"Clean Coal" Claims that Solar can't handle Baseload power demands!

[redpoint5]

Solar has been at cost parity with nothing since ever.

The valuable feature of electricity isn't in producing it; it's delivering what is demanded at every millisecond of every day, reliably. Solar has never done this with any level of cost competitiveness of other generation sources, except certain extreme applications like space.

We could argue that the "true" cost of those other generation sources aren't accounted for due to negative externalities, but it would be a rather pointless debate since nobody could agree on what those costs are.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Solar has been at cost parity with nothing since ever.

The valuable feature of electricity isn't in producing it; it's delivering what is demanded at every millisecond of every day, reliably. Solar has never done this with any level of cost competitiveness of other generation sources, except certain extreme applications like space.

We could argue that the "true" cost of those other generation sources aren't accounted for due to negative externalities, but it would be a rather pointless debate since nobody could agree on what those costs are.

* As to your first point, you'll have to take that up with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They own the comment about cost parity.
* Perhaps you missed the comment about 'cost'. It explains coal's 'cost uncompetitiveness' in the energy market.
* As to your second comment, you'll have to address the same folks.
* A quite visible artifact of 'coal' externalities, of which there is scientific concensus would be climate change. It's DNA is everywhere.

[redpoint5]

Well the American Association for Communism can own their comment. All of the institutions are corrupt, especially the ones masquerading as The Science.

I'm not defending coal, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that IF solar was cheaper than other generation sources, those sources wouldn't exist. It doesn't take ANY knowledge of the industry to understand that economic principle.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Well the American Association for Communism can own their comment. All of the institutions are corrupt, especially the ones masquerading as The Science.

I'm not defending coal, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that IF solar was cheaper than other generation sources, those sources wouldn't exist. It doesn't take ANY knowledge of the industry to understand that economic principle.

I wouldn't presume to know what informs your decision-making process.
I'm limited to only empirical measurements, statistical analysis, modeling, reporting. These are only the one's who win our wars, and stuff like that.
If that's 'corruption,' then I'm all in!
Present reporting gives 36-nations that are 'going solar.' It's the lowest-cost energy available. Fossil-fuels are not part of their energy portfolio, as they're more expensive, in more ways than one.
With decentralized geographic and temporal distribution of sources, and grid-scale storage, they have the capacity for around -the-clock service.
The buildings have less 'load.' Their transportation has less 'load.' They can enjoy comparable standards of living on 'less.' Everything is modular. Plug and play. 'Power plants' do not require 'years' to construct. New capacity can be wheeled onto the grid within 'weeks'.
Since they get what they need with less, any argument for requirements for 'installed capacity' must be communicated within the context of a 'leaner' market.
For instance, their new cars only need 29% as much 'fuel' as the United States, for the same amount of travel.
It's pleasing to a mechanical engineer.

[freebeard]

We could argue that the "true" cost of those other generation sources aren't accounted for due to negative externalities, but it would be a rather pointless debate since nobody could agree on what those costs are.

We could agree the point into oblivion by positing that solar is a partial solution.

www.youtube.com/results?search_query=liquid+metal+battery

Florescent light guides can raise solar cell's efficiency to 1.5 or better.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Present reporting gives 36-nations that are 'going solar.' It's the lowest-cost energy available. Fossil-fuels are not part of their energy portfolio, as they're more expensive, in more ways than one.

When should I expect this cheap electricity to be reflected in their utility bills?

It would be reasonable to expect at least half of those nations to realize lower cost per kWh if solar LCOE is so cheap. Else, it indicates extreme corruption and the expectation that those corrupt agents spend time behind bars.

All that said, I could see solar being cost effective in a place like Hawaii where the weather and temperature is fairly consistent day and night, and through the seasons. They've got limited area to install said solar, so it probably makes the most sense to utilize rooftops and incorporate battery storage.

Anyone saying that a particular energy solution is the best universal energy solution hasn't got a clue, because every area has unique resources and electricity demand profiles.

Originally Posted by freebeard

Florescent light guides can raise solar cell's efficiency to 1.5 or better.

As I understand, fluorescent is the most popular way to create white light, but it isn't as efficient as RGB lighting. Perhaps the reason it's more popular is a superior Color Rendering Index (CRI)?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When should I expect this cheap electricity to be reflected in their utility bills?

It would be reasonable to expect at least half of those nations to realize lower cost per kWh if solar LCOE is so cheap. Else, it indicates extreme corruption and the expectation that those corrupt agents spend time behind bars.

All that said, I could see solar being cost effective in a place like Hawaii where the weather and temperature is fairly consistent day and night, and through the seasons. They've got limited area to install said solar, so it probably makes the most sense to utilize rooftops and incorporate battery storage.

Anyone saying that a particular energy solution is the best universal energy solution hasn't got a clue, because every area has unique resources and electricity demand profiles.



As I understand, fluorescent is the most popular way to create white light, but it isn't as efficient as RGB lighting. Perhaps the reason it's more popular is a superior Color Rendering Index (CRI)?

I don't know any of the particulars.
If they're state-owned utilities, they'll out-compete the private sector. If you wanted to 'make America great' again, you'd have to re-regulate the power industry ( America's Golden Era coincided with public ownership of utilities ).
I don't know the particulars of financing.
All costs must be recovered at some point.
Spare parts and maintenance.
Replacement parts.
Labor.
Administrative costs.
Land acquisition / sharing.
Rights of way.
Logistics.
Pricing may have to do with goals not necessarily of interest in other cultures.
I'd be underreporting and underrepresenting the sophistication of the 'whole.'

[oil pan 4]

Solar is good for remote power away from the power grid, tiny devices that power a few LEDs and covering the day time peak load. When you get even 10% of your electricity from solar it becomes a liability.

I'll defend coal because I like being the bad guy.
Coal provides at the very least affordable steel and concrete. The building blocks of civilization.
The only thing making those building blocks more expensive accomplishes is making poor people poorer.

No large scale roll out of solar has ever been reflected as a electricity cost reduction.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Solar is good for remote power away from the power grid, tiny devices that power a few LEDs and covering the day time peak load. When you get even 10% of your electricity from solar it becomes a liability.

I'll defend coal because I like being the bad guy.
Coal provides at the very least affordable steel and concrete. The building blocks of civilization.
The only thing making those building blocks more expensive accomplishes is making poor people poorer.

Somewhere, I have some materials that get into this issue. I'll see if I can locate those.
I remember 13% being kicked around, but it's 'dated' material, and Elon Musk has essentially made all those old arguments moot.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Somewhere, I have some materials that get into this issue. I'll see if I can locate those.
I remember 13% being kicked around, but it's 'dated' material, and Elon Musk has essentially made all those old arguments moot.

Unlikely.