Need more evidence that we are in a new ball game?
If anybody doubts that federal energy regulators are aware of the rapidly changing electricity landscape, they should talk to Jon Wellinghoff, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
“Solar is growing so fast it is going to overtake everything,” Wellinghoff told GTM last week in a sideline conversation at the National Clean Energy Summit in Las Vegas.
If a single drop of water on the pitcher’s mound at Dodger Stadium is doubled every minute, Wellinghoff said, a person chained to the highest seat would be in danger of drowning in an hour.
“That’s what is happening in solar. It could double every two years,” he said.
Indeed, as GTM Research’s MJ Shiao recently pointed out, in the next 2 1/2 years the U.S. will double its entire cumulative capacity of distributed solar — repeating in the span of a few short years what it originally took four decades to deploy.
Geothermal, wind, and other resources will supplement solar, Wellinghoff said. “But 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.”
And those other resources have not seen declining prices like solar has. “Solar PV is $0.70 or $0.80 per watt to manufacture. Residential rooftop is $4 to $5 per watt. But they are going to drive that down to $2 and then to $1 per watt.”
Advanced storage technologies also promise lower costs, 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.”
If the price of grid-scale energy storage fell to zero dollars per megawatt-hour, regulators and utilities would still be puzzled in how to deploy the boon of energy storage.
That’s because storage doesn’t fit neatly into the electrical utility’s regulatory universe of generation, distribution, and load — or into the utility rate recovery structure.
But that regulatory uncertainty is starting to clear.
It started with FERC Order 755, enacted in 2011, a ruling from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) that increased the pay for “fast” responding sources like batteries or flywheels that are bidding into frequency regulation service markets. Flywheel energy storage operator, Beacon, sells into this market.
That opportunity for storage got bigger recently with the issuance of Order 784. It pits fast batteries, flow batteries and flywheels against slower gas- or coal-fired plants in the ancillary services market.
“FERC Order 784 is a huge step forward for energy storage, as it will help to open ancillary services markets for storage project developers. Also, it expands FERC Order 755 pay-for-performance requirements to ensure that speed and accuracy, two attributes where storage excels, is considered when utilities purchase regulation service for transmission. Finally, the new accounting and reporting rules introduced in this order will help utilities achieve rate recovery for energy storage equipment,” wrote Janice Lin, Managing Partner, Strategen Consulting and Co-Founder and Executive Director of the California Energy Storage Alliance in an email to GTM.
Here’s some relevant language from the the ruling:
The Commission is also requiring each public utility transmission provider to add to its OATT [open access transmission tariff] Schedule 3a statement that it will take into account the speed and accuracy of regulation resources in its determination of reserve requirements for Regulation and Frequency Response service. […] Finally, the Commission is revising the accounting and reporting requirements under its Uniform System of Accounts for public utilities and licensees (USofA) and its forms, statements, and reports…to better account for and report transactions associated with the use of energy storage devices in public utility operations.
Here’s a link to the document in full.
This ruling joins other recent storage rulings by the CPUC in California which ask Southern California Edison (SCE), one of the big three California IOUs, to find 50 megawatts of energy storage by 2021. The CPUC is also working on developing protocols forinterconnecting energy storage.
It might. So, in 1.5 years it might account for less than 2% of our generated electricity and some small fraction of 1% of our total energy needs. Maybe.
Anybody know what percentage of our total energy needs could be generated on our rooftops? 30%? Less, more?
My point being we are going to need a lot more power than can be generated on our roofs. So, if we are going to have to build a lot of large-scale solar farms, and are going to have to build new distribution systems to send all that energy efficiently, why should we even bother with rooftop solar, which is always going to be the most expensive, least centrally-planned way to go??
Staying with rooftop solar means staying with very limited progress borne by individual homeowners instead of collectively; it means staying with a model that is not accomplishing what needs to be accomplished anywhere near fast enough; it means thinking we are doing something meaningful because we can see some roofs with panels on them; it means that people will think that the least-efficient, most costly, least intelligently-planned version of solar is what “solar” means.
