# NY Times Article on Wind and Solar



## vinny11950 (Sep 14, 2014)

Good article in the NYTimes today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/s...o-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Pretty amazing what the Germans have been able to do.  Ever since they decided to begin to shift away from Nuclear power, I have been skeptical if they would be able to meet the carbon targets and transition to renewable energy fast enough.  It seems like they are doing it - which  brings up a whole host of other issues.

And just yesterday I saw a Vivint solar truck in the neighborhood.  Our roofs are becoming valuable solar territory now.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Sep 14, 2014)

no fan of wiki but Germany needs some help on $/kw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing. one of the two is closer to the truth http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...d-Farm-Project-Humiliated-by-Technical-Faults. each article seems to fit from where they came from. i'll say breitbart is more specific in targeting its point.


----------



## vinny11950 (Sep 14, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> no fan of wiki but Germany needs some help on $/kw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing. one of the two is closer to the truth http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...d-Farm-Project-Humiliated-by-Technical-Faults. each article seems to fit from where they came from. i'll say breitbart is more specific in targeting its point.



These projects are massive, so I am not surprised they will face growing pains.  Compare most technologies to when they started and you will see significant improvements in the later versions.  Would you rather drive a Model T or a F150?

A lot of the criticism is true when compared to carbon fuels or other more advance forms of electricity generation.  However, what makes it impressive is how far Germany has come in advancing their goals of energy independence away from carbon fuels and shaky suppliers of those fuels.  And this is no small country with a small population.  They are a major industrial country with heavy industry that depends on reliable energy supplies.  Their costs are high now but they are coming down.  It is in their best interest to make this work.  And really, is the price really that high when they can ensure reliable, independent energy sources that are practically inexhaustible?


----------



## Frozen Canuck (Sep 15, 2014)

vinny11950 said:


> And really, is the price really that high when they can ensure reliable, independent energy sources that are practically inexhaustible?



Nope not at all. Actually cheap when you consider the alternatives & their downsides.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 15, 2014)

One key point in the article is that the German people are willing to pay more for solar/wind electric, probably for a variety of reasons, but key ones being that Germans are proud of their engineering prowess, of the quality of their products, of being highly environmentally responsible, and of simply being a leader and being the best. Those are attributes American citizens should take to heart and from which the US could benefit greatly.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 15, 2014)

I thought it was a well-done and wide-ranging article describing the current state of affairs, and is a nice piece for a mainstream media source.  The impending changes to the US and global electricity markets are well known to wonks and utility owners at this point (having become accepted wisdom about 1-2 years ago), but have not penetrated into the popular consciousness yet.  One visible effect, however, is that the Renewable Energy naysayers have largely fallen silent, anticipating the success of RE, and trying to avoid future embarrassment.

While not really explicitly saying it, though, I thought that the article could give some naive readers the wrong idea.  They paint the Germans as ahead of us, and on an expensive path to a RE future, which implicitly suggests that RE in the future in the US will be a similarly expensive proposition.  I happen to believe that there are many RE paths to a low-CO2 emission future, and which path a country or state takes depends on its particular needs for energy (mostly population density) and the local resources (mostly solar, wind and hydro).

From this point of view, everyone is different.  Some lucky places already have so much hydro relative to their population (Quebec, PNW) that they are already nearly at 100% RE.   Similarly, some locations will find it relatively inexpensive to develop large amounts of (on-shore) wind and PV solar, and could in principle field enough of those (if and when inexpensive storage exists) to get to 100% energy.  For example, the US prairie states and Scotland could get to 100% on-shore wind energy, the Western and Southern US states could get 100% of their energy from PV solar.

The key difference between the US and Germany, however, is that I think we have a lot more RE resources, and that will make the task of the US getting to high RE penetration cheaper and easier than in Germany.  all of the lower 48 states have far more of the most abundant RE resource, solar, than any location in Germany. Our onshore wind and hydro potential are better per capita.  Our off-shore wind resource is also great.

In the US, things are moving forward driven by the almighty dollar.  As PV gets cheaper it will continue to grow.  California's solar penetration has jumped a lot in the last year, and is now >5% of grid energy (not peak power, total ENERGY over 24 hours), and growing exponentially with a doubling time of ~18 mos.  Germany is around 6-7% and growing linearly at 1% per year.  So California, with 2/3rds the GDP and population of Germany, will likely blow past Germany's solar fraction in a year or two.  Is that because Californians are more righteous?  Greener?  Nope, they just have 3x the solar resource (hours of sun per year), so developing solar costs 1/3rd as much.  With the same number of panels per capita that Germany has now (installed at current lower prices), CA would be close to 20% solar energy fraction.

