Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
The “Annual Energy Outlook” for 2011 is just out from the US Energy Information Administration. The section called “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources” looks at what are called the “levelized” costs of electric power from a variety of sources. Their study includes “renewable” sources like solar, although I’ve never found out exactly how they plan to renew the sun once it runs out. The EIA data in Figure 1 shows why solar will not be economically viable any time soon.
Figure 1. Levelized costs of the different ways of generating power, from the EIA. Blue bars show the capital costs for the system, while red bars are fuel, operations, and maintenance costs. Estimates are for power plants which would come on line in five years. Operation costs include fuel costs as appropriate. Background: HR diagram of stars in the star cluster M55
“Levelized cost” is a way to compare different electrical generation technologies. It is calculated by converting all of the capita costs and ongoing expenses for the project into current dollars, and dividing that by the amount of energy produced over the lifetime of the plant. For the mathematically inclined there’s a discussion of the various inputs and calculations here. Levelized cost is the all-up cost per kilowatt-hour of generated power. The levelized costs in Fig. 1 include transmission costs but not the costs of backup for intermittent sources.
So why is this chart such bad news for solar electricity? It’s bad news because it shows that solar won’t become cheap enough to be competitive in the open market any time in the near future. Here’s why.
Now, please don’t get me wrong about solar. I lived off the grid for three years on a houseboat with solar power in Fiji, collecting sunshine and drinking rainwater. I am a solar enthusiast and advocate, there are lots of places where it is the best option.
But not on the grid. It’s too expensive.
Yes, it’s true that the sunshine fuel is free. And the operations and maintenance is cheap, 2 cents a kilowatt-hour. And as backers are always claiming, it’s the only technology where the capital cost is falling rather than rising, as the price of solar cells drops.
But here’s the problem. Solar cell prices have already fallen so far that only about thirty percent or so of the cost of an industrial-sized solar power plant is solar cells. The rest is inverters, and wiring, and racks to hold the cells, and the control room and controls, and power conditioners, and clearing huge areas of land, and giant circuit breakers, and roads to access the cells, and the site office, and half a cent for the transmission lines from the remote locations, and labor to transport and install and wire up and connect and test all of the above, and …
That means that out of the twenty cents of capital costs for solar, only about six cents is panel costs. Let us suppose that at some future date solar panels become, as they say, “cheap as chips”. Suppose instead of six cents per kWh of produced power, they drop all the way down to the ridiculous price of one US penny, one cent per kilowatt-hour. Very unlikely in the next few decades, but let’s take best case. That would save five cents per kWh.
The problem is that instead of 22¢ per kWh, the whole solar electric system at that point would have a levelized cost of 17¢ per kWh … and that is still two and a half times the price of the least expensive option, an advanced combination cycle gas turbine.
Finally, this doesn’t include the fact that when you add an intermittent source like solar to an electrical grid, you have to add conventional power for backup as well. This is so you will be sure to still have power during the time when the sun doesn’t shine. Even if you never use it, the backup power will increase the cost of the solar installation by at least the capital cost of the gas plant, which is about two cents per kWh. That brings the levelized cost of solar, IF panels dropped to a levelized cost of only one penny per kWh, and IF the backup generation were never used, to 19¢ per kWh … and that’s way more than anything but offshore wind and solar thermal.
However, it gets worse from there. The cost of fuel for the gas advanced cycle power plant is only about 4 cents per kWh. So even if gas prices triple (which is extremely unlikely given the advent of fracking), the gas plant cost will still only be about 14¢ per kWh, which is still well below even the most wildly optimistic solar costs.
And that means that the dream of economically powering the grid with solar in the near future is just that—an unattainable dream. The idea that we are just helping solar get on its feet is not true. The claim that in the future solar electricity will be economical without subsidies is a chimera.
w.
PS—On a totally separate issue, I suspect that the maintenance costs for wind power are underestimated in the report, that in fact they are higher than the EIA folks assume. For example, both wind and water are free, and the EIA claims that wind and hydro have the same operation and maintenance cost of about one cent per kWh.
