2 ms·

A sector can grow by 50% and still be a small fraction of the overall mix. This is in fact the common problem with growth figures: going from 0 to 1 unit is li

by XorNot 2y ago

A sector can grow by 50% and still be a small fraction of the overall mix. This is in fact the common problem with growth figures: going from 0 to 1 unit is literally infinity % growth, going from 1 to 2 at the same rate is 100%, but 1 to 3 is now only 50% etc... But you've also got the problem that capacity versus production is important to renewable energy in a way which doesn't apply the same to fossil fuels. Build a 1GW thermal power plant, you'll get about 0.8GW across the year. Build a 1GW solar plant, you'll get 0.1 - 0.25 GW across the year. But in terms of capacity you theoretically have 1GW, and at times on any given day, will.

Retric 2y ago
Wind and solar supplied 12% of global electricity in 2022 up from 10% in 2021 and things are still accelerating. You can’t keep this kind of growth rate up for long before things change. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-record-amount-of-global-power-in-2022.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-r... Your capacity factor numbers are also off ex: 29.7% capacity factor averaged over 3 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar. Thermal is also much lower than your suggesting. China the world’s #1 coal consumer has capacity factors under 50% because they are using them for load following. France’s nuclear averaged ~70% for years for similar reasons. It’s only where the there’s excess natural gas and minimal solar/wind that thermal can keep high capacity factors but that’s becoming rare.
- XorNot 2y ago
  Grabbing one specific solar install and saying it's representative of all solar is absurd. If I take my rooftop solar in Sydney and generalize then I'd be saying it's 12.5%. If I go by the CSIRO estimates[1] then that range is a reasonable middle for Australia (generally considered a sunny country) and would be optimistic for somewhere like Germany[2]. You're also misrepresenting capacity factors for thermal power plants: a thermal powerplant used to follow load operates below it's maximum capacity factor. Renewables can't follow load - capacity factor is the best they can do. [1] https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Gen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
  - Retric 2y ago
    I’m saying your range was incorrect and it only takes one example to show that. But here’s another 32.3% using single axes tracking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite_Solar_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite_Solar_project. I can go over 35%, but the point’s clear. In the real world roughly half of grid scale solar power is generated from plants over 25% capacity factors and sub 15% is mostly just outdated solar thermal or very poor locations only in use because of subsidies. https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors Thermal power plants pay for fuel and therefore real world capacity factors are lower as renewable generation increases. I could point to many coal power plants in the 40-50% range, but that feels pointless. Anyway, rooftop solar isn’t representative of the grid scale solar because it’s doesn’t use ideal angles for the latitude let alone 1 or 2 axis tracking. It’s also frequently shaded by trees etc. People trying to make money selling at wholesale prices just care more about efficiency than someone offsetting retail electricity rates.
    - XorNot 2y ago
      You are still not getting it. If someone says "we installed 1GW of capacity" then what does that mean? It means you've either got 1GW of dispatchable generation on hand, or some proportionally much smaller amount of non-dispatchable generation on hand. The number doesn't mean anything without correct context which was the entire point. But "dispatchable" is key. Choosing to run a thermal powerplant at lower output due to market conditions is different to literally being unable to generate energy. So talking about "X increase in renewables" doesn't tell you a thing, which was the entire point I was making. If you build 100GW of solar then in temperate Australian regions it's actually like having 25, in Germany it's like having 10, and in the California desert I guess you maybe get 40. What you don't get, is 100GW on demand. And overnight you get zero. All of which has a pretty substantial effect on whether "installed capacity" can move the needle on total CO2 emissions because the effect on grid production is much less linear then traditional thermal power plants.
