I have solar power. Do you?

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

They say a pic is worth a thousand words, this is the 'Fort Calhoun' nuclear plant in Nebraska during the 2011 floods. Many of the existing nuclear facilities all over the world really need to be 'hardened' to prevent such events from becoming catastrophic. Nuclear plants need water for cooling so most are on the coast or right on a river, so it's a very common issue. There are four nuclear power plants in Pakistan where they just had all that epic flooding.

 

[WARSPITER]

The issue of intermittency is a problem for most "renewable" types of energy as they call it, sometimes the sun doesn't shine for a while, and sometimes the wind doesn't blow. Even the hydro power runs into problems when the rain doesn't fall for a long time, as we are seeing now. I guess the only type that is pretty much consistent is geothermal like they have in Norway. Or maybe tidal power but I don't see that in place anywhere yet.

The solution is power storage, which didn't really exist (clumsy arrays of deep cell marine batteries ain't efficient to say the least). But that is where part of the breakthrough has been. Now we have the lithium batteries and larger scale wind / solar systems have other types as well. Storage is still a bit of a problem but it's decreasing, especially on the scale of the homeowner. Now it's just a matter of money.

I see two big issues with nuclear, aside from the waste issue which already gets a lot of discussion. One is the cost, cost per kw / hour has been going down dramatically for solar.

On a purely non ideological / pragmatic level, for the home, solar was a nice idea but way too expensive when I was a kid. It just wasn't practical. Today, solar power generation is cheap and cost effective. On the storage side it's harder. The batteries are still expensive but they too are becoming more affordable. Tesla Powerwall is kind of the ultimate for convenience and 'hands-off' reliability, and if anything it has gone up in price. But I know a lot of people in the Gulf Coast region who live in hurricane prone areas where they get prolonged outages due to storms, and up in the northwest where they get outages because of forest fires. Places like Texas and parts of California where the grid is struggling.

View attachment 689722

In the last few years, many of these people and I myself have acquired or put together low cost solar backup systems with cheaper lithium battery systems, so as to have power to run a fan, run a modem, charge phones, lights, keep a freezer from thawing out, run a small AC unit for sleeping and so on. I use mine to keep my aquariums running during a long power outage. Solar is basically your go-to for that kind of thing now. You can even keep panels inside your home and put them out after a storm to generate needed power.

By contrast nuclear is expensive, and it's also fragile. And that's my second issue with it.

The nuclear plant can keep generating power, but the current types of plants don't generate their own running power. This was the issue with Fukushima leading to the catastrophe there and is currently an issue with the Zaporizhzhia plant in Ukraine which has that facility under risk. I'll circle back to that one. The other issue is that the power still has to be transmitted. I have friends and family down in the Gulf Coast area where they have several nuclear power plants. It does them little good after a storm because the grid has to be put back together before they can get any power. And the plants themselves are highly vulnerable.

The Waterford 3 plant has had three serious events requiring shut downs in the last 20 years. In 2005 they shut it down after Katrina. The offsite power was knocked out for a long time, and there was a flood risk but because of the direction the storm took they were able to keep the plant from being flooded and were able to keep the generators supplied. In 2011 they had to shut it down again for almost a month due to the Mississippi river floods and had difficulty getting fuel in to the generators, but they again sorted it out. And then most recently last year after Hurricane Ida, they lost power and had to shut down again and declare an emergency. Basically the electrical network was knocked out in the area for several weeks, but they were able to truck in fuel for the generators.

If this plant or hundreds like it in areas where, as much of the region was after many recent storms, the power was out for a sustained period and the roads were impassible, they would not be able to keep the fuel rods cool and there would be a very serious incident. In Louisiana, after Katrina, Gustav, Rita, Nicholas, Claudette, and Ida there were extensive areas where the power was out for several weeks and the roads were impassable, they just got lucky that it didn't hit right where the Waterford plant is or one of the other three plants in that area. If, god forbid, the plant got flooded, as could also quite easily happen during a big hurricane or river flood event, they would basically have a meltdown ala Fukushima. And Waterford is just one plant. There are 54 nuclear power plants around the US. Waterford 3 is one of two on the Mississippi river in Louisiana, there is a big one (Grand Gulf) on the river in Mississippi, two on the coast in Alabama, two on the coast in Texas, and four on the coast in South Florida (thank god on the opposite side from where Ian just hit). All of these are vulnerable to hurricanes. Many of the others around the country are in areas which are exposed to the increasingly turbulent weather (floods, fires, storms). To me this is an issue.