But with hydro (or almost any other conventional technology) you only need to maintain one really big generator on the ground.
With wind, on the other hand, to get the same amount of power you need to maintain dozens and dozens of still plenty big separate generators, which are stuck way up at the top of really tall separate towers … and also have huge, hundred-foot (30 m) propeller blades whipping around in the sky. You can imagine the trek you’ll have when you forget to bring the size #2 Torx head screwdriver …
Do you really think those two systems, both feeding the same amount of power into the grid, would cost the same to maintain? Check out the windfarms and count how many of the fans are not turning at any given time …
TRM says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:46 am
“As usual some very interesting reading at WUWT. This article and the comments are good food for thought. Natural gas FTW as expected by anyone who’s followed the industry and knows the massive amounts now available to us. When even nuclear and coal are more expensive you know the game is up for the rest.”
Electrical generation is not a great concern for the United States. Transportation fuel is the problem. We could end the recession in the U.S. by easing the price burdens on energy production which is exactly what Rick Perry intended to work towards if elected president.
“I was surprised by the entry for wind at 10 cents.”
You would be if you believed most of the authors on this website who have a knee-jerk ideological opposition to anything and everything that is favored by the evil environmentalists. Like most things in life moderation is the key. Wind energy is no panacea but carefully managed in suitable locations it can comprise perhaps 10% of electrical generation at competitive prices.
“That is close to competitive but first we need to solve a few problems like storage of massive amounts of DC electricity cheaply.”
Either that or get better at predicting demand and production. That’s essentially saying we need better weather predictions. Better wind predictions so we know how much wind power is available at any given time and better temperature predictions so we know how much heating/cooling demand there will be. Given adequate information you can schedule adequate spinning reserves in a cost effective manner.
“Without that no intermittent source is practical on a large scale.”
Certainly not as a sole source but I’d have to say with over 10 gigawatts of nameplate capacity wind energy is already large scale in Texas and still growing.
” If you can get rid of the requirement for base load energy as backup you can make a much better case for wind/solar etc.”
A better case, yes.
“If you can’t? Well you are sunk.”
No you aren’t “sunk”. You have more constraints.
“It is very similar to your house. Solar and for that matter wind, micro hydro etc really only make sense when you go off grid completely.”
I found the complete opposite. Batteries are over half of the total cost of an independent system! Solar PV would be cost-effective for me (owner-install) at half the current price of grid-tie electronics and solar panels. It becomes far more difficult if I’ve got to maintain a huge battery bank to supply juice during nights and cloudy days. Prohibitively so. With a grid tie I can, on most days, do all my heating and cooling while the sun is shining and any nightime or cloudy day usage I can draw from the grid. Simply heat or cool thermal mass during the day and use that to keep the temperature constant during the night.
I already leverage thermal mass to a large extent using earth-berm but I have an advantage in that the year-round temperature a meter or more underground in my location is 72F which is perfect. I excavated a chunk or north facing hillside with only one long wall and the roof not backed by earth. Very little energy is needed for heating or cooling. The inside temperature absent any heating or cooling changes very little from one day to the next and the closer the average daily temperature is to year-round temperature the less change there is inside.
“The reason for that is all the other charges on your bill. In my case a full 2/3rds of my gas, water & electric is not consumption based.”
I have a water well, septic system, and propane tank at my primary residence so there are no non-consumption charges in those. Non-consumption electric charge is only 20% of my bill on average not 66% as in your case. You either use very little electricity or your electric company is taking you to the cleaners for service availability charge. Mine’s bad but it’s still only $22/mo.
“To pay back solar would take forever unless I would disconnect and save that 66% of my bill. That costs a lot more up front because now you are looking at serious amounts of storage for electricity.”