The German's commitment is admirable, but they have a relatively lousy RE hand.  Their on-shore wind is cheap, but there is not enough to get to 100% energy.  Their solar is expensive due to the poor resource (few hours of sun per year).  Off-shore is plentiful (and has great capacity factor, limiting intermittency effects), so that is their holy grail.  Current prices are higher than hoped for ~$0.20/kWh for generation. If prices do fall, then there is a lot of opportunity there for Germany, if they don't they might grit their teeth and build it anyway.

In the US, the whole process will be driven by cheap PV, from capitalists from below, rather than govt programs from above.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 15, 2014)

My point is different. The Germans stepped forward, top down, which is typical of the European culture. And as the article pointed out, the massive German demand for PV has driven the market supply which has resulted in all of us enjoying lower prices.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 15, 2014)

Indeed. 

Many other countries have also made a great commitment to PV only to crash later when the whole project ran out of cash (or when projected cost reductions did not materialize).  For example, in the 90s Japan was going to build out a massive amount of PV and....they now have a lower PV penetration than the US.  Similarly, Spain and Italy were also big in solar PV (and had great solar resources) and are now dead in the water.  I suspect the Germans will stick with it, getting a later start (and thus cheaper panels) and having deeper pockets than those other guys.

In this business, it seems early adopters have to pay, whether they are individuals or countries.  And all those countries had to pay a bundle to get us globally to where we are now with cheap panels....and maybe the US as a 'late adopter' with good solar resources and deep pockets can blow past all of them over the next 10-15 years.


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 16, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> no fan of wiki but Germany needs some help on $/kw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing. one of the two is closer to the truth http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...d-Farm-Project-Humiliated-by-Technical-Faults. each article seems to fit from where they came from. i'll say breitbart is more specific in targeting its point.



Its not Germany which needs help on the $/kw but the USA. You have a serious electric usage problem with US homes using 3-4 times the amount of electric to comparable european homes. If prices for electric where increased in US then usage would reduce by using more efficient appliances and better insulation. Once energy needs are reduced a solar system becomes a viable option with a typical UK install of 4kw with the national grid being used as a battery. Because of the pricing structure in UK I will shortly be installing a 30kw system on a new barn which is being built on the farm.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 16, 2014)

renewablejohn said:


> Its not Germany which needs help on the $/kw but the USA. You have a serious electric usage problem with US homes using 3-4 times the amount of electric to comparable european homes. If prices for electric where increased in US then usage would reduce by using more efficient appliances and better insulation. Once energy needs are reduced a solar system becomes a viable option with a typical UK install of 4kw with the national grid being used as a battery. Because of the pricing structure in UK I will shortly be installing a 30kw system on a new barn which is being built on the farm.



We folks in the US are certainly energy hogs, but I don't think the electricity usage is really a reliable metric for that.  Unlike the EU and UK, the US never built out its natural gas network, half of homes do not have access.  Nearly half of US homes have electric heat, even more have electric hot water.  I do, and space heating is about half of my usage.  In comparison, I think gas access and heating in England is closer to 90%.  And then there is the AC...if you lived in most places in the US, you would have AC too.  In the coming energy transformation, having so much home heating electrified may be a boon for switching to RE heating.

The real energy hoggery in the US is in the transportation sector....car vehicle miles per capita, and associated oil use.  And by cars I actually mean trucks....whether they be pick-ups or SUVs.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 16, 2014)

The Gray Lady is rockin it this week.  Another article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...mate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html

Basic premise, much of climate mitigation effort globally is actually negative cost over a 15 year span.  If existing infrastructure plans and budgets over the next 15 years were altered to more climate friendly practices, by 2030 we could be on a path consistent with an ultimate 2°C rise (versus the ~4°C BAU), at little to no extra cost. IF we don't, BAU plans lock in current emissions for a generation and beyond.

I've been harping this for years....we are not even doing the climate saving things THAT SAVE US ALL MONEY!  The report looked very sensible to me.  Its here: http://newclimateeconomy.report/

The 'money plot' is Figure 7 in the first chapter that shows what technologies currently have negative societal cost and their CO2 abatement potential.  Pretty much everything we ever discuss around here.  Its all good.


