From the Ventura County Star:
ROACH DRY LAKE, Nev. — Not a light bulb’s worth of solar electricity has been produced on the millions of acres of public desert set aside for it. Not one project to build glimmering solar farms has even broken ground.
Instead, five years after federal land managers opened up stretches of the Southwest to developers, vast tracts still sit idle.
An Associated Press examination of U.S. Bureau of Land Management records and interviews with agency officials show that the BLM operated a first-come, first-served leasing system that quickly overwhelmed its small staff and enabled companies, regardless of solar industry experience, to squat on land without any real plans to develop it.
As the nation drills ever deeper for oil off its shores and tries to diversify its energy supply, the federal government has failed to use the land it already has — some of the world’s best for solar — to produce renewable electricity.
The Obama administration says it is expediting the most promising projects, with some approvals expected as soon as this month. And yet, it will be years before the companies begin sending electricity to the Southwest’s sprawling, energy-hungry cities.
Read more: http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/sep/01/land-leased-for-solar-power-unused/#ixzz0yMLDZjM2
– vcstar.com
You’ve been presented with numerous facts about the unreliability and unsuitability of solar as a primary source of electrical power, all of which you’ve chosen to ignore in favor of labeling any argument against solar as resting on “disdain”. You seem to disdain physics and economics in favor of hand-waving.
Don Shaw asks ” can anyone explain why Obama is subsidizing Brazil oil drilling offshore in deep water with low interest loans while attacking US drilling?is ties with Obama”
Don here is an interesting read from the American Thinker on George Soros and his ties to Obama. Read how Obama helps him with Brazil. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/covering_up_for_george_soros.html
One thing that’s hardly ever mentioned when discussing solar power:
All output numbers (in W or kW) for solar cells and panels are always standardized assuming a solar insolation of 1000W/m^2.
Now, on the earth surface you’ll get a insolation of ~1000W/m^2 only when the sun is directly overhead on a very clear day. Basically in the tropics in most places that’s one day per year and twice per year at the equator.
Outside of that you will never get the claimed Wattage because the atmosphere absorbs a larger amount of the solar insolation due to a longer path at non-tropical latitudes.
When figuring cost/Watt for solar panels for comparison to other sources, this peak number is used and skews the comparison vastly toward the solar panels.
A more realistic comparison would be to compare the yearly kWh produced per money spent.
‘Randy says:
September 2, 2010 at 3:48 am
Hey Rhys
“Hey, guys, you gotta start somewhere.”
But this is not a start. In fact there have been billions spent on solar projects around the world. If you want to check out the underwhelming results of solar and windpower look no further than Spain where you will find it rife with rorting of the subsidies and major failings to produce anything like reliable level of power. It just can’t seriously meet the challenge of base load power.
Here in Australia where we also have no shortage of sun we are struggling to get big solar projects off the ground. Why? Because they are not financially viable and the capital risk is too high. Having said that our socialist govt are trying to improve that situation by increasing taxes on non-renewable power bills. Up by 63% in this last year and expected to double again this year. They will make it competitive by manipulating the existing market. What they ignore is that price is still just one part of the problem. Reliability is the other.’
So, as I said, one thing you could say is: ‘we need XXX iterations of Moore’s law before we’re ready to go.’
Seems to me that this is what you’re saying.
Well done for saying so. Start saying it loud and clear. To all those who will listen!
I was involved for a short time in one of these projects. Specifically the one referenced in the following article.
http://greenenergyreporter.com/renewables/solar/brightsource-energy-vs-the-desert-tortoise/
There was a settlement around this that included relocating said tortoises. But the cost was insane. Further they had an interesting defect that made working around them difficult to say the least. In our group they were dubbed the “tinkling tortoises”. Apparently if you scare them, they relieve themselves out of fear which can leave them dehydrated, possibly killing them. Therefore as part of the settlement, any time someone found one of these tortoises, all work would have to cease. Then at night, people would come back to relocate them.
I only wish I was making this up…
Also it is interesting to note and remember that Obama”s buddy, Soros, was convicted in France of illegal financial transactions.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics.bush/2006-06/msg02133.html
EIA’s 2008 study on federal energy subsidies
Analysis of wind power
Analysis of solar photovoltaic power
With a $4/watt subsidy and a good buddy with an electrician’s license, you could actually come out ahead at the time of installation.
