From 4% to 45%: New Plan Offers Ambitious Blueprint for Solar Energy

[svetz]

Excerpt from The New York Times
By Ivan Penn, September 8, 2021

The Biden administration on Wednesday released a plan to produce almost half of the nation’s electricity from the sun by 2050 as part of its effort to combat climate change.

Solar energy provided less than 4 percent of the country’s electricity last year, and the administration’s target of 45 percent would represent a huge leap and will most likely take a fundamental reshaping of the energy industry. In a new report, the Energy Department said the country needed to double the amount of solar energy installed every year over the next four years compared with last year. And then it will need to double annual installations again by 2030.

Adding that many solar panels, on rooftops and open ground, will not be easy. In February, a division of the Energy Department projected that the share of electricity produced by all renewable sources, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams, would reach 42 percent by 2050 based on current trends and policies.

 

[svetz]

A lot of experts say the crisis needs to be approached like a war-time footing where the whole world needs to work together to resolve it (e.g., Rosie the Riveter x100). So, from their point of view, like WWI & WWII, adding to the debt now for future generations to pay off is perfectly reasonable. Most countries are on board with it (even China).

 

[AndyRonLI]

So my own experience with solar here in the Northeast has been quite positive. I have displaced 80% of my electricity usage. Certainly it would have been more expensive without the tax credits. But if someone that lives were there is a true winter can do this well with solar (16 360W lg panels ) I would think you could get a similar displacement anywhere in the US. So if we assume the Industrial sector (consuming 27% of electricity) stays fossil fuel, that means we would need to displace 60% of the residential and commercial power usage with solar. Technically that's doable with current technology. Economically... Perhaps not. Cost of solar is certainly down. Efficiency creeps up. It is an ambitious goal. But hey, we choose to do the difficult. Its what makes this country great.

 

[svetz]

Solar and wind are both less expensive than the cheapest fuels, certainly switching would save everyone money (I just calculated the power cost increase since last year, a bit scary) if those sources were 100% reliable.

In fact, in our capitalist society, the switch would have happened before now without the intervention of the government except for the cost of energy storage and we might have had more solar if not for FERC forcing solar farms to increase prices (see MANY US States just got the Shaft on Power Rates thanks to FERC !) so fossil plants could stay competitive.

Fortunately, the costs of ESS have been coming down and governments around the world are doing all they can to help drive it down more (see EarthShot).

 

[Q-Dog]

I had a thought that in a broad sense most residential users could likely offset about 50% of their electricity usage with a few panels on their roof and they wouldn't really have to change too much about how they live. Also, they wouldn't push a lot of extra power onto the grid. I have no idea how far that might go towards the 45% number ... it was just a wild thought I had while riding around on my mower the other day.

Of course this gets complicated when you add in city residences and businesses, but as a general concept I wonder how far this could go? I guess I need to try to find some numbers.

 

[time2roll]

I would recommend 1 watt solar required by code for every square foot of residential space. New construction or additions.
Similar for commercial.

 

[MrM1]

I would recommend 1 watt solar required by code for every square foot of residential space. New construction or additions.
Similar for commercial.

"required" & "code"... No thanks. Have u seen the NEC? Adding more? Not interested. It's almost impossible now to do legal DIY.

 

[dixonge]

Here are the problems with this type of strategy (as I see it):

1. We have a history of distributing via large-scale grid, generally produced by private companies. Rooftop solar makes profit more difficult, therefore is often highly regulated or outright banned. The exception to this is if the private company gets to use your solar for their grid, and/or charge you something even if you don't use their grid-provided electricity.
2. Therefore said companies will resist any plan that endangers their profit.
3. Solar and wind both require a LOT of mining of metals and minerals. Their production is decidedly *not* carbon- or environmentally-friendly.
4. Solar and wind are also unreliable. The more they are mixed in w/ the grid, the more storage is required, the more fast start-up gas plants are required. Otherwise you end up w/ situations like the UK where energy bills are soaring. Or Germany.
5. Nuclear solves a lot of these issues. The fact that is isn't being ramped up dramatically spells doom for these types of plans...

 

[rickst29]

The current grid can't possibly handle it. Even though clouds interfering with "sunlight" is more reliable on a nationwide basis (than it is within and around smaller areas), it's still a less stable power source than wide-area wind, and more certain to "go down" at sunset.

With large-scale wind farms, it is typical to "wire them in" using dedicated point-to-point HVDC lines, only converting into 60 cycle AC at plants near the consumers. (The highest-voltage and highest-power HVDC line in the USA runs from Bonneville dam, past my house, and almost directly to Los Angeles It's been there for almost 30 years). But inter-company politics and short-term FERC thinking make the widespread adoption of HVDC very unlikely. So a mess of low-voltage, low power AC inter-connects seems likely to rule the roost, with only single-company battery and gravitational schemes put in place to spread the solar peak over a larger number of hours.

I fell that it would be optimal - and impossible - to build a new NA grid, based on HVDC. Problems of matching phase would become more local issues, and buying and selling of power could be a lot "cleaner". But that would require a massive amount of new construction, and we need to keep in mind -- power companies are first and foremost "PROPERTY MANAGMENT" companies, with vast amounts of land and investments in "power infrastructure" invested you yield a pittance of "bought and sold electricity" costs and revenues. The depreciation and ultimate replacement of those assets is the big picture.

- And, too many of these companies are still buying and installing NatGas "peaker" generators, because they are too lazy and dumb to invest much more for the longer term.

 

[AndyRonLI]

So we are always going to need a grid, and certainly there is push back on anything that cuts into their profit. But if I am developing 60 or so houses in a new development, I should be able to add enough solar and storage to that development so that it needs minimal grid input. And if properly sized the storage should eliminate any need to upsize the local grid, or for the local utility to by back any power. So work that end going forward, and retrofit where we can.

If every home could have storage capacity for 3 days, you could tolerate a lot of power fluctuations, and no need for topping systems. Likely some sort of Fe battery would do the trick for a lot less than LiFePO. But someone needs to fill the market.

In the end we have to do something. And in fact if what's going on in the Siberia permafrost, starts happening in Canada we may find it is to late. If we really get a 5 deg C temperature rise, that's it for modern civ. Think of the population displacements, the food shortages. So we need to do something.

 

[svetz]

...If every home could have storage capacity...

The Virtual Power Plants are very timely....