I have to admit to surprise at the speed of developments in storage. My guess is that cost-competitive solutions will be available well before we could (say) plan and build a nuclear reactor.

Solar and storage means “game over” for traditional utilities
By Giles Parkinson on 26 August 2013

Last Friday’s story about the predictions of Stanford University energy expert Tony Seba that solar would displace fossil fuels by 2030 – and how electric vehicles would do the same to liquid fuels – certainly generated a lot of readership, and a big response.

Some questioned whether we should be taking the opinion of just one academic at his word. So we’ve followed up with some quotes from two of the most senior energy chiefs in the US, the world’s biggest electricity market. And the predictions are just as striking.

Jon Wellinghoff, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which regulates utilities in the US, said in an interview last week that solar will “overtake everything”, and said that once storage is brought in to the equation it is pretty much “game over” for traditional forms of generation.

“Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything,” he told Greentech Media on the sidelines of the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.

He noted that in the next 2.5 years, the US will double its entire cumulative capacity of distributed solar built up over the previous four decades, and the installation cost of solar would continue to plunge from its current level of $4-$5 a watt, to $2 a watt and $1 a watt.

“At its present growth rate, solar will overtake wind in about ten years. It is going to be the dominant player. Everybody’s roof is out there,” he said. “Once it is more cost-effective to build solar with storage than to build a combustion turbine or wind for power at night, that is ‘game over.’ At that point, it will be all about consumer-driven markets.”

That is an extraordinary comment by the head of the US energy regulator, and not one you will hear in Australia, even though the level of penetration of rooftop solar is much higher, the installed cost of solar much lower (Australia has fewer “soft” costs and is already at around $A2/watt), and the retail price of solar is much higher.

But Welinghoff’s comments fit in with what the heads of his country’s biggest independent generation and utility companies have said about the potential of solar to change the game. That is just starting to dawn in Australia, where the market operator and utilities admit an increasing impact from solar, and state energy ministers are admitting that they are struggling to cope.

In separate remarks to the conference, Wellinghof said that it was clear that electricity markets were undergoing dramatic and profound change.

“Our markets were made up for a very centralised system, very large plants and plants that were distant from loads. We’re moving to a much more distributed system that also has consumers participating as resources with their load. FERC’s primary role is to ensure that all those resources and can get a fair opportunity to participate and get compensated.

“”We’re not picking winners and losers,” he said. “We’re letting the market make those choices but those choices have to be made in a fair and open market. We have to help consumers through that transition; it’s going to be bumpy because we have a traditional utility model that is trying to fit with this new transition and it has implications for rate designs, costs and business models.”

Greentech Media reports that Wellinghoff was a consumer advocate early in his career and has not changed sides. “Even though the FERC oversees wholesale markets, utilities, and other jurisdictional entities at the wholesale level, the consumer needs to be our major concern,” he said.

He said that rate structures need to be formulated in ways that “fully recognize the costs and benefits of distributed resources.” That may mean higher fixed costs than a variable energy rate, he said, but it was also important to note that there is value in distributed solar that can be captured and realized by the distribution utility that is not being paid to PV system owners “because they have not been analyzed, quantified, and monetized.”

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Wellinghoff’s comments follow a recent interview with the recently retired US Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, who also said that uilities would have to develop a new business model, one modeled around solar and storage, rather than the traditional model of centralised generation.

He told the San Francisco Chronicle that energy efficiency would mean an essentially flat market for electricity, which meant a shrinking business for utilities. And because solar and storage would continue to lower costs, households could look after nearly 80 per cent of their own energy needs.

“Now, if you’re a utility company, you’re going to be very worried about that,” Chu said.

“So I’ve been telling them there’s another business model. It goes like this: We – the utility – would own the energy storage and the thing on the roof and the electronics. We’ll sell you the electricity.”

In a separate interview with NPR he explained it this way:

“They will say, allow us to use your roof, allow us to use a little corner of your garage, and we will equip you with solar power. We own it. We maintain it. We’re responsible for it. You don’t have any out-of-pocket expenses. You just buy electricity at the same rate, or maybe even a lower rate.

“In addition to that, you have, you know, like five kilowatts of energy storage in your home. And five kilowatts – when you’re in a blackout situation and you want to keep your refrigerator going, you want to keep a couple of energy-efficient light bulbs lit at night – that goes a long way.”