Tarpon, yes there is plenty of coal to provide fuel and feedstocks for plastics; although oil is really best suited for these, already being liquid.
Another interesting technique, for underground coal, is to not even dig it up, just gasify or liquify it in situ, underground.
http://www.miningweekly.com/topic/thornton-new-energy-limited
paulw says: “Currently, a 200 Watt solar panel costs about $500-600 and lasts for 30 years. It does not require much maintenance apart from the occasional cleaning with Windex :-).”
Yes, a brand-new 200-watt solar panel is $551.64. It has a 25 year (limited) warranty, but I’ll give you the 30 year life.
Let us say we are going to power 2 100-watt light bulbs (incandescent) for those 30 years. We will ignore the infrastructure of installing the solar panel, and assume that it just plugs directly into a power line to the two light bulbs.
We do have to modify your premise just a bit, because that 200 watt solar panel only operates at 18.7 volts. We’ll pretend it is 20 volts to make the arithmetic easier. We now need six panels to operate two 100-watt light bulbs, running at 120 volts.
The price has now risen to $3309.84 for these six panels, used to operate two light bulbs. Prorated, that will cost $110.328 every year.
Electricity in my state is currently at about 7.66 cents per kilowatt-hour. That means that by using the grid, I will pay $134.203 to run those two light bulbs every year. That shows quite a savings when using those solar panels, then.
Except that I haven’t taken into account the small fact that the solar panels will not be working at night. Which is probably when I would be using the light bulbs. And you did not include anything in your cost estimate for batteries, converters, etc. The devil does tend to be in the details, eh?
Another issue that hasn’t been discussed in terms of commercial electricity production is energy density. This is the fundamental drawback with all wind and solar concepts. Wind and solar are diffuse, intermittent, low density energy sources. Efficient, cost-effective commercial electricity production requires a high density energy source.
I compared the (allegedly) world’s largest wind farm, the Roscoe wind farm in Texas, to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear station in Michigan. Cook took 8 years to build, it cost $1.3B and came on-line in 1975. It has a rated capacity of 2.110 MW and theoretically can run at full capacity 24/7 for years. It supplies enough energy “to power a city of 1.25 million”. It sits on a site of 650 acres. The Roscoe wind farm is in very windy west Texas (believe me…I lived in west Texas for over 10 years). It consists of 627 turbines spread out over 100,000 acres. It cost about $1B to build and has a rated capacity of about 760 MW (or “enough to power about 250,000 average Texas homes”). Rated capacity is an almost meaningless number for wind turbines as wind farms typically operate at about 30% efficiency. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Roscoe produces 1/5 the energy that Cook does (i.e. 250,000 homes vs. a city of 1.25 million) and assume Cook runs at 90% of rated output. In subsidy alone the nuke plant rakes in about $26M/yr (or about $24 per home powered) and the wind farm yields about $87M/yr based on $1.60 per MwH for nuclear and $23.50 for wind. That’s about $340 per home powered. Paid by all taxpayers. Neither produce CO2. One produces nuclear waste that can be reprocessed the other chops birds and bats to bits and has to be replaced every 10 years or so (along with regular oil changes). In subsidy alone wind power is 15 times more costly than nuclear (and neither should be subsidized). When you look at ROI nuclear is the clear winner. Cook has been churning out over 1,000 MW per hour, 24/7 for 35 years.
Solar power makes wind look like a bargain. The wind still blows at night (sometimes) but lack of direct sunlight is a deal breaker for solar technology. I am very fond of nuclear energy and I believe it is the path to the future (particularly thorium and fast reactor designs). Unfortunately, after 3 mile Island the US turned its back on nuclear and let the world pass us by. Even with the best designs we have today coal remains the most efficient means of generating electricity. NG is not far behind. But, because of energy density, nuclear holds great promise. Wind and solar will forever remain distant “also rans” because they are inherently too inefficient to meet the demand.
CO2 is not the problem. In fact, man-made CO2 is all but irrelevant. What is relevant is the availability of abundant, affordable energy. Nearly 1/3 of the planet’s population has no access to electricity, running water or sanitary waste disposal…and we’re so worried about CO2 that we’re wasting money on inefficient windmills and solar panels. We need to use what we know works right now.
