Comparing consistency of output between Natural gas and Solar

[Hamloc]

Proponents of renewable energy promote it an a technological advancement over traditional generation sources. I went on the Dispatcho website which monitors every commercial electrical generation sight in Alberta. It can give you daily, weekly or historical graphs. Looking at the graphs of solar production from yesterday I found it interesting that in both central and southern Alberta production went down between Noon and 2 pm, basically the highest point of sunlight in winter. Natural gas produces power at a very consistent level, as evidenced by the graph, Solar seems to vary almost minute to minute. But remember Solar is a step forward.

[Hamloc]

A little more in-depth. Chuck2 says the cheapest form of new generation is solar. A little research shows that solar infrastructure is roughly $1 million per megawatt. So the above installation Big Sky Solar is 140 megawatts of panels so roughly $140 million. Looking back on Dispatcho, in July this solar field will produce close to its rating of 140 mwh for about 11 hours a day, roughly 1500 mwh in a 24 hour period. Conversely in December in the same 24 hour period total production is 60-70 megawatt hours. So the question becomes how do you make this field produce power 24 hours a day 365 days a year. In the summer not that complicated. 1500 mwh/24 hours equals 62.5 megawatts per hour. Obviously a portion of daily production goes to charging a battery for release during the night. Let’s use a consistent production of 40 mwh. Let’s size the battery for summer.
Battery sizing formula 40 mwh x 13 hrs x1 day of autonomy lithium battery efficiency .855 = 444 megawatt hour battery. Pricing I found on industrial batteries was $2.5 to $5 million per 10 megawatts. We go best price. 444/10 x $2.5 = $111 million. Not terrible, doesn’t quite double the cost. Now let’s look at winter. Same 40 megawatts per hour. Solar system only produces 71 megawatts, so what 23 hours of battery usage?
40 mwh x 23 hrs x 1 x .855 = 786.6. 786.6/10 x $2.5 = $196.65 million. Starting to add up. Now the real conundrum. How many days of autonomy? Not enough production from the solar panels to charge the battery at all. Low production will occur through December and January. Is it even possible to build an industrial solar system that could reliably provide electricity 365 days a year? I don’t think you could afford the battery! And if you could what would the actual cost be per mwh when a 140 megawatt field only produced a baseload year round of 40 megawatts per hour?

[blackpowder]

Ya, batteries lol.
Could be mistaken but I think I read an article regarding latest Ottawa Edmonton agreement.
Talked about opening the door for utility corridors. How big lines could transfer power from flexible generators like hydro and gas during peak and allow the green to go the other way when it can.
Dunno if that's caca or not.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

. So the question becomes how do you make this field produce power 24 hours a day 365 days a year. In the summer not that complicated.

Not complicated at all, you let the free market figure it out by leveling the playing field. Where every generator (both reliable, and unreliable) has to bid for dispatchable generation.

If solar or wind are really the cheapest, they can partner with gas, coal or hydro, or install batteries or other storage to offer dispatchable generation.

Instead of downloading the costs of intermittency onto the end-users and taxpayers.

[chuckChuck]

Nice try hamloc!

"Proponents of renewable energy promote it an a technological advancement over traditional generation sources." Huh?

Bullshit!

Solar is considered intermitment and a supplementary low cost source of electricity.

Absurd 5 has repeated said when solar is over producing it's is not worth much which means it is very low cost.

This allows gas plants to idle and burn less gas, their number one operational cost. Less gas equals less carbon emissions.

I repeat its not one or the other they can both work together!

Utility-scale
solar electricity is generally less expensive than electricity from new natural gas plants on a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) basis. The cost difference is driven primarily by solar's lack of fuel costs and the declining price of its technology, versus natural gas's ongoing and volatile fuel expenses.

Cost Comparison (Utility-Scale)

The comparison often uses the LCOE metric, which accounts for building and operating a power plant over its entire lifetime.

• Solar PV (unsubsidized): Ranges from approximately $0.038 to $0.078 per kWh ($38 to $78 per MWh). With subsidies, the cost can be as low as $0.02 per kWh.
• Natural Gas (combined cycle): Ranges from approximately $0.048 to $0.107 per kWh ($48 to $107 per MWh)

Large-Scale Generation Costs (Utility/Grid Level)

• Renewables Cheaper Than Gas: Studies show that wind and solar projects in Alberta are already signing contracts at prices below $50/MWh, often cheaper than building new gas plants, and significantly cheaper than operating existing gas plants when carbon pricing is included.
• Storage Integration: Adding battery storage makes solar and wind even more competitive, providing dispatchable power that rivals gas plants at a lower overall cost, according to Clean Energy Canada ([url]https://cleanenergycanada.org/report/a-renewables-powerhouse/[/url]) and Pembina Institute analyses.