Gingerbaker, your comment only makes sense if you hold technology constant. But solar (and wind) are some of the fastest moving technologies in the world. It is like computers in the 80s and 90s. We are no-where near the limits.
I am all for more solar and wind.
But we have been trying to get traction with renewables for thirty years. We don’t have twenty years to hope that rooftop solar can become meaningful. We can’t piss away another ten years arguing about this.
If we are going to get rid of CO2 emissions fast enough to save our civilization we need to proceed much faster and more efficiently. Cost is going to be a huge issue.
And rooftop FAILS here, compared to large-scale projects, which can be sited ideally (3/4 of homes are not sited ideally), and which have a huge economy of scale.
I used to be all for rooftop, localized generation. But I have changed my mind. From a cost, scale, and expedition( building enough quickly enough) standpoint it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
You want to generate a lot of renewable energy cost-efficiently and quickly? You do it with a perfectly-sited large-scale project, and then distribute that energy into the grid. This is why we built the Hoover Dam instead of hoping homeowners would install waterwheels on their garden water features.
As of 2013, wind and solar are already competitive with everything but natural gas when you factor in the total costs. Gas/coal/oil is not going to get cheaper (long term), but wind/solar is still getting better *exponentially*.
To be clear, I’ve never been either-or regarding small rooftop vs big commercial where solar is concerned and have been eagerly awaiting the official launch of the Ivanpah solar thermal farm.
What I find perplexing is why utilities should be so deathly afraid of rooftop solar when they should be embracing it.
If I were they, I’d buy up or buy into Solar City or some other program and promote the hell out of it in the sunny regions.
And that would let me show the Feds & the EPA how hard I’m trying to offset all my dirty coal plants.
The more energy that can be generated close to the point of use, the fewer losses you’ll have and the less the burden on transmission.
In the short term, and for years to come, the greatest benefit of solar will be slashing the daytime peaks.
Power outages from stations going offline will be less of a problem on sunny days and there’ll be less of a surge when power is restored – when tends to cause another outage.
As I’ve said before, we’re nowhere near the potential of solar deployments.
When you think rooftops, it’s not just homes.
It’s schools, factories, warehouses, hangars, stadiums, shopping malls, and parking lots ….lots of lots.
Educated Americans know a bargain when they see one, recognize an investment opportunity when they see one and Solar, Wind, Wave, Hydro(mini), Tidal, geothermal and biological domestic energy sources fill the bill – warring, and plundering for foreign oil does not, including waste disposal and decommissioning costs for nuclear, it does not, China’s Thorium LFTR technologies does, but belongs to China.
50 MW isn’t very ambitious in a market the size of Cali.
That’s less than a thousand Teslas – 2 weeks production.
And there have been battery storage in production about that size for years – a NaS battery in Japan and a lead-acid setup in Alaska.
It could double every two years,” he said.”
So, in 1.5 years it might account for less than 2% of our generated electricity and some small fraction of 1% of our total energy needs. Maybe.
*** Doubling every two years means in 20 years it will increase by a thousand.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/30/606271/national-renewable-energy-laboratory-solar-has-the-most-potential-of-any-renewable-energy-source/
Total Solar = 400,000 TWH
Rooftop PV = 818 TWh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
Total Energy demand : 25,000 TWh year 2010
Total Electric Energy Demand 4,143 TWh year 2010
So about 20% of US Total Electric Demand might be met by rooftop PV at present.
“So about 20% of US Total Electric Demand might be met by rooftop PV at present.”
But “US Total Electric Demand” is nowhere near what total electrical demand will be when we have to replace every drop of fossil fuel with the equivalent amount of electrical power. What do you think that will work out to – a tripling of electricity needed? Ten times?