There is no earthly reason to build the world’s most expensive and unreliable electrical power sources that cannot measurably clean the air, cannot reduce carbon dioxide emissions, cannot shut down one fossil fuel plant, cannot add capacity without adding the equivalent fossil fuel capacity and cannot save one drop of oil. Raising the cost of power kills jobs, so any suggestion that we will add “green jobs” is ludicrous as wind and solar kill jobs.
In addition both take enormous amounts of acreage and in the case of wind macerate hundreds of thousands of eagles, hawks, bats and other birds each year many endangered or protected. If there is some logical reason we should continue to build these projects I would like to know exactly what it is. As far as I can see it is a way to buy votes and pork for politicians at our expense.
As things go by, think we’ll have to power the Sun instead, using fossil fuels.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/PF.gif
Rhys Jaggar says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:44 am
So, as I said, one thing you could say is: ‘we need XXX iterations of Moore’s law before we’re ready to go.’
Seems to me that this is what you’re saying.
That is a fallacy that is often employed when discussing solar power. Moore’s law does NOT apply. The only thing solar cells have in common with computer chips (where Moore’s law applies) is that they are made of the same material.
There is only so much solar energy available per m^2. Even if the efficiency could improve (very very doubtful) from 25% to 100% they will only produce 4 times as much energy as good ones do now. If the price is currently 10s of times higher per energy unit produced, this will still not make the viable or competitive.
And the cost per cm^2 of silicone material has risen since the 1980s. Moore’s
law only states that the number of transistors per cm^2 of silicone grows exponentially, and therefore the price per transistor falls exponentially.
But solar panels need cm^s, not transistors, and the material and energy costs to produce them rises.
My first year university ( BsC Eng ) projects was to do with solar power in 1975.
We came up with a parabolic mirror that had a water pipe running down the focus over a two meter length. It was supposed to make steam to run a small turbine.
It never made steam, just hot/warm water.
When it got dusty, as often happens here , it just made warm water.
When it got cloudy , as it does about 25% of the year/time it made nothing much at all.
We were smart and motivated but we didn’t get too far and we spent our research budget even though we were free.
Solar is a niche solution to exotic problems. As my friend just pointed out, you can spend all day in the sun and not get cooked, particularly if you put a very thin layer of sunscreen on. ( even clothes ).
More on subsidies, below is link to DOE numbers:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
Fuel………………….subsidy per MWH
….
Coal…………………..0.44
refined coal……….29.81
Nat gases……………0.25
Nuclear………………1.59
Biomass……………..0.89
Geothermal………..0.92
Hydroelectric……..0.67
Solar………………….24.34
Wind………………….23.37
Landfill gas………..1.37
Municipal waste…0.13
(renewable)………..1.65
Then there is the “green jobs”argument. Spain already tried and failed. For every job “created” (it is artificial), two jobs are lost.
Janice says:
“..Except that I haven’t taken into account the small fact that the solar panels will not be working at night. Which is probably when I would be using the light bulbs.”
Instead of trying to power lights at night, use it to drop your air-conditioning load during the when the sun IS shining and heating up your house.
read http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/17/survey-says-many-are-still-clueless-on-how-to-save-energy/
Hammer and Nail – all electrons are not created equally.
Two quick points..
computers, aircraft, automobiles and mobile phones – these were all massive advances in applicable technology. Cutting travel times from weeks to hours, providing reliable communications from virtually any place in the country, and of course in the case of computing, advancing everything from comminications, R&D in industry, medicine, EVERYTHING, farther in 50 years than the previous 5000 years. The machines driving human history there is the the basic, accumulated knowledge, then the printing press, the internal combustion engine and computers. “Green” energy advances nothing, electricity is electricity regardless of what produces it. “Green” is only viable if it is cheaper then fossil fules, and it isn’t even close.
Two. Just needing some “water and windex” to clean solar panels doesn’t sound bad at all until you consider any truly useful solar array at a city powering level will need to be thousands of square meters and located in remote, arid areas where water will be exteremely expensive to pipe in.