If somebody's solar panels get flooded, or torn off their roof by the wind, it's a problem for them but not for all their neighbors. And after the storm passes by, if they are lucky enough that their house is intact, they will have power and they won't have to go out and buy fuel, or rely on the city gas system. It just works, so long as the sun shines.

Yes the intermittency is a major problem as far as grid level is concerned.

When I said nuclear I also said later generation of which there are ongoing types which are cheaper to run but expensive to build.
Many of the graphs you see are not always showing the cost over the life time of different types. Wind turbines have a relatively short
lifespan compared to coal or nuclear for instance so must be replaced at least twice to match the lifespan of the other types.

Nuclear isn't necessarily fragile as it has been in use for over sixty years. Later generation plants don't use water for cooling and can
be constructed in less vulnerable places. We will always need a decent power source for larger use facilities (ports,hospitals.....)
and what I call single use can be constructed (1 home) easily enough. Subsidised types are costing those who can't afford or can't
get (rentals) in higher prices for electricity. Renewables as a grid solution also raise prices which doesn't help anyone.

The biggest problem is that the whole thing has become a political issue so rather than solving the problem we are treated to endless
bickering on 'targets' and/or bans when no replacement is available.

 

[GrauGeist]

California is a hot mess at the moment, with it's power grid.
The aging system has been overburdened for some time, resulting in rolling blackouts and a campaign to reduce use at peak hours.
Add to that, several hydroelectric plants taken out of service in order to restore rivers, gas-gen plants removed for environmental concerns (the plant in Huntington Beach was removed because it was prime beach-front real estate, it's emissions were well below fed/state AQMD PPM) and of all the state's nuclear plants (Eureka, San Onofre, Rancho Seco and Diablo Canyon), only Diablo Canyon still operates. It was slated to be shut down, but the talking heads in Sacramento have realized that wind and aolar simply is not providing enough power to the grid for the state's needs.
Meanwhile, their push to eliminate small gas engines by 2025 (generators, yard equipment, recreational equipment and so on) will add to the burden and then by 2030, the banning of new internal combustion vehicle sales in the state will cap the increasing electric vehicle load on the grid as well.

So far, there is no push to improve the system with generation or improved transmission, the only thing they are actively doing, is fire-hardening the system in areas prone to forest/wild fires.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Making energy policy on the basis of ideology or politics is a disaster.

As is delaying or just halting work on infrastructure because the wealthiest interests in the region are able to influence the political system so they don't have to pay taxes.

California seemed to have done a lot of very effective and well planned infrastructure work through the 1950s, from their road systems to water, electrical and education. They reaped enormous benefits from that. And some work continued in communication and via their university systems, what became the internet. But subsequently as in much of the rest of the US and some other parts of the world, it has basically been neglected for a generation or two or three. Equipment which was once state of the art is now overloaded and past it's due date, aging, rusting, crumbling. Various political interventions have caused distortions which have just made everything worse.

Meanwhile we know the weather is changing, we can debate why till the end of time without swaying one side or the other.

It seems to me however that the most useful way to spend the time and money we still have available is on hardening the systems in a pragmatic way, so that as quickly as possible, we can enhance the infrastructure's ability to endure changing (probably worsening) conditions going forward. I suspect California is going to need some big projects like desalinization plants to generate more water, and that ain't gonna be easy. But for the fairly serious issue of powering homes, and probably soon enough cars, a smaller scale solution is available - individualized solar systems on local houses and businesses can be part of the fix. They can potentially reduce the need for the fragile and overloaded grid, and for overburdened power plants of all types.