[chuckChuck]

Solar electricity costs have plummeted globally, making utility-scale solar PV the world's cheapest new power source, averaging around
$0.043 to $0.044 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in recent years (2023-2024), significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Costs have fallen over 90% since 2010, with the LCOE (Levelized Cost of Electricity) dropping from about 46 cents to 4 cents/kWh, though regional variations exist due to solar potential and infrastructure, with sunny areas potentially reaching very low costs (e.g., 2p/unit).


Key Cost Trends & Figures:

• Global Average (2023/2024): Utility-scale solar PV costs around $0.044/kWh, while onshore wind is slightly lower (around $0.033-$0.034/kWh).
• Dramatic Decrease: Costs have fallen by over 90% since 2010, making solar much more competitive than fossil fuels.
• Cheapest New Source: Solar PV and onshore wind are consistently the cheapest forms of new electricity generation globally, often 40-50% less than the lowest-cost fossil fuels.
• Regional Potential: In ideal sunny locations, costs can drop even further, potentially reaching as low as 2 pence (around $0.025) per unit (kWh).

[Hamloc]

Not complicated at all, you let the free market figure it out by leveling the playing field. Where every generator (both reliable, and unreliable) has to bid for dispatchable generation.

If solar or wind are really the cheapest, they can partner with gas, coal or hydro, or install batteries or other storage to offer dispatchable generation.

Instead of downloading the costs of intermittency onto the end-users and taxpayers.

But there isn’t a free market AB5. The Federal government incentivizes the construction of industrial solar fields with so called clean energy energy tax incentives( included again in the most recent federal budget), then they increase the cost of natural gas produced electricity with mandated ever increasing industrial carbon taxation.

Once the solar field is built and connected the whole grid must be managed around the intermittent availability of renewable energy. I don’t doubt that on a sunny July afternoon solar power is plentiful but the natural gas plant that is required to supply power in December when that solar field is producing very little must sit idle making no return for its owner. As I have shown above there is a reason why most solar fields have no battery component or a relatively small one with one or two hours worth of storage.

Chuck2 also talks about how expensive nuclear power is compared to solar but he is not comparing apples to apples. Solar generation is not dependable 365 days a year dispatchable generation. Is nuclear power more expensive than an interconnected solar wind natural gas generation system. I doubt it. Nuclear would have a much smaller footprint, require less power line interconnection infrastructure and because there is no fossil fuel component have lower emissions.

[shtferbrains]

Solar and wind have much less appeal with the rush to attract data centers as the AI movement advances.
Canada is back in the game since Carney scubbed a lot of the damage done by Trudeau and Guilbeault on restrictions on building Gas plants when he abandoned the Clean Electricity Standard,
Western Canada has unlimited gas supplies at low price but the target dates for their phase out made them not a good investment.
Carney seems to realize that the economy needs all the help it can get.

[chuckChuck]

[url]https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-supply-for-ai[/url]

Global electricity generation to supply data centres is projected to grow from 460 TWh in 2024 to over 1 000 TWh in 2030 and 1 300 TWh in 2035 in the Base Case. Over the next five years, renewables meet nearly half of the additional demand, followed by natural gas and coal, with nuclear starting to play an increasingly important role towards the end of this decade and beyond.

Coal, with a share of about 30%, is the largest source of electricity, though this varies significantly by region, with the highest contribution found in China. Renewables – primarily wind, solar PV and hydro – currently supply about 27% of the electricity consumed by data centres globally. Natural gas is the third-largest source today, meeting 26% of the demand, followed by nuclear with 15%. It should be noted that this analysis considers the fuel mix of the electricity physically consumed by data centres (considering both onsite generation and electricity received through the grid, taking into account the fuel mix of the local electricity systems they are located in) rather than the contractual mix of different data centre operators.

Taken together, renewables remain the fastest-growing source of electricity for data centres, with total generation increasing at an annual average rate of 22% between 2024 and 2030, meeting nearly 50% of the growth in data centre electricity demand. This growth is primarily driven by the rising deployment of wind and solar PV in power systems across the globe, with some of the new capacity financed through PPAs with technology companies. Some data centre operators also invest directly in co-located renewables.

[shtferbrains]

Not going to happen Chuck.
They can't spin this one.