http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=18280

AFS Trinity – XH-150 Plug-in Hybrid (E-REV) - May 2008

Thanks mds.

In Vancouver energy is cheaper than in California (because we sell it to them), but the implication of this is that California will no longer need to buy our power.

Another thing is that in summertime it is sunny up here and we have long days. In winter it's not, but we still have hydro and wind.

Billions of dollars continue to be invested by the private sector in scaling up PV production, in spite of the worst recession since the depression of the 1930s. GW+ production levels are being reached by some companies and are planned by more. aSi production has reached $1.50/WP cost in some cases, CdTe is close to $1.00/Wp (First Solar, above), and CIGS is already below $1.00/Wp (Nanosolar). All are competing to get their costs below $1.00/Wp. (This is where the competition for market dominance will begin next decade, i.e. in two years.) When production quantities catch up with demand the price of PV will drop closer to these levels ...and continue to drop. This is all very analogous to the cellphone revolution. It is going to happen just as fast and it will effect the USA sun-belt so completely that peak power rates will occur at night instead of during the day.

So... PV power will be available. Then there's wind, waves, tidal (google VIVACE, very elegant new design), geothermal, and nuclear. There is no real shortage of clean sources for electrical power for BEV and E-REVs.

Mark_BC,
Very welcome. I should have realized what BC was for. I'm in Seattle. Check this out:
http://www.physorg.com/news146415507.html “'Fish technology' draws renewable energy from slow water currents“ – November 2008
We could power all of Washington, BC, and Alaska with tidal power, but most systems I've seen are underwater turbines. Seems like they'd break when encountering mid-depth floating logs. They've seen damage to tidal turbines installed in NY. This design seems like it could withstand the logs. It looks to be even more environmentally benign than turbines. Power production even in slow current probably means storage would not be required given delays in our currents, particularly behind Vancouver Is. Think we'll see more of this one.
http://www.vortexhydroenergy.com/ Most elegant approach I’ve seen. This device works with low current speeds too. mds
http://cleantechnica.com/2008/11/24/fish-machine-turns-ocean-vibrations-into-energy/

OK, a final punch line:
Reagan killed subsidies to wind power and killed the USA lead in wind technology. Now leading manufactures for wind are overseas and we import something like 60% of our wind generation hardware. The USA has some leading PV technology, but there is strong competition from Germany, China, India, Japan, and others. We have some excellent BEV and E-REV technology, but there is even more competition here. Do the USA citizens out there think we should continue to subsidize the oily empire by fighting in Iraq to the tune of 200 billion per years. ...or should we invest a little more (government loans, shared cost industry development, purchasing subsidies) into PV, wind, and other Alternative Energies, into Battery, BEV, and E-REV production? Do we want to try to protect the old oily ways or do we want to be leaders and producers in these new areas? I have two kids and want my tax dollars spent to improve their future, not to protect the fortunes of the oil executives. (Government subisdized golden parachute, my alksdfja;)

10 years ago PV was not cost effective. Now Nanosolar can sell their PV profittably at less than <$1/Wp. When supply catches up with demand in Southern CA this will be the cheapest source of electricity there. That's a huge market and this is a new technology. The cost has plenty of room to continue down.
Nanosolar and others cannot make PV fast enough with large new tech profits attached, even with the recession.

10 years ago Toyota was selling the version 1 of the Prius at a loss. This year Toyota will begin selling version 3 of the Prius. They will will cut the differential cost compared to a similar ICE in half. Fuel savings / mpg will be significantly increased. Toyota cannot make enough version 2 Priuses. Think generation 3 will be profitable.

Same will happen with Li Ion batteries and E-REVs.

These are already the economically SUPERIOR alternatives in some cases and will be in others.

The past eight years of heavy investment in protecting the fossil fuel approach has given the USA nothing for the future and is bankrupting us as well.

"The past eight years of heavy investment in protecting the fossil fuel approach has given the USA nothing for the future and is bankrupting us as well."

It's amazing what was at stake over a couple hundred votes in Florida.

mds,

Thanks for the reference. I agree that grid parity in certain areas of southern California is nigh for flat metering and definitely here for time-of-use metering. Based on their combination of electricity rates and solar radiation, other states that are approaching grid parity are Florida, New Mexico and Nevada. Hawaii is probably already there.

State-wide average electricity rate information (for 2006) is available here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/table4.xls is not solar radiation

Solar radiation stats for US cities onto a horizontal surface are available here:
http://www.apricus.com/html/insolation_levels_usa.htm

Thank you. Interesting numbers.

Now that MDS is done making up stuff about the less than 1% of US generation that does not work, I will cover the other 99%.

Nuclear is making electricity at about $20/MWh. This accounts for about 19% of US electricity. Coal is making electricity at about $30/MWh under old fuel contracts but if you are buying coal today look at cost of about $50/MWh. This accounts for about 50%

Natural gas is making electricity at about $40/MWh under old fuel contracts but if you are buying natural gas today look at cost of about $100/MWh. This accounts for about 21%

Hydro and biomass costs vary by location but are lower than natural gas electricity generation. That covers the rest of the 99% of US generation.