Along the Gulf Coast, many communities are already somewhat hardened for big storms. Towns like Houston and New Orleans can fairly easily shrug off something like a Category 1 or 2 hurricane, while the same sized storm causes devastation in New York (and gets called a 'Superstorm'). Seeing as the weather patterns seem to have already changed somewhat, rather than just cutting emissions in a ham fisted way, maybe we really need to focus on making our existing systems more robust on a pragmatic basis. Solar power with battery backup is already part of that mix, it's getting cheaper at a pretty steep rate, and has the considerable benefit that it can be put into place rather quickly and at little risk to anyone.

 

[GrauGeist]

Agreed about California's past I infrastructure.
In the 1930's, the work program that was established during the depression saw a considerable amount of progress in the state. Highways were one and the other, was the Central Valley Project that saw several dams built along with the aquaduct system that provided water to the vast agricultural regions of the state.
California's recent drought cycles are nothing compared to ones in the past, like the 35 year drought in the late 1700's that nearly caused the Empire of Spain to abandon Alta California (which happened to be about the time the British were checking out the West coast - how about that for a history changer?) and again in the 1800's - thw problem is, with California's population explosion in the 70's onward, the demand for water increased at a staggering rate, surpassing what the aquaducts were designed for. And there have been a few proposals to address the problem, but nothing ever comes of it.

By the way, there was a desalinization plant that was under construction in San Pedro in the late 30's, designed by the Dutch. Lawsuits brought against the project and then WWII killed the project and what remained of it was torn down in the 80's. Of course, several movies had scenes filmed at the plant site, so I suppose it didn't go completely to waste.

Currently, several desalinization plants are proposed in the Southland, but environmentalists are trying to block them.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

We have to drop some of our ideological filters and our devotion to the 'war of half-truths' because time is running out. We also can no longer afford the astonishing levels of corruption which went along with all that. We just can't govern ourselves on auto pilot any more, or leave the decisions up to professional political 'leaders' in a room full of lobbyists.

As you allude, it's possible that whatever is going on is cyclical. I am a historical researcher and I'm aware of several intense long term weather fluctuations during recorded history. I mean above and beyond what is implied by the geological record and so on. This one may be different, or it may be more of the same. I don't claim to be smart enough to know for sure, and I'm not convinced anyone is.

In one sense, it doesn't make that much difference. Regardless of the cause, the systems that keep us alive, comfortable, and able to conduct commerce are extremely vulnerable in their current state. Several layers of problems have basically jammed up our mechanisms for addressing this, sometimes one problem is just covering up another. But we are going to have to pull away the B.S. and focus on the real challenges. I'm sure there are very real issues associated with large scale desalinization, but we have a lot of smart engineers, we need to figure it out and make it work, quickly. Given the fairly extreme disasters which have already befallen several areas including some entire towns in California in recent years, I'd say it's time to pivot toward a more pragmatic model.

The lucky thing about solar at the homeowner or small business scale is that it basically works on both levels.

 

[GreenKnight121]

That is my biggest concern. We get really huge wind/hail storms here in the Midwest. Some of soon to be new neighbors have solar panels on their roofs though.

OK - just started reading this thread (I am a licensed electrician working for a commercial & residential solar installation company), and thought I'd put a few comments in - not having read past each point I'll address.

Hail: this was 5 years ago... the damage-resistance standard was supposed to be toughened, I don't know whether it has or not.

Anyway, here is what panels could withstand 5 years ago: Hail No! National Lab's Solar Panels Survive Severe Storm

May 15, 2017
The Denver area was pelted with an unusually severe hailstorm on May 8 – one that left a trail of destruction in its wake, shattering car windows and leaving golf ball-sized dents on the roofs of local homes and vehicles.

After the storm, staff at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) set out to assess the damage. Its main campus in Golden, Colorado boasts more than 2.5 megawatts of photovoltaic (PV) power. A majority of those panels (more than 3,000) are located on or adjacent to the roof of the lab's Research Support Facility, a net-zero energy building. The post-storm inspection revealed just one broken panel.