I don’t know. Nobody writes blog articles on this stuff (incredibly!), and the technical stuff is beyond my understanding.
But does it not seem that rooftop can provide only a small part? Meanwhile, large-scale is virtually unlimited.
“why should we even bother with rooftop solar, “?
1. reduces transmission equipment requirements
2. reduces utility rates for everyone
3. increases the stability and security of the grid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_generation
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/08/29/us-grid-as-weve-known-it-is-over/#comments
“which is always going to be the most expensive, least centrally-planned way to go??”
Facts and references please. Opinions are not worth much. Not very helpful, either.
“it means staying with a model that is not accomplishing what needs to be accomplished anywhere near fast enough;”
The facts belie your statement. Doubling every two years means 1,000X in 20 years.
Probably won’t, but that is incredible growth. State what you think a fast enough doubling rate and show how the other sources will achieve that rate.
“it means that people will think that the least-efficient,”
“most costly”
Proof with references please. Don’t make others do all the work. Illuminate and educate. As balanced as possible.
“least intelligently-planned version of solar is what “solar” means.”
Whooaa. My, My, My. Now we are talking manners. What would my grandmother say?
Take a deep breath and think first.
That’s why researching and referencing is so good. It gives you time to think before
you write it down.
Remember, one reason Potholer54 got into this stuff as he explains is it, is that he got tired of the barroom opinion slinging and recognized that all this dry, boring, sciency stuff… well it has a lot more stamina than the occasional unrestrained utterance.
““which is always going to be the most expensive, least centrally-planned way to go??”
Facts and references please. Opinions are not worth much. Not very helpful, either.”
Easy for you to ask for documentation! As I keep complaining – nobody writes about this topic. So your help would be appreciated.
I can tell you this:
1) There are 80 million single-family residences. The average cost of a rooftop install is (as best as I can gather) between $20,00-$32,000. The average output is 5.9 kWh.
At those prices, putting a rooftop PV system on every house would cost between $1.6 trillion and $2.56 trillion. And that will provide how much of our total electricity needs when fossil fuels are no longer being burned? I don’t know. I’m guessing the answer is less than 10%.
Meanwhile, if we for some reason wanted to build a single, huge solar PV install in the American southwest, enough PV panels to generate ALL (not <10%) our energy needs in year 2050 would require 460 billion standard PV panels. What would those panels cost if the U.S. government was setting up its own factories to produce them? What would the total cost of the installation be? I don't know, but it sure looks to me like the large-scale project would be about 10% of the cost or the rooftop equivalent.
2) There is zero central planning with rooftop solar. It goes up willy nilly, regardless of whether it is cost-effective, needed in the area, or whether the system can use it efficiently. Large scale-solar demands central planning and an upgraded grid.
“Probably won’t, but that is incredible growth. State what you think a fast enough doubling rate and show how the other sources will achieve that rate.”
We have already shown that rooftop – even if it DOES keep up its doubling rate will not come close to accomplishing our national goals. And our national goal should me a wartime effort – to be CO2-free by 2025 to keep us around +2C warmer. Large-scale must ( can we agree on that, at least?) be a big part of the solution and can be installed faster than rooftop.
“roof with references please. Don’t make others do all the work. Illuminate and educate. As balanced as possible.
“least intelligently-planned version of solar is what “solar” means.”
Whooaa. My, My, My. Now we are talking manners. What would my grandmother say?
Take a deep breath and think first.
That’s why researching and referencing is so good. It gives you time to think before
you write it down.
Remember, one reason Potholer54 got into this stuff as he explains is it, is that he got tired of the barroom opinion slinging and recognized that all this dry, boring, sciency stuff… well it has a lot more stamina than the occasional unrestrained utterance.”
Please restrain your snark and smugness. It doesn’t reflect well on you.