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 16, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> no fan of wiki but Germany needs some help on $/kw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing. one of the two is closer to the truth http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...d-Farm-Project-Humiliated-by-Technical-Faults. each article seems to fit from where they came from. i'll say breitbart is more specific in targeting its point.





woodgeek said:


> We folks in the US are certainly energy hogs, but I don't think the electricity usage is really a reliable metric for that.  Unlike the EU and UK, the US never built out its natural gas network, half of homes do not have access.  Nearly half of US homes have electric heat, even more have electric hot water.  I do, and space heating is about half of my usage.  In comparison, I think gas access and heating in England is closer to 90%.  And then there is the AC...if you lived in most places in the US, you would have AC too.  In the coming energy transformation, having so much home heating electrified may be a boon for switching to RE heating.
> 
> The real energy hoggery in the US is in the transportation sector....car vehicle miles per capita, and associated oil use.  And by cars I actually mean trucks....whether they be pick-ups or SUVs.



In UK there has been a big push towards insulation with many modern houses being built to passive house standards. The government even gives grants for roof wall and floor insulation to upgrade the older housing stock. For those going solar there is a shift to daytime operation of appliances using timers and rather then export to the grid dump loads for heating the hot water. Gas is now a dirty word with very few new systems being installed.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 16, 2014)

The figures I have seen indicate generally that the real "cost" of electricity is in the range of 2-3 times the rate we actually pay in the US.

As to household energy usage in the US vs Europe. EIA: "In 2012, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh, an average of 903 kilowatthours (kWh) per month." Our household usage, if I take electric heat out of the measurement, is about 5-600 kwh/month. And we have done a lot to reduce our usage. With electric heat (primary heat source is wood), total is about 1,000 kwh/mo. Germany is about 300 kwh/month (World Energy Council). 

I'm being really challenged to see how our usage could be reduced further. Refrigerator, freezer, and hot water are about 25% of total monthly usage. I don't know what the electric dryer usage is, but I would guess that the clothes dryer is a chunk. Our house is all electric, except for primary wood heat. We do not air condition.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 16, 2014)

jebatty said:


> I'm being really challenged to see how our usage could be reduced further. Refrigerator, freezer, and hot water are about 25% of total monthly usage. I don't know what the electric dryer usage is, but I would guess that the clothes dryer is a chunk. Our house is all electric, except for primary wood heat. We do not air condition.



If you were in Germany, you would have a gas dryer (or no dryer), gas hot water, a more efficient refrigerator (?), no separate freezer (?), and you wouldn't have a damp basement running a dehumidifier (?).  I suspect you would then be a lot closer to 300 kWh/mo.

Do you have a high-efficiency clothes washer?  The super high spin speed cuts down dryer runtime nicely.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 16, 2014)

Good points, and I forgot about the basement dehumidifier, Energy Star but an energy hog. We have an HE clothes washer which besides low energy use leaves clothes much dryer for the clothes dryer than did our old washer.


----------



## Grisu (Sep 16, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> If you were in Germany, you would have a gas dryer (or no dryer), gas hot water, a more efficient refrigerator (?), no separate freezer (?), and you wouldn't have a damp basement running a dehumidifier (?).  I suspect you would then be a lot closer to 300 kWh/mo.
> 
> Do you have a high-efficiency clothes washer?  The super high spin speed cuts down dryer runtime nicely.



Gas dryers are rare and most clothes get dried on the clothesline. HE washers are standard meaning the clothes come out of the washer much drier than here. About 50% of households heat with gas which usually means they also have gas hot water but gas ranges are not that common anymore. Refrigerators are usually smaller and don't have ice or water dispensers. Separate freezer is relatively common, though. Residential ACs are rare, dehumidifiers too. Houses don't heat up as much in the summer and outside shutters are almost standard and frequently used in the summer. Electric heat has become almost extinct although with heatpumps is making a comeback. Winter temps are not as cold as here and generally the insulation level is better. Windows especially have been way better than here for a long time. One of the bigger differences may be smaller houses and way more multifamily homes/apartment complexes.


----------



## renewablejohn (Sep 16, 2014)

jebatty said:


> The figures I have seen indicate generally that the real "cost" of electricity is in the range of 2-3 times the rate we actually pay in the US.
> 
> As to household energy usage in the US vs Europe. EIA: "In 2012, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,837 kWh, an average of 903 kilowatthours (kWh) per month." Our household usage, if I take electric heat out of the measurement, is about 5-600 kwh/month. And we have done a lot to reduce our usage. With electric heat (primary heat source is wood), total is about 1,000 kwh/mo. Germany is about 300 kwh/month (World Energy Council).
> 
> I'm being really challenged to see how our usage could be reduced further. Refrigerator, freezer, and hot water are about 25% of total monthly usage. I don't know what the electric dryer usage is, but I would guess that the clothes dryer is a chunk. Our house is all electric, except for primary wood heat. We do not air condition.