This news wasn't a total shock to NREL researchers. They work closely with the U.S. Department of Energy's SunShot Initiative to improve the durability of solar modules. Included in the testing is the requirement to survive hail stone impact. In fact, the test requires shooting ping-pong-ball-sized ice balls at PV modules in multiple places at about 70 miles per hour. In the case of this hailstorm, the one glass module cover that cracked was apparently simultaneously hit by a number of hailstones in almost the exact same place. This concentrated blow created a network of micro-cracks in the glass. Subsequent hailstones then left their "footprints" of impact in that web of small fractures, which tally to what appears to be more than three-dozen hits.

NREL researchers are funded by SunShot to participate in the International Photovoltaic Quality Assurance Task Force, which develops standardized industry quality tests to assure that solar panels on the market can survive the harsh environmental conditions to which they are directly exposed. This includes not only how panels react to mechanical stress, such as hail or being walked on, but also high and low temperatures, humidity, solar ultraviolet radiation, and even the electrical stress that the panels apply to themselves when operating in high-voltage systems. These quality standards help reinforce consumer and investor confidence in PV.

NREL also leads a group that brings together national labs and universities with the solar supply-chain industries to discover, develop, de-risk, and enable the commercialization of new materials and designs for PV modules. The durable module materials consortium focuses on accelerating the research and development of high-performance PV packaging materials and module architectures in order to increase module reliability and performance while decreasing module costs. These efforts will continuously improve the durability and performance of solar panels while driving down the cost of solar electricity.

Larger hail does break panels, however... as described in this article: Storm season has the US solar industry looking to protect assets from costly hail damage

In May 2019, the solar industry was faced with a disaster unlike anything ever seen before, when a massive hailstorm passed through West Texas. In the path of the storm sat 174 Power Global's 178 MW Midway Solar Project, bolted to the ground and pointed to the sky on 1,500 acres near Midland.
Once the storm had passed, the industry learned that it had left behind the largest weather-related single-project loss in its history. More than 400,000 of the plant's 685,000 Hanwha Q cell modules were damaged or destroyed; insurance losses totaled $70 million, and most everyone involved endured at least a few sleepless nights.

 

[GreenKnight121]

During a heavy cold snap like they had in Texas in 2021, it would again be nice to have power, though I wonder how well a Tesla power wall would hold up to that? My neighbors battery units are on the outside of his house, which is probably standard due to potential fire risk. But they are exposed to the elements. Do they work well in 15 degree F ? How well do solar panels work with ice on them? (Serious question as I don't know)

Most battery manufacturers recommend that batteries be installed where temps do not exceed 90°-95°F or go below 30°-40°F.
Below the minimum the battery's efficiency drops, both in output level and duration... and above that there is the risk of thermal runaway or other damage.

Also, most lithium-ion batteries are rated for 10,000 charge-discharge cycles. Past that their efficiency drops.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Most battery manufacturers recommend that batteries be installed where temps do not exceed 90°-95°F or go below 30°-40°F.
Below the minimum the battery's efficiency drops, both in output level and duration... and above that there is the risk of thermal runaway or other damage.

Also, most lithium-ion batteries are rated for 10,000 charge-discharge cycles. Past that their efficiency drops.

Well I know from seeing it with my own eyes that there are quite a few Tesla power walls all over the Gulf South, Atlantic southeast, and Texas. I posted a video in this thread here, of one in use during and after the last Texas freeze. And I don't think there is anywhere in Texas (or most of the Gulf coast) that doesn't get above 90-95 degrees F in the summer and only the southern most stay above 30 F in the Winter, certainly the guy in the video was in an area that got colder than that.

 

[GreenKnight121]

Well I know from seeing it with my own eyes that there are quite a few Tesla power walls all over the Gulf South, Atlantic southeast, and Texas. I posted a video in this thread here, of one in use during and after the last Texas freeze. And I don't think there is anywhere in Texas (or most of the Gulf coast) that doesn't get above 90-95 degrees F in the summer and only the southern most stay above 30 F in the Winter, certainly the guy in the video was in an area that got colder than that.