Some companies, such as New Zealand network operator Vector, seem to have understood this. Others are much slower to respond. But Australia would certainly be better served with the likes of Wellingham and Chu in key energy roles, and a regulatory environment that was more responsive to the needs of consumers than to the demands of electricity incumbents.

When it does, great, until it does, .........................

They need to start working on a global HVDC grid. When they do that they won't need storage.

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

They need to start working on a global HVDC grid. With they do that they won't need storage.

+1 on a global HVDC grid.

But storage is also important  Solar with storage can provide dispachable power 24/7.  Something that old technologies like coal and uranium based nuclear simply cannot.

I don't know about the year 2030 but yeah I could believe that the US would push for electric cars and solar panels not to just its citizens but for the whole world.

Its not because they care for the environment or anything don't be so stupid.

Its to save the world's oil for their war machines.

Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;)

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

They need to start working on a global HVDC grid. When they do that they won't need storage.

Good idea except a coronal mass ejection from the sun
would then wipe out the world's power delivery.

Still - solar is the real future.  :)

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

... Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;)

The US military is among the most advanced users of biofuels. The military hierarchy sees the writing on the wall. They've been pursuing renewables, despite Congressional opposition.

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

They need to start working on a global HVDC grid. When they do that they won't need storage.

Anything that doesn't involve mining for fuel is worth considering. The tidal and geothermal resources to our near north west are substantial.

As it stands, storage is very near cost competitiveness. As the report suggests, that's going to be a game-changer.

dp

# wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 8:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:26pm: ... Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;) The US military is among the most advanced users of biofuels. The military hierarchy sees the writing on the wall. They've been pursuing renewables, despite Congressional opposition.

I don't doubt you on that.......their only problem is to get everyone else of fossils fuels., they'll still be refining it for a very long time to come.

Ajax wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 6:26pm:

I don't know about the year 2030 but yeah I could believe that the US would push for electric cars and solar panels not to just its citizens but for the whole world. Its not because they care for the environment or anything don't be so stupid. Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;)

Electric vehicles run rings around internal combustion engines. They have huge torque at low revs.

Do you know what we should be saving oil for? Petrochemicals.
We shouldn't be burning it. That's a waste of resources apart from anything else.

I'll only take up solar power when it allows me to power my own home from the Sun, cost effectively.

I won't buy into the current set - up...  and I certainly look forward to each new thing...  might even live to be self-sustaining..  :)

You can do it now. Nobody is stopping you from wiring up your own 24 V DC system.

muso wrote on Aug 26^th, 2013 at 10:01pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:26pm: I don't know about the year 2030 but yeah I could believe that the US would push for electric cars and solar panels not to just its citizens but for the whole world. Its not because they care for the environment or anything don't be so stupid. Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;) Electric vehicles run rings around internal combustion engines. They have huge torque at low revs. Do you know what we should be saving oil for? Petrochemicals. We shouldn't be burning it. That's a waste of resources apart from anything else.

So how long would a battery last powering a tank or any heavy military vechile.

What about war ships and jet fighter planes....??????

Somehow I don't think so.

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 4:44pm:

muso wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 10:01pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:26pm: I don't know about the year 2030 but yeah I could believe that the US would push for electric cars and solar panels not to just its citizens but for the whole world. Its not because they care for the environment or anything don't be so stupid. Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;) Electric vehicles run rings around internal combustion engines. They have huge torque at low revs. Do you know what we should be saving oil for? Petrochemicals. We shouldn't be burning it. That's a waste of resources apart from anything else. So how long would a battery last powering a tank or any heavy military vechile. What about war ships and jet fighter planes....?????? Somehow I don't think so.

10 years plus from experience.
They could all run on biofuels.

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:24pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 4:44pm: muso wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 10:01pm: Ajax wrote on Aug 26th, 2013 at 6:26pm: I don't know about the year 2030 but yeah I could believe that the US would push for electric cars and solar panels not to just its citizens but for the whole world. Its not because they care for the environment or anything don't be so stupid. Its to save the world's oil for their war machines. Think about it, no oil for the US.....there goes their military might. ;) Electric vehicles run rings around internal combustion engines. They have huge torque at low revs. Do you know what we should be saving oil for? Petrochemicals. We shouldn't be burning it. That's a waste of resources apart from anything else. So how long would a battery last powering a tank or any heavy military vechile. What about war ships and jet fighter planes....?????? Somehow I don't think so. 10 years plus from experience. They could all run on biofuels.

