
The costs of switching power plants on and off, and the costs of using
more peaking power - properly should be added to the intertie costs.
Most often due to regulatory difference between the way transmission
and genration, and especially 'alternative' generation or
'distributed' generatoin - manyof these costs are hidden.
Hiding costs may be politically acceptable, but for anyone who really
wants to see alternatives to major energy really and truly compete
against major energy where they live, these costs MUST be brought out
analyzed and solutions found. I've done that. I'm reporting it here.
I'm getting roundly attacked for it. Which just goes to show how
easily manipulated even knowledgeable people are.
The hydrogen thing is just a good way to sink a presumably efficient
solar power generation concept.
What? Efficiently making hydrogen with DC solar power when the sun is
shining is the lowest cost per joule and the greatest value per joule
around. Check it out;
Solar panels directly tied into a conventional generator system cost
about $1 billion and generate about $120 million per year, and that
adds about $2.4 billion to the utilitiy's valuation.
Solar panels generating hydrogen gas that 100% replaces all fossil
fuels, and eliminates all carbon emissions, cost $5 billion eliminate
$800 million per year in fuel costs, and create $1,000 million per
year in carbon credits - adding $36 billion to the utility's
valuatoin. - basically doubling the value of the utility going
forward.
One provides a 2.4:1 increase in valation at 4% total revenue, while
costing nearly 50% of the utility's capital budget,the other provides
a 7.2:1 increase in valuation at 100% of the total revenue of the
utility while costing 200% of the utility's capital budget.
Clearly direct intertie is a way to be a secondary source forever,
while providing fuel at very low costs is a way to dominate the energy
business. In fact, one should be in the business of buying utilities
with this technology. An LBO would be easily paid for. So, buying
faltering utilities, especially in the sunbelt, and providing them
with hydrogen fuel is a way to realize huge increases in valuation.
Direct intertie;
$0.07 per peak watt - low-cost photocell
$0.70 per peak watt - intertie
------------
$0.77 per peak watt - total AC on grid
Limitations: 30% peak power levels
4% total energy contribution
EXAMPLE: 4,000 MW utility
1,200 MW solar add on
35 million MWh - utility contribution
1.5 million MWh - solar contribution
$2,000 million - main utility generators
$ 924 million - solar generation
$120 million solar energy value @ $80/MWh
$2,400 million value of solar generators.
$794 million per year recurring fuel costs.
4% rise per year in fuel cost.
$16,000 million - npv recurring fuel costs.
50 million tons carbon-dioside
$20 per ton carbon credits
$1,000 million per year recurring carbon
costs
$20,000 million - npv recurring carbon costs
Solar Hydrogen
$0.07 - per peak watt - low cost solar
$0.02 - variable load electrolyzer
-----------
$0.09 - total solar hydrogen setup
Limitations: 100% of fuel supply
100% of energy
EXAMPLE: 4,000 MW utility
38% efficient
20% insolation
52,632 MW solar hydrogen
35 million MWh per year solar
contribution
$2,000 million - main utility generators
$4,736 million - solar hydrogen systems
$0 - recurring fuel costs
$0 - npv recurring fuel costs.
50 million tons AVOIDED CARBON
$20 per ton carbon credit value
$1,000 million carbon credit revenue
$20,000 million - npv carbon credit value
$80 per MWh - electricity value
$2,800 million per year electricity revenue
$56,000 million - npv electricity
generation.
When one considers the 14.5 million tons of stranded coal each year
that this example utility throws off, merely by adding another 1.4
million tons of hydrogen to this coal 4.9 billion gallons of gasoline
can be synthesized without producing emissions - and at $1.80 per
gallon - this adds $8.8 billion per year in revenues. Well worth the
added $7 billion in capital costs for the Bergius reactors and added
solar panels.
In fact, buying a coal company that has its own power plants combined
with buying an oil remarketer - a gas station chain that doesn't have
its own integrated supply line - and creating a solar supply - is one
way to realize huge valuations and control your own future without
being dependent on major oil or utlities.
Westmoreland Coal and Sunoco are interesting in this regard. My
technology added to these companies with this business plan, could
increase the value of these companies from $15 billion to something on
the order of $400 billion - easily supporting an LBO and all the
capital expenditures needed to create this value.
..