Which is why the Tesla Powerwall modules are usually installed in a garage or basement - as are the LG, Enphase, Lion, etc batteries my company has installed.

 

[GreenKnight121]

When I said nuclear I also said later generation of which there are ongoing types which are cheaper to run but expensive to build.
Many of the graphs you see are not always showing the cost over the life time of different types. Wind turbines have a relatively short
lifespan compared to coal or nuclear for instance so must be replaced at least twice to match the lifespan of the other types.

Nuclear isn't necessarily fragile as it has been in use for over sixty years. Later generation plants don't use water for cooling and can
be constructed in less vulnerable places. We will always need a decent power source for larger use facilities (ports,hospitals.....)
and what I call single use can be constructed (1 home) easily enough. Subsidised types are costing those who can't afford or can't
get (rentals) in higher prices for electricity. Renewables as a grid solution also raise prices which doesn't help anyone.

The biggest problem is that the whole thing has become a political issue so rather than solving the problem we are treated to endless
bickering on 'targets' and/or bans when no replacement is available.

Especially the new modular nuclear generation plants that have been recently permitted for construction... they can be scaled for size, and do not require the highly-enriched fuel that is what the older plants used - and which creates the waste disposal issue.

Pebble-bed and other new nuclear processes use safer fuels and can be installed in better locations.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Thanks for the info.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Which is why the Tesla Powerwall modules are usually installed in a garage or basement - as are the LG, Enphase, Lion, etc batteries my company has installed.

From what I've seen down south, Tesla Powerwalls are usually installed outside, but somewhere in the shade, like on the side or back of a house or in a detached or semi-exposed garage. There is some fire risk with those things.

Tesla says that their powerwall and "backup gateway" devices can operate normally between -20C to 50C (-4F to 122F) which is well within the parameters for most of Texas or the Gulf Coast, so long as you keep it in the shade. They warn not to expose it to ambient temperatures above 60°C (140°F) or below -30°C (-22°F). They do also say it's best to avoid installing it where it will be in direct sunlight or where it will be exposed to ambient temperatures greater than 95F.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Powerwall_2_AC_GW2_UK-EN_Installation_Manual.pdf

 

[GreenKnight121]

Tesla says that their powerwall and "backup gateway" devices can operate normally between -20C to 50C (-4F to 122F) which is well within the parameters for most of Texas or the Gulf Coast, so long as you keep it in the shade. They warn not to expose it to ambient temperatures above 60°C (140°F) or below -30°C (-22°F). They do also say it's best to avoid installing it where it will be in direct sunlight or where it will be exposed to ambient temperatures greater than 95F.

https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/powerwall/Powerwall_2_AC_GW2_UK-EN_Installation_Manual.pdf

Max vs "best". As I said above... most battery manufacturers list reduced function of the battery below around freezing - Tesla seems to not be "most".
And as you cite above "best to avoid ambient temperatures greater than 95F" even for Tesla - they wouldn't have said that unless it could cause problems.

Here in northern Utah we often get below -4F in the winter (or at least we used to until the last 2-3 years), so that exceeds the Tesla lower threshold - and around here most Powerwalls ARE in garages.

We had 34 days of 100F or higher this summer - the previous record was 21!
On Sept 7th SLC reached 107F - tying the hottest ever recorded in Salt Lake City for any day of the year.


And that photo doesn't fill me with confidence in whoever installed it - National Electrical Code requires at least 3' lateral separation between gas meters and electrical equipment (which includes batteries)!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

Max vs "best". As I said above... most battery manufacturers list reduced function of the battery below around freezing - Tesla seems to not be "most".
And as you cite above "best to avoid ambient temperatures greater than 95F" even for Tesla - they wouldn't have said that unless it could cause problems.

Here in northern Utah we often get below -4F in the winter (or at least we used to until the last 2-3 years), so that exceeds the Tesla lower threshold - and around here most Powerwalls ARE in garages.