Do you really think its a good idea to turn our food resources into fuel for the military......??????

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:44am:

You can do it now. Nobody is stopping you from wiring up your own 24 V DC system.

Thanks Muso... I may be able to do it now.. I'm not technical...

but I can't do it now...   cost is prohibitive.

If I were younger, that wouldn't have the same import as it does at this time in my life.   

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

... Do you really think its a good idea to turn our food resources into fuel for the military......??????

Why would you do any such thing? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376282827

Emma wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 8:59pm:

... but I can't do it now...   cost is prohibitive. ...

Perhaps one of our local electricity suppliers will follow the lead of New Zealand network operator Vector
Quote:

Vector offered a $NZ1,999 up-front payment, and leasing options over 12 years that meant that the entire package would amount to a reduction in the household’s electricity bills.

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

Do you really think its a good idea to turn our food resources into fuel for the military......??????

Google grassahol, Jatropha and Sweet Sorghum. Sweet Sorghum and Jatropha will survive in arid regions where agriculture is not normally a viable prospect.

http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Australian-Firm-To-Provide-Jatropha-Biofuel-To-Lufthansa-For-Testing.html

Ethanol from sugar cane is one thing, but what about ethanol from sugar cane bagasse?

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/798/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcbFWo00jM4

Solar Boats. How about Solar and wind hybrid ships?
http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/solar_sailor.jpg

http://cf.gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/UT-Wind-Challenger-1-635x312.jpg

Quote:

At $2.5 million apiece, the cost of the UT Wind Challenger sails could be recovered in five to ten years assuming 25% fuel savings, according to Uzawa. He plans to build a half-size prototype vessel and sea trials as early as 2016.

The only limit is our imagination.

# wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 9:02pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 5:58pm: ... Do you really think its a good idea to turn our food resources into fuel for the military......?????? Why would you do any such thing? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376282827

Well a first for everything, I could go for that.

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:15pm:

Ajax wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 5:58pm: Do you really think its a good idea to turn our food resources into fuel for the military......?????? Google grassahol, Jatropha and Sweet Sorghum. Sweet Sorghum and Jatropha will survive in arid regions where agriculture is not normally a viable prospect. http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Australian-Firm-To-Provide-Jatropha-Biofuel-To-Lufthansa-For-Testing.html Ethanol from sugar cane is one thing, but what about ethanol from sugar cane bagasse? http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/798/

And that too.

I'm not against clean energy, i'm not against cleaning up manmade pollution like chemicals dumped into our water ways and land.

What I am against is being told a lie so we can all be  taxed on the air we breath for EVER, only to form a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market for the people who just keep smacking us over every ten years or so.

in other words///  :)

there has to be a better way to do this  .. :-?

The only lies you are being told is by the likes of Anthony Watts.

That said, if we can replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy, there will be no need for a carbon tax.

Carbon trading is not a long term requirement anyway.

@ Muso

Jatropha is in Australia as a noxious weed.

If we ever want to use it we need to do a bit of work, keeping it from escaping and becoming more of a weed pest.
Then it could only be handled mechanically because it is a mother biter toxic plant that causes cancer in humans.

Perhaps it was the original Triffid

miketrees wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

@ Muso Jatropha is in Australia as a noxious weed. If we ever want to use it we need to do a bit of work, keeping it from escaping and becoming more of a weed pest. Then it could only be handled mechanically because it is a mother biter toxic plant that causes cancer in humans. Perhaps it was the original Triffid

Now I'll have to do a search. There is a type of Jatropha that's a noxious weed. It's   Jatropha gossyphylla (bellyache bush)

Of course you're right though. We need to have quarantine measures to prevent it escaping. 

Maybe sweet sorghum is a better prospect.

muso wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

The only lies you are being told is by the likes of Anthony Watts. That said, if we can replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy, there will be no need for a carbon tax. Carbon trading is not a long term requirement anyway.

You honestly believe that if bankers form a $2 trillion dollar market they will let it die out.

Dude once its up and running reducing CO2 will be the last thing on there minds.

Emma wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 10:48pm:

in other words///  :) there has to be a better way to do this  .. :-?