If I could generate electricity at half the cost of current photovoltaic cost/efficiency and I could sell it at retail price I could make a living at it. Unfortunately my electric company sells to me at retail price and buys back from me at wholesale price if I generate more than I consume. Given that every kWh I don’t purchase from the grid I save full retail price then with modest cost/improvement in PV panels it would be worthwhile to at least produce as much as I consume.
“So when they build roof tiles with solar built in that will be a major advantage because you are going to get the roof tiles installed anyway.”
Solid state electronics have a history of rapid price declines. PV seems to be a bit of an exception and grid-tie electronics are ridiculous in price. Economy of scale can probably drop current prices in half.
“Think about heating and cooling for a minute. Rather than something high tech and complex how about something simple? Bury 1000 feet of 6″ tubing ten feet underground and use that to heat and cool your house (and greenhouse). Insulate well and have a wood stove for the occasional cold spell.”
That’s essentially what I do but it only works in locations where average year-round temperature is in the same ballpark as room temperature (72F). Where I grew up it’s 52F which makes it much less effective.
David L. Hagen says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I’m sure Willis has “moved beyond” this which essentially means he’s convinced he’s right and contrary evidence is therefore not worth his time to consider. Willis practices dogma not science.
That said, even if solar can be competitive with natural gas, that doesn’t really solve any problems unless one considers CO2 from fossil fuel combustion to be a problem. A far as I can determine CO2 is a benefit not a problem. We need CHEAPER sources of energy to make progress. A same-price replacement is worth nothing AFAIC.
You can run by a design for a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and know it won’t be half the price of a Gen III Pressurised Water Reactor(PWR), which are the ones being planned for and built at the moment – that takes it to, say, 5cents. Also the thorium fuel costs, operation and maintenace will be half that of PWRs – 2 cents. All in all LFTRs will be as cheap or cheaper than CCGTs (and they can load follow as well). See the heading to this blog to get an instant perspective on the environmental effects of obtaining our energy from: Coal – Uranium – Thorium: http://lftrsuk.blogspot.com/
Yes; God forbid you should look to ‘dropouts’ like Wozniac, Jobs, Gates, Dell or a Henry Ford to find reasonable market-workable solutions (read that as: economically viable and producible).
ALWAYS look to your ivory-towered, pointy-headed academics to ‘solve’ your problems (ISN’T that what got us into this mass in the first place?)
/Not even sarc
.
RE: Dave Springer: (December 4, 2011 at 1:43 pm)
“We need CHEAPER sources of energy to make progress. A same-price replacement is worth nothing AFAIC.”
On the assumption that economically recoverable geo-carbon energy is being exhausted, a same-price replacement is better than a high-cost replacement.
Bravo, Willis! You’ve captured the essence of why solar is a hopeless cause. The bottom line is a pathetic energy density that precludes the technology’s ever achieving “economy of scale”. There is simply too much physical material required to produce too little power at a horrible capacity factor. Wind power is afflicted, to a less extreme degree, with the same problem.
I’ve only a three of things to add. First, I think the levelized figures for solar are, in reality, considerably higher than those shown in the chart. Second, the levelized costs of CCGT (natural gas turbines) are dominated by projected escalation of future natural gas prices. I’m betting those prices will be less that projected in the U.S. because we are bursting at the seems with newly proven natural gas reserves. At today’s natural gas price, CCGT pencils out at under 4-cents. Third, wind industry experience in the U.S. indicates that O&M costs are much higher than those shown in the chart. So many moving parts for so little power is eating their lunch in maintenance expenses.
Willis writes “Didn’t I just go through and show that “distributed small scale solar” is about three times the price of grid power? Didn’t I just show solar is very unlikely to ever be less than about 12¢ per kWh no matter how cheap the panels get?”
Yes, Willis, you did say those things. Based on an analysis in today’s environment. But IMO you’re showing a surprising lack of vision on this matter. Nothing comes close to fossil fuels for energy density (except nuclear and location specific hydro and geothermal perhaps) so what are you saying we should do? Stick with fossil fuels because they’re the most economical?