=1) There are 80 million single-family residences. The average cost of a rooftop install is (as best as I can gather) between $20,00-$32,000. The average output is 5.9 kWh.=
Rooftop solar should be the last step after making a home more efficient. I follow Amory Lovins on YouTube, and he has this 5 hour+ lecture series where his consulting business retrofits buildings to make them more efficient, which in turn reduces the $ spent on HVAC systems; often this pays for a significant portion of the cost of the retrofit. When these systems get smaller (because the bigger ones are no longer needed after the retrofit, i should clarify), the less solar is needed (if solar happens to be part of the a particular project). Lovins also lives in a passive home and describes his home’s features in detail.
My point being that if you make homes more efficient, you don’t need an average 5.9kW system for these; you can reduce this average, and reduce the average cost. It’s cheaper to make things less energy dependent than it is to make new power.
=What would the total cost of the installation be? I don’t know, but it sure looks to me like the large-scale project would be about 10% of the cost or the rooftop equivalent.=
From the Standard and Poor’s analysis of the company, First Solar:
‘We forecast a gross margin of 23% in 2013 and
19% in 2014, compared to 25% for 2012, as a
less favorable mix and lower selling prices
more than offset cost per watt reductions and
tight cost controls. FSLR believes that it can
lower its cost per watt to under $0.50 and im-
prove its module efficiency to over 16% by the
end of 2015.
We forecast EPS of $4.00 in 2013, $3.18 in 2014,
and $3.64 in 2015. Going forward, we believe
margins and earnings will deteriorate as FSLR
bids and recognizes revenue on projects at
much less favorable prices.’
Interpret that last sentence as it is probably going to lose its edge in the market because other companies will catch up to it (technology-wise) and create competition, forcing bidding prices downward. Good for us; not so good for FSLR.
As far as residential rooftops, let’s look at Solar City’s plans:
‘SolarCity, already the #1 full-service solar provider in the US, has announced a target of 1 million solar customers by 2018, following a pretty huge, $120 million purchase of the direct sales company Paramount Solar. SolarCity is currently sitting at 68,000 solar customers, quite a ways off from its 2018 target.’
http://planetsave.com/2013/08/22/solarcity-wants-1-million-solar-customers-by-2018/
I haven’t looked into the numbers, but I know they’re pretty aggressive in terms of spending on customer acquisition and advertisement. I see their cars and vans, with their logo on the sides, everywhere here in the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles. There are about 109 million occupied homes in the USA (76 million SFR’s), so just this one company is trying to grab around 1% of the occupied homes in the USA by 2018.
It looks like residential PV might approximately match demand (net)
Not clear how Commercial and Industrial rooftop looks versus load. There are some areas that look interesting looking ahead, that do not fit into old school thought. One that comes to mind is solar PV at business parking lots linked with vehicle to grid.
“It looks like residential PV might approximately match demand (net)”
Umm… references, please to quote yourself.
That assertion makes no sense to me at all. Most homes in the U.S. simply do not receive very good sunlight. Here in the NE U.S., a good install can run lights and maybe a small appliance or two on a good day.
Remember that when we get rid of fossil fuels, our electric utility is now going to have to pick up:
1) heating every home, apartment, and business structure
2) replace every gas or oil water heater, cookstove, dryer, generator
3) replace every industrial process with electricity
4) replace every kcal of energy from gasoline and diesel in transportation
Rooftop solar will not even come close to satisfying this demand. I’m guessing 10% at outside. What is your guess?
That’s an encouraging projection. As we move past the industry’s adolescence, improvements such as manufacturing with Earth abundant materials, higher EROEI, and solar to fuel will be analogous to computer hardware advancements. We know that there is an insurmountable limit to power output per unit area.
On the lower tech side allocation of rooftop space, more rapid deployment of inexpensive solar hot water heaters would be nice. Various sources estimate that 15% – 25% of a home’s energy consumption is heating water.
Ginger – Take a deep breath. I mean really. It will do you a whole lotta good. Relax.