A little off on your time frame; in 1994 MetroCel Cellular (the cellular co I was working for at the time) had in full operation their digital IS-54 (and at the time soon to be an IS-136 compliant) standard digital system and Ericsson had introduced by that time their ‘candy bar’ sized phone that set the precedent for the trend that we see carried on today (small phones) … personally, I liked the Motoroala Flip phone of that era:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_MicroTAC
Note the MicroTac series was introduced in 1989; initially they were not cheap, but they weren’t ‘unwieldy’…
.
@paulw
Yes, let’s cut the subsidies. How about we also cut the taxes on both fossil fuels and renewable fuels. How long do you think the government can live without taxing fossil fuels?
Look at it this way… the “subsidies” on fossil fuels, should they exist, are simply a small tax break.
To the people who say ‘you have to start somewhere’, you are right in a narrow sense, but may be very wrong in a broader context. The reason is simple: many advocates of solar power are fully willing to obscure the full economic truth about these projects. If someone wants to justify one on an exploratory basis with full disclosure of the costs, that is fine with me. However, we have full scale lying going on about “sustainable” energy. In fact, these projects cannot be economically sustainable. And therein lies the rub: we produce power to gain economic advantage, not to consume what wealth we have.
The median household income in 2008 was $52,026. For every $1 million we dissipate in an unsustainable alternative power project, we destroy the income of about 20 entire households. While solar power looks great, it will be a long time before it can be justified. We cannot afford the luxury of borrowing billions for these projects when we could have nuclear power instead, a power source that works day and night, and does not rely on the wind or clear skies.
The policy chaos that results from entertaining the unachievable dreams of environmentalists is costing us far more than we can afford. There are no more jelly beans in the jar. What about WE CANNOT AFFORD THIS FOOLISHNESS ANYMORE is hard to understand?
Don Shaw,
Thanks for the numbers. These are more complete and accurate than the numbers I’ve been using (but my numbers weren’t off by much). Does it even strike anyone as curious that we should even have an official body called the Energy Information Administration?
A better question might be why do we subsidize any electricity production and when did this start? I honestly don’t know but I’m guessing that the subsidies are a holdover from the old days of the REA (Rural Electrification Administration). In the mid 30s most of rural America had no electrical service. There was no free market incentive to wire the boonies. So…of course Big Government stepped in to do the job. Big Government could make all citizens pay to provide electric service to a few widely dispersed citizens whose purchase of said service would never offset the cost of providing it. So they wired ’em up. But now they had to generate all this electricity. So the government provided subsidies to do so.
Today about 99% of the country is served by electric providers. So why do we still have subsidies? We should have NO subsidies…NONE. This is artificial market manipulation. If you make and sell a product everybody needs and everybody will buy what is the possible rationale for subsidizing it with taxpayer dollars? Most folks would be better off paying slightly more for the services they use than being taxed to pay for the services others use. I’m sure a few benefit, but most simply pay an inflated price for the same product. Government subsidy is inherently inefficient. You have to pay scores of bureaucrats a salary in order to redistribute the wealth.
Power subsidies should end. We need to get government out of the energy business.
Subsidizing wind and solar with rebates, tax credits, mandatory purchase by utilities at far above available market rates and calling it an energy policy is ludicrous.
Producing the world’s most expensive and least reliable electrical sources that require 100%, side by side back-up power idling 24 hours a day is foolhardy.
Politicians are not the brightest bulbs, but those that push for this are either the biggest fools on earth or think we are.
Suggesting they can create jobs, get us off foreign oil, shut down fossil fuel plants, clean the air or provide commercial power is insane
Solar power is NOT renewable. It is unsustainable. I has an EROIE of 0.48.
Think about the first nuclear reactor to produce electricity. The research started in the early 20th century. The first test reactor produced 100KW in 1951. In 1954, the USSR plugged the first nuclear reactor to the national grid (5MW). At the end of 1960 there was less than 1GW globally.
We could say the same thing in 1950. We get all our electricity from coal, why do we need to invest taxpayer money for the unproven, inefficient and dangerous nuclear energy?
What we need to understand is that it is important to diversify our sources of electricity. Solar energy is very promising, safe, requires minimal maintenance. We need to make it better and cheaper.
If we are to slag off solar energy just because we want to prove the world that CO2 is not bad, then we would deserve what is coming to us.