      - Retric 2y ago
        > "we installed 1GW of capacity" “Wind and solar supplied 12% of global electricity in 2022” that’s the number I am tracking not how many panels they happened to use. Location and other details matter. Plopping down Solar in the UK, Germany, or southeastern Australia is a poor investment. So no I don’t give a fuck about hypothetical GW in dumb locations, it’s also irrelevant to the point I was making. > can move the needle on total CO2 emissions because the effect on grid production is much less linear then traditional thermal power plants. Batteries + Solar means is more linear than thermal not less. Again just track renewables by kWh over the year not simply nameplate capacity if that’s what you want to know. It’s not some secret people actively tack and report it as useful information. As to the rest of your points, market conditions exist before you install the power plant. Initially the question is wind or solar more useful needs to be addressed. Pick solar and many choices remain. Install solar with 1 or even 2 axis tracking and you get more hours per day of generation from the same land and panels than fixed installation but higher cost per kWh. Install it X miles west and power comes on a little later each day. Add a battery and you can shift supply within the day. People don’t just plop down panels randomly there’s a huge amount of optimization up front to maximize long term gains. Thermal on the other hand has fewer levers, shifting the power plants location doesn’t help match the demand curve and there’s no option for cheaper but less reliable output. The economics also completely kill the idea of having batteries to cover the after work spike in demand etc etc. Right now people are trying to decide if they want a power plant that’s only going to provide 45% of hypothetical capacity while still being forced to pay the full construction costs. Net result an absolutely massive increase in how much wind and solar generation is used not just installed each year.
jncfhnb 2y ago
This logic does apply to fossil fuels because fossil fuel plants cannot compete on cost with renewables when they’re running at full capacity. In terms of actual production, many fossil fuel plants are running at lower than their potential production.
- XorNot 2y ago
  That's the entire point: a proportional increase in renewables isn't a 1:1 reduction in thermals. You don't replace 1GW of thermal plant capacity with 1GW of solar. You replace some fraction of its output, but it still runs overnight, or at times of low production or whatever. So installed capacity increasing doesn't directly tell you much about the future composition of the grid, particularly in the absence of significant storage or overnight capable sources like wind (which after still variable).
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Well, sort of. You’re likely going to use 100% of possible production for wind and solar. That’s much lower than “capacity”, true. But you’re going to use it. Fossil fuel sources on the other hand are being rapidly downscaled. And if it’s not operationally profitable to run a gas plant at reduced capacity, the plant will have to shut down entirely. This is happening to peaker plants due to battery power coming online. the economics of gas plants become much, much worse quickly. The cost of energy from a gas plant that’s run a small portion of its planned output is much higher due to the fixed costs. This should push up the price of off-renewable time power, which will increase the business case for batteries. It’s a bit of a death loop. Gas will be here for a long time yet but I predict mainstream forecasts are underestimating how quickly the tides will turn to the share of renewables