We had 34 days of 100F or higher this summer - the previous record was 21!
On Sept 7th SLC reached 107F - tying the hottest ever recorded in Salt Lake City for any day of the year.


And that photo doesn't fill me with confidence in whoever installed it - National Electrical Code requires at least 3' lateral separation between gas meters and electrical equipment (which includes batteries)!

There are a bunch in my sister's neighborhood which are all outside, one guy across the street from her house has a pair that have been running for ten years, and the guy was sitting pretty through the last hurricane while everyone else was sweating in the dark. It's on the south side of his house but there is another building across the driveway, so it probably only gets about 3-4 hours of direct sunlight, but it does get it, and in that area it's between 90-100F for about 5-6 months per year. Personally I'd put a metal awning over it or something so it stays in the shade. This guy has two powerwalls and two sets of batteries. I can post some photos a bit later.

I think the warning about over 95 degrees or under 30 refers to efficiency - the battery won't work as well when it's super hot. But I spoke to this neighbor after the hurricane, I could hear his AC running and see his lights on while everyone else was suffocating in the dark (or running generators). He told me he hadn't had any problems with it. It's also worth noting that this area has a bad electrical grid and power surges are frequent even when there isn't one of the frequent thunderstorms going on. My sister has had to have extensive electrical work done in the last couple of years and has battery backups for all her major appliances and electronics, which is ridiculous. But the neighbor hasn't had problems with his powerwall and as soon as the power goes out, it switches on. It seems to be pretty robust.

I agree the current battery technology probably isn't ideal for super hot areas like in the Southwest (except coastal California) though, or for very far north either. I know a Swedish guy who just told me he's getting solar panels for backup but I don't know how that works up there, not only is the battery going to have trouble in the extreme cold but panels don't work with snow on them. Maybe he has a big old brush-broom...

 

[delcyros]

I was eyeing towards solar roof combined with small battery, electrolyseur and H2 storage to getsome off-grid capability. I will wait one more year to allow vehicle-to-home solutions to fit in the BEV, which is the better battery solution.

No, there is not as much sun here as in California and Winter can be dark. Yet, renewables are important components of the energy mix. Data from 2021 showed 230 GW beeing produced from green sources (solar, wind and bio), 108.3 GW from Lignite coal, 89 GW from natural gas, 69 GW from nuclear plants, 54.3 GW from hard coal and 15 GW from other.

 

[GreenKnight121]

I agree the current battery technology probably isn't ideal for super hot areas like in the Southwest (except coastal California) though, or for very far north either. I know a Swedish guy who just told me he's getting solar panels for backup but I don't know how that works up there, not only is the battery going to have trouble in the extreme cold but panels don't work with snow on them. Maybe he has a big old brush-broom...

Well, if he has his battery inside an insulated and/or heated space (like we install, as I have explained before) then his battery will do fine.

You would be surprised how much sun gets through the snow... up to 50% production with 6"-8" of normal snow. The snow also melts/slides off pretty quickly compared to the rest of the roof (the same energy that the panels convert to electricity also heat the panels) - all the time in the winter I can see roofs with bare panels surrounded by snow-covered roof areas.

Of course, it depends on how much snow he gets... I have heard of people installing those roof-edge ice-melting wire runs under and lower on the roof than their solar panels to speed the melting by directly heating the panels!

Also, at his lattitude the panels will be on a fairly extreme tilt (perhaps 45 degrees or so) to get the most direct solar angle, so the snow will very much slide off on its own if it even sticks in the first place!

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

So what about the fire risk with the batteries? I thought that's why they put them outside so often...? Or is that diminished now days?

 

[GrauGeist]

So far as I've seen, the cars are more prone to burn than a power wall.

However, the "mega packs" seem to be a problem.
One caught on fire just a few weeks ago near Monterey and another caught fire last year in Australia.

 

[Wild_Bill_Kelso]

The batteries in the (Tesla) cars are basically the same thing as a powerwall. But they are more likely to burn simply because a car is exposed to rougher conditions than most people's homes.