Tell you what. I promise not to be snarky if you promise not to call names? Fair?
Now.
“It looks like residential PV might approximately match demand (net)”
Umm… references, please to quote yourself.
Please read the references given and do some research. Then report your results to the rest of us so we can all be better informed. Don’t just demand everyone else have references and provide none of your own. Just saying someone else didn’t do all the work is not helpful. Do your part. See the 818 TWh for residential PV and look at the current percentage residential electricity demand. Its all there, look yourself. If its wrong, look it up, and show a reference, please.
“we get rid of fossil fuels, our electric utility is now going to have to pick up:”
1) heating every home, apartment, and business structure
No. What no direct solar heating? No solar homes, businesses? No cogeneration? No geothermal or local wind?
2) replace every gas or oil water heater, cookstove, dryer, generator
No. No solar process drying? Should we make salt from brine by drying it electrically instead of using the sun?
3) replace every industrial process with electricity
No Should we make salt from brine by drying it electrically instead of using the sun?
4) replace every kcal of energy from gasoline and diesel in transportation
No Why would we do that? How are we going to replace liquid fuels in aviation with electricity?
Sorry. Nothing is served by such extremism. A lot more by electricity, maybe yes. All of it, no. The suggested scenario is that every single activity currently powered by a wide range of energy sources will only be powered by centralized electrical power in the future? Not likely. Not necessary. Not realistic. More importantly, its really not necessary.
I am also very much in favor of both DG and centralized renewables. Also in favor of an enhanced grid. I just think the future is better served by a balance and that we are better off with more options and more flexibility. Most renewables are relatively distributed in nature at the generation ends and quite robust. The problem is that grids are often, by nature, brittle.
There seems to be this tendency to fall into the fallacy of following exponential demand growth.
In the meantime… US Electric energy demand is growing sluggishly or even decreasing. That is a shock to utilities who did not expect it and depend on growth.
http://www.emeter.com/smart-grid-watch/2012/how-fast-is-u-s-electricity-consumption-growing/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/11/utilities-us-demand-idUSL1E8SB40C20120511
More importantly, in the big picture, there are no sources of energy that can follow exponential demand growth. Any demand that is based on compound growth, or annual percentage growth, has a doubling rate. In 10 doublings it will be 1000x greater. The only way to balance supply versus demand is not to have exponential demand growth. No supply side scenario will ever work. This little lesson reminds me of the computer (WOPR) in “War Games” that figures out that there are no winners in thermonuclear war. Humans are gonna have to figure out that they cannot follow an exponential demand curve.
The opening screen from this video states it:
” The Greatest Shortcoming of the Human Race is our Inability to Understand
The Exponential Function”
1) In answer to a question about how much of our electric power needs could be supplied by rooftop solar someone threw out earlier…it is much more than 10% or even 20%, try ~70%.
“Rooftop space is not a constraining factor for solar development. Residential and commercial rooftop space in the U.S. could accommodate up to 710,000 MW of solar electric power (if all rooftops were fully utilized, taking into account proper orientation of buildings, shading from trees, HVAC equipment, and other solar access factors). For comparison, total electricity-generating capacity in the U.S. today is about 950,000 MW. ”
quote from:
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20050301005530&newsLang=en
2) Gingerbaker wrote “The average cost of a rooftop install is (as best as I can gather) between $20,00-$32,000. The average output is 5.9 kWh.”
Which sorta ignored the critical point made in the blogpost above:
“Solar PV is $0.70 or $0.80 per watt to manufacture. Residential rooftop is $4 to $5 per watt. But they are going to drive that down to $2 and then to $1 per watt.”
Ten years ago residential solar cost $8-$10/W installed; today it costs $4-5/W; in another ten years it could easily cost $2/W or less. $2/W is about what it costs in Germany now (actually it might be a little higher since the EU just demanded that China charge them at least 20% more for the solar panels it buys from them).