If our meter records more than 8kwh per day then we normally have an inquest into the reason why. Typically when we forget to turn the irrigation pump off.


----------



## jharkin (Sep 18, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Good points, and I forgot about the basement dehumidifier, Energy Star but an energy hog




Dehumidifiers are _killers_.  I have to use one because of our old damp basement and that $(*&%# sucks over 300KWh a month on its own.  And yes its energy star.

And I'm in a tough place because my only other options are let the house rot from the bottom up or spend north of $50,000 to have the entire foundation dug up and rebuilt (an 80+ year payback vs. the energy cost to run the dh)


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2014)

Just got back from Germany a few days ago.  I was surprised to see long lines of coal barges clogging up some of their more scenic rivers.  We passed a half dozen of them in an hour on the Main River in Frankfurt, while on a dinner cruise.  The locals were explaining to me that almost all of the electric replacement for their lost nuclear capacity now comes from coal.


----------



## Grisu (Sep 18, 2014)

I grew up at the Rhine river and coal barges were a common sight then. Still, it is true that with the loss of the nuclear power plants coal-fired plants have increased their output. It remains to be seen when renewables can make up for that lost capacity and reduce the reliance on coal. Those things are hotly debated right now usually with the same nonsensical argument that there is no money for the energy conversion.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 18, 2014)

Yes.  The OP article shows that Germany currently gets a larger fraction of its electricity from coal than does the US.  

Of course, the US *per capita* coal consumption for electricity is quite a bit higher.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2014)

Yes, but perhaps partly affected by our much larger transmission distances and network losses?  Germans have been very innovative and progressive with their attempts to minimize emissions from their coal plants.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 18, 2014)

IIRC, our transmission losses are 6% or so, and our per capita coal for elec is prob more like a factor of 2.


----------



## DBoon (Sep 18, 2014)

My electric usage for an all electric house (excepting heat) but incl. range, stove, and domestic hot water is ~450 kWh/month average.  We have basically eliminated all vampire loads.  We are on a village water system, so we don't need a well pump.  Realistically, if we didn't use an electric range, stove and DHW, our usage would likely be about 250 to 300 kWh/month.  That gets you into the range being quoted for a household that is in Europe.  I am guessing that the average American household in a similar situation would be about double this.


----------



## Ashful (Sep 18, 2014)

DBoon said:


> I am guessing that the average American household in a similar situation would be about double this.


We measure our utilization in MWh.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 19, 2014)

Joful said:


> We measure our utilization in MWh.



My records show that on January 7th, 2014, we used 0.212 MWh in a 24 hour period.  

Good thing I had an extensive energy retrofit the year before!

That one day pulled up our daily average usage by 0.5 kWh for the whole year.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 19, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> The Gray Lady is rockin it this week.  Another article:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/16/s...mate-change-may-add-no-costs-report-says.html
> 
> Basic premise, much of climate mitigation effort globally is actually negative cost over a 15 year span.  If existing infrastructure plans and budgets over the next 15 years were altered to more climate friendly practices, by 2030 we could be on a path consistent with an ultimate 2°C rise (versus the ~4°C BAU), at little to no extra cost. IF we don't, BAU plans lock in current emissions for a generation and beyond.
> ...



The report I cited upthread was discussed by Krugman today......
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/19/opinion/paul-krugman-could-fighting-global-warming-be-cheap-and-free.html

He called the problem 'climate despair'.  Catchy.  And apparently unnecessary.


----------



## begreen (Sep 19, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> My records show that on January 7th, 2014, we used 0.212 MWh in a 24 hour period.
> 
> Good thing I had an extensive energy retrofit the year before!
> 
> That one day pulled up our daily average usage by 0.5 kWh for the whole year.



Well done overall I'd say!


----------



## Ashful (Sep 19, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> That one day pulled up our daily average usage by 0.5 kWh for the whole year.


Well, if you look at it that way, we're only a hair higher than you:  52.3 kWh/day, averaged over the last 3 years.  

Our highest months are 2.3 - 2.4 MWh, our lowest months are around 1.0 MWh.


----------