Definitely lets do it our selves here in Australia.

We don't need to send billions to the United Nations Green fund and the IPCC to participate in carbon credit market.

Aussies have always had the nouse to do most things, I think we still have it.

All that money can be used here for grass roots action

yes I agree...

much as the 'movers and shakers'  may want to hedge their bets .. (everybody got to get stoned!)  ...  ...

there IS NO reason why we cannot act unilaterally.. except??

we don't own our own country... we are a raping ground for multi-nationals,  aided and abetted by our own government and RICH LIST.

Nothing GOOD can be allowed to become a universal solution to our environmental problems, UNLESS  it will ultimately return a GREATER PROFIT.

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

Emma wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

yes I agree... much as the 'movers and shakers'  may want to hedge their bets .. (everybody got to get stoned!)  ...  ... there IS NO reason why we cannot act unilaterally.. except?? we don't own our own country... we are a raping ground for multi-nationals,  aided and abetted by our own government and RICH LIST. Nothing GOOD can be allowed to become a universal solution to our environmental problems, UNLESS  it will ultimately return a GREATER PROFIT. :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

Well said................. :)

Ajax wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:11pm:

muso wrote on Aug 27th, 2013 at 10:49pm: The only lies you are being told is by the likes of Anthony Watts. That said, if we can replace all fossil fuels with renewable energy, there will be no need for a carbon tax. Carbon trading is not a long term requirement anyway. You honestly believe that if bankers form a $2 trillion dollar market they will let it die out. Dude once its up and running reducing CO2 will be the last thing on there minds.

What if there is no fossil fuel being burnt?  It will happen one day.

It doesn't actually have to be totally zero CO2 emissions. As you know, the biosphere has a certain buffering capacity.

You're talking 11 Gigatonnes right now. When we can reduce carbon emissions worldwide by about 60- 70%, it will start to have an effect.

It's not unfeasible by a long shot.

Emma wrote on Aug 27^th, 2013 at 11:42pm:

Nothing GOOD can be allowed to become a universal solution to our environmental problems, UNLESS  it will ultimately return a GREATER PROFIT. :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

You're right. It has to be a win-win solution. The cheapest form of power right now is advanced natural gas Combined Cycle turbine generation.

The overall cost in USD/MWh is about $65. If we compare that to Coal, conventional coal is around $99. Then if you want to add on carbon capture, the cost increases to $140- almost double the cost. Coal is on its way out. Coal Fired Power Stations are under immense pressure to cut costs (I worked for one until recently), but the writing is on the wall.

Meanwhile, the cost of solar PV and wind generation continues to fall. It is a good commercial proposition to opt for solar or wind generation even without subsidies.

Wind generation is around $99 per MWhr and falling. It is predicted to fall by 20% in the next 10 years.

Compare that to Solar PV at $156.9 (falling rapidly) and Hydro Electricity at $89.

These values are total system levelised cost and account for transmission losses. The figures come from the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuke,_coal,_gas_generating_costs.png

muso wrote on Aug 28^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

What if there is no fossil fuel being burnt?  It will happen one day.

Yeah one day but your talking hundreds if not thousands of year due to new discoveries.


Quote:

It doesn't actually have to be totally zero CO2 emissions. As you know, the biosphere has a certain buffering capacity.

When fossil fuels where first discovered they where heralded as CHEAP energy for the masses not only the rich but the poor alike, that's you, me and everyone else on here.

Now why all of a sudden do bankers feel the need to make the whole humanity pay up for their use of fossil fuels.

I don't mind if they come up with other alternatives as long as they are as cheap as fossil fuels.

But taxing the air we breath to form a $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market really gets under my skin.

But the really stupid thing is when the market is up and running, they will try to keep it going strong, meaning manmade CO2 emission will go up not down.

And you support this scheme...???


Quote:

You're talking 11 Gigatonnes right now. When we can reduce carbon emissions worldwide by about 60- 70%, it will start to have an effect. It's not unfeasible by a long shot.

I don't believe manmade CO2 emissions are having the effect that the IPCC is telling us there having.

Nearly all the IPCC's hypothesis which are mainly based on computer circulation models have been wrong, how can you have faith in them after so many mistakes.

The IPCC is a political body run by the United Nations which in turn are run by the World Bank which in turn is run by......????