The first power plants that reduce power as demand decreases and increase power as demand increases are natural gas electricity.

When you look at the affect BEV and renewable energy ‘other’ on the grid, adding BEV charging demand would increase generation by natural gas electricity at cost of about $100+/MWh. Adding renewable energy ‘other’ would reduce $100+/MWh demand.

Every MWh generated by renewable energy is an MWh not generated with natural gas.

So will these economic realities help BEV, wind and solar penetrate the market?

No the problem is BEV, wind and solar does not work very well. Turn your back on them for a minute and the acrid smell of smoke is the results.

I know my statement infuriate many. It will do no good to blame me or Reagan. Blame the wind and solar industries who took your money and provided junk. Bush has provided another opportunity for renewable energy ‘other’ to fail again. When all the wind and solar built in 2008 no longer works 2020, blame the wind and solar industries who took your money and provided junk.

We should keep building renewable energy ‘other’ as fast as we can but do not count on the generation 10 years from now until the new generation of equipment has demonstrated good performance.

Wind is less costly than new nuclear:
This report funded by the nuclear industry states that new nuclear power production costs are between: 8.3 and 11.1 cents/kWh
keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf
However this report assumed capital overnight costs of only $2950/kW and new nuclear power plants to be built in Florida already assumed capital costs of over $7000/kW. npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837

According to the Department of Energy the costs of wind power are between 3 and 6.4 cents per kWh. Average capital costs of Windturbines are $1480/kW (2006).
nrel.gov/docs/fy07osti/41435.pdf

Thinfilm photovoltaics is going to reach costs of below $1000/kW by 2010 according to Oerlikon Solar (big semiconductor equipment manufacturer).
guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-solar-almost-at-work-ersol.html

LOWER COST per Peak Watt (Wp):

“Sanyo says it can make the solar cell at a cost of roughly 150 yen (US$1.39) per watt -- half the cost of typical bulk crystalline solar cells.”

http://www.appliedmaterials.com/investors/assets/Solar_Launch.pdf Applied Materials (AMAT)
“In another presentation (currently not online) they predicted costs at $1.25/watt for a 25 MW fab, $1.00/watt at 600 MW and $0.71 per watt at 1 GW.”
“By 2010, crystalline silicon solar cells will sell for about $1.25 to $1.50 per watt, while thin-film solar cells will sell for 90 cents to $1.30 per watt.”

http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/2007/09/oerlikon-solar-almost-at-work-ersol.html - September 2008
“By adding a 1.5um microcrystalline silicon bottom cell below the amorphous silicon top cell, the micromorph tandem module delivers up to 10% module efficiency at costs of less than $0.70 per Watt-peak with 100+ MWp (MegaWatt-peak) scale Fabs all by 2010.”

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/12/nanosolar-ships.html “Nanosolar Ships First Panels“- Dec 07
“CIGS solar cells made using nanoparticle ink and roll-printing technology”
“already sold out for the next 12 months” “$0.99 per Watt”

http://www.firstsolar.com/index.php (First Solar – CdTe - 9% module efficiency)
“average module conversion efficiency remained flat compared to the previous period, at 10.7%.”
“First Solar also calculated its cost-per-watt produced at $1.08 for the third quarter, a 9% drop from the $1.18 reported in the second quarter.”

Spam filter would not let me put in all of my links for private investments over $1 Billion in PV production. I have 18 of them listed. 9 of these are investments in bulk silicon production or purchase agreements for bulk silicon. 3 mention 1 GW or better PV production. OK, I was stretching it by claiming some companies had already reached 1 GW per year production rates. However, several companies will easily reach this level of production in 2009 and 2010. Several others have clear plans to reach 1 GW production levels by 2012 and 2014.

But you're right Kit P, I made a mistake there. ...and clearly all of my claims were groundless as a result ...and those horseless carraiges will never catch on, they're far too unreliable.

"Future's so bright I gotta wear shades."

You'll see the light eventually.
Solar AND nuclear.

It would be nice if you could begin to understand: We don't need to invest in solar, wind, E-REVs, BEVs, and Batteries to get them to work. They already do, they continue to grow at a phenomenal rate, and continue to attract more investment dollars. This is a technological revolution that has already started and will continue. The reason we need to invest? We need to invest in these things if we want a piece of these businesses in the future. These are all going to be huge businesses. This is the largest technical revolution most of us have ever seen. Imagine, in one generation we will go from fossil fuels and ICEs to solar and BEVs.
Back to the point: Do you want to be a producer and exporter of this technology or do you want to consumer and importer? Decide and invest accordingly.

Kip,

Until well into the 2020's, there will be no need to invest in the power grid to allow overnight charging of EVs (BEVs and PHEVs)because there will not be enough of them. This is the conclusion of a 2007 study by Pacific Northwest National Labs: "PNNL's original study on this topic revealed that for the nation as a whole, about 70 percent of the energy needed to operate cars, pickup trucks, vans and SUVs could be supported using generating and transmission capacity that's already available,"

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=272

Now, daytime charging would exacerbate the peak load challenge for the power companies but could be mitigated by time-of-day metering.