by XorNot 2y ago

Retric 2y ago

Wind and solar supplied 12% of global electricity in 2022 up from 10% in 2021 and things are still accelerating. You can’t keep this kind of growth rate up for long before things change. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-record-amount-of-global-power-in-2022.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/12/wind-and-solar-generated-a-r... Your capacity factor numbers are also off ex: 29.7% capacity factor averaged over 3 years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar. Thermal is also much lower than your suggesting. China the world’s #1 coal consumer has capacity factors under 50% because they are using them for load following. France’s nuclear averaged ~70% for years for similar reasons. It’s only where the there’s excess natural gas and minimal solar/wind that thermal can keep high capacity factors but that’s becoming rare.

XorNot 2y ago
Grabbing one specific solar install and saying it's representative of all solar is absurd. If I take my rooftop solar in Sydney and generalize then I'd be saying it's 12.5%. If I go by the CSIRO estimates[1] then that range is a reasonable middle for Australia (generally considered a sunny country) and would be optimistic for somewhere like Germany[2]. You're also misrepresenting capacity factors for thermal power plants: a thermal powerplant used to follow load operates below it's maximum capacity factor. Renewables can't follow load - capacity factor is the best they can do. [1] https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/GenCost https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/Gen... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Germany
- Retric 2y ago
  I’m saying your range was incorrect and it only takes one example to show that. But here’s another 32.3% using single axes tracking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite_Solar_project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesquite_Solar_project. I can go over 35%, but the point’s clear. In the real world roughly half of grid scale solar power is generated from plants over 25% capacity factors and sub 15% is mostly just outdated solar thermal or very poor locations only in use because of subsidies. https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors https://emp.lbl.gov/pv-capacity-factors Thermal power plants pay for fuel and therefore real world capacity factors are lower as renewable generation increases. I could point to many coal power plants in the 40-50% range, but that feels pointless. Anyway, rooftop solar isn’t representative of the grid scale solar because it’s doesn’t use ideal angles for the latitude let alone 1 or 2 axis tracking. It’s also frequently shaded by trees etc. People trying to make money selling at wholesale prices just care more about efficiency than someone offsetting retail electricity rates.
  - XorNot 2y ago
    You are still not getting it. If someone says "we installed 1GW of capacity" then what does that mean? It means you've either got 1GW of dispatchable generation on hand, or some proportionally much smaller amount of non-dispatchable generation on hand. The number doesn't mean anything without correct context which was the entire point. But "dispatchable" is key. Choosing to run a thermal powerplant at lower output due to market conditions is different to literally being unable to generate energy. So talking about "X increase in renewables" doesn't tell you a thing, which was the entire point I was making. If you build 100GW of solar then in temperate Australian regions it's actually like having 25, in Germany it's like having 10, and in the California desert I guess you maybe get 40. What you don't get, is 100GW on demand. And overnight you get zero. All of which has a pretty substantial effect on whether "installed capacity" can move the needle on total CO2 emissions because the effect on grid production is much less linear then traditional thermal power plants.
    - Retric 2y ago
      > "we installed 1GW of capacity" “Wind and solar supplied 12% of global electricity in 2022” that’s the number I am tracking not how many panels they happened to use. Location and other details matter. Plopping down Solar in the UK, Germany, or southeastern Australia is a poor investment. So no I don’t give a fuck about hypothetical GW in dumb locations, it’s also irrelevant to the point I was making. > can move the needle on total CO2 emissions because the effect on grid production is much less linear then traditional thermal power plants. Batteries + Solar means is more linear than thermal not less. Again just track renewables by kWh over the year not simply nameplate capacity if that’s what you want to know. It’s not some secret people actively tack and report it as useful information. As to the rest of your points, market conditions exist before you install the power plant. Initially the question is wind or solar more useful needs to be addressed. Pick solar and many choices remain. Install solar with 1 or even 2 axis tracking and you get more hours per day of generation from the same land and panels than fixed installation but higher cost per kWh. Install it X miles west and power comes on a little later each day. Add a battery and you can shift supply within the day. People don’t just plop down panels randomly there’s a huge amount of optimization up front to maximize long term gains. Thermal on the other hand has fewer levers, shifting the power plants location doesn’t help match the demand curve and there’s no option for cheaper but less reliable output. The economics also completely kill the idea of having batteries to cover the after work spike in demand etc etc. Right now people are trying to decide if they want a power plant that’s only going to provide 45% of hypothetical capacity while still being forced to pay the full construction costs. Net result an absolutely massive increase in how much wind and solar generation is used not just installed each year.

jncfhnb 2y ago

This logic does apply to fossil fuels because fossil fuel plants cannot compete on cost with renewables when they’re running at full capacity. In terms of actual production, many fossil fuel plants are running at lower than their potential production.

XorNot 2y ago
That's the entire point: a proportional increase in renewables isn't a 1:1 reduction in thermals. You don't replace 1GW of thermal plant capacity with 1GW of solar. You replace some fraction of its output, but it still runs overnight, or at times of low production or whatever. So installed capacity increasing doesn't directly tell you much about the future composition of the grid, particularly in the absence of significant storage or overnight capable sources like wind (which after still variable).
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Well, sort of. You’re likely going to use 100% of possible production for wind and solar. That’s much lower than “capacity”, true. But you’re going to use it. Fossil fuel sources on the other hand are being rapidly downscaled. And if it’s not operationally profitable to run a gas plant at reduced capacity, the plant will have to shut down entirely. This is happening to peaker plants due to battery power coming online. the economics of gas plants become much, much worse quickly. The cost of energy from a gas plant that’s run a small portion of its planned output is much higher due to the fixed costs. This should push up the price of off-renewable time power, which will increase the business case for batteries. It’s a bit of a death loop. Gas will be here for a long time yet but I predict mainstream forecasts are underestimating how quickly the tides will turn to the share of renewables