The costs that you quote are for existing plants. Renewables should be compared to new nukes, gas and coal thermal plants and they are quite costly according to a June 2008 presentation, "Increasing Costs
in Electric Markets", by the Federal Energy regulatory Commission (FERC. Here are their estimated 2008 capital costs per kW from a diagram in the presentation (p. 11):
o Nuclear $4,500 to $7,500
o Conventional Coal $1,200 to $4,000
o IGCC Coal $2,500 to $6,000
o Combined Cycle $1,200 to $2,000
o Combustion Turbine $800 to $1,300
o Wind $1,700 to $3,300
o Geothermal $3,200 to $4,400
o Concentrated Solar $2,800 to $5,500

Cost estimates are also provided for 2003-2004. They are significantly lower than the 2008 figures. Solar PV is not listed.

http://www.ferc.gov/legal/staff-reports/06-19-08-cost-electric.pdf

Some of you get confused between actual cost and projections. Some of you are confused between capital cost and generating cost. And some of you love to debate the trivial.

My crystal ball is not perfect but then many in the electricity generating industry did not predict the present fuel costs. This is why the future costs of nuclear are of interest.

On the other had, some of you have completely broken crystal balls. I suspect it is because do not critically read and analysis the links you post. So far all predictions about wind and solar being a significant source of electricity have been wrong.

“Do you want to be a producer and exporter of this technology or do you want to consumer and importer? Decide and invest accordingly.”

Actually I do not want to be a producer or exporter because first they do not work and second they are not better for the environment mostly because they do not work. Why invest in technology that is not better than what already exists. I do not care what the capacity of the wind and solar industry is to build junk.

Since I have experience with 20+ year old ICE, I will stick with ICE until there is something more than false claim about BEVs. I will stick with the 99% of the electricity generation that I listed until we have a fleet of wind and solar plants that produce electricity as claimed.

In the category of ‘horseless carriages’ are the Stanly Steamer, wood gasifier fueled ICE, and BEV but they do not work very well; therefore, you are more likely to see the Amish in a horse propelled cart than a failed idea.

We should and are under George Bush investing in energy R&D while also promoting getting renewable energy with RPS and PTC. Yes to ‘Solar AND nuclear’ but do not count on either new plants fueling BEV by 2020.

The unfortunate reality is lots of ‘Combustion Turbine $800 to $1,300’ fueled with imported LNG.

Hope for the best, plan for the worst.

1. KitP said: "Some of you get confused between actual cost and projections."

http://www.pv-tech.org/news/_a/update_first_solar_signs_new_extended_pv_module_supply_deals

"First Solar also calculated its cost-per-watt produced at $1.08 for the third quarter"
Notice it says "calculated".

The other numbers for $1.00/Wp cost only more speculative, but not very. We can be pretty sure Nanosolar is already easily below $1.00/Wp based on other numbers they've released.

2. KitP said: "some of you have completely broken crystal balls"
Dude! Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones!

3. KitP said: "Actually I do not want to be a producer or exporter because first they do not work"
I already pointed out:
"Spam filter would not let me put in all of my links for private investments over $1 Billion in PV production. I have 18 of them listed."
Yes, KP these people are all misguided. The huge profits still being reported by some of these companies are all fraudulent. ...and you're the only one who really understands. ...sure.

4. KitP said: "Hope for the best, plan for the worst."
Yep, that's why I say: "We need to invest in these things if we want a piece of these businesses in the future. These are all going to be huge businesses. This is the largest technical revolution most of us have ever seen. Imagine, in one generation we will go from fossil fuels and ICEs to solar and BEVs."

Solar AND nuclear ...and wind, conservation(VU1), geothermal, waves, tidal(VIVACE), and even clean coal if they can do it. All these can be electricity sources for E-REVs and BEVs. We are converting now. Every car company is working on products to do this.

Every single source of electricity I listed above can and will be cheaper than the $0.20/kWh in Southern California (close to it). Does anybody seriously think LiIon batteries, just to name the most popular right now, will not get cheaper as large production volumes are reached. The ICE is cheaper now because there is over 100 years of developed infrastructure in place. E-REVs and BEVs will clearly be cheaper than ICE vehicles in the future. They are mechanically simpler, have more solid state technology (i.e. fewer moving parts), and are easier/cheaper to maintain.

The only chicken and egg problem we need to think about is getting to a higher production level so costs come down enough to move this along faster. In other words, we need to invest in new production infrastructure. Really, the die is already cast. The Prius will forever be famous for doing this, even as it is replaced by superior E-REVs and BEVs. This is the future. (KitP, This much change must be frightening to you. Better hang onto your 15% efficient ICE for another 20 years. Then you can sell it as a museum piece.)

...and jatropha, algae, cellulosic biodeisel to be used for industrial processes and fertilizer.

Did I leave anything out? Peace and prosperity for all? Well we could hope for and work for this!