Here is a recent video of a talk given by Dr. David LeBlanc on the design of thorium-based nuclear reactors with low potential energy cost. As far as I know, thorium-nuclear is the only energy resource that can meet our current needs indefinitely.
David LeBlanc – Potential of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors @ur momisugly TEAC3
“Dr. David LeBlanc explores the diversity of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactor design options, and their rational and value.
“Presented at the 3rd Thorium Energy Alliance Conference, in Washington DC.”
Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Nov 27, 2011
12 likes, 0 dislikes; 222 views; 20:13 min
As a point of balance, here is a reference to a web article that is critical of the Molten Salt Reactor concept. The writer characterizes the supporters of ‘Energy from Thorium’ as a ‘Cargo Cult.’ I would hope that the problems raised by this writer prove to be false, illusory, or soluble.
daryanenergyblog
A critical analysis of current and proposed future nuclear reactors designs
Part 8 – The Molten Salt Reactor concept
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/
Dave Springer says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:43 pm
What is it with you and nasty, unprincipled, untrue allegations, Dave? Less than 24 hours from David Hagen’s post to yours where you accuse me of “moving on” … you are a jerkwad, do you realize that? Why are you always so unpleasant? Do you think acting like that gets folks on your side, that it leads them to want to listen to you?
I did not answer David’s post because I didn’t see the relevance of it to the subject under discussion. I mean, it’s great that the DoE wants to fund R&D into the costs to cut them by a factor of three. Get back to me when it’s halfway there and we can talk about it again. Until then it’s just another government pipe dream, and I’ve seen dozens of them come and go. So why should I spend time discussing this latest one?
And what difference does it make to you? Have you appointed yourself the arbiter of what is worth answering? There’s 233 comments on this post. I pick which ones I answer. You don’t like my choice?
Fine. Free country.
You want to bitch and piss and moan about my choice, and accuse me of assorted eco-crimes up to and including mopery on the skyways?
Typical. Get a life.
w.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Yes, of course we should stick to fossil, until we find something more economical. Are you saying we should switch to other fuels because the other fuels are uneconomical?
w.
Willis writes “Yes, of course we should stick to fossil, until we find something more economical. Are you saying we should switch to other fuels because the other fuels are uneconomical?”
No, I’m saying we should switch to other fuels *despite* them being uneconomical by today’s standards and *because* peak oil is a certainty. One way or another we’re going to be transitioning away from oil and I’d prefer the significant related expenses and efforts were directed towards renewables rather than increasingly ramping up our mining and processing of coal.
Re:TimTheToolMan says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:01 pm
“No, I’m saying we should switch to other fuels *despite* them being uneconomical by today’s standards and *because* peak oil is a certainty. One way or another we’re going to be transitioning away from oil and I’d prefer the significant related expenses and efforts were directed towards renewables rather than increasingly ramping up our mining and processing of coal.”
If you simply let market economics decide when a better alternative to fossil fuels is “ripe”, you avoid all that unnecessary pain in your wallet at tax time and unnecessary pain in your butt that premature adoption of the bicycle commute will engender. I’m in favor of a “first adopter” mentality, so long as I’m not forced into paying the freight for your farsightedness.
Claude writes “If you simply let market economics decide when a better alternative to fossil fuels is “ripe”,”
Market forces will be driving it all along the way, but market forces alone mean the path of least resistance and that isn’t necessarily the best for long term goals. There is certainly a role for subsidy and regulation to get things done that are in the best interests of everyone and not just those doing the driving.
Take fishing as an example, if it weren’t for regulation and society self imposed responsibility, we’d probably have essentially fished out the oceans by now.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 4, 2011 at 11:01 pm
We have made every previous energy transition without government intervention or direction. We are currently transitioning away from coal and towards natural gas without direction.
Now, you want to direct us to renewables for the grid. You’ll excuse me if I don’t want to pay for your good ideas. Truly not interested in shelling out for some green ideal. Don’t mistake me, I’m a man who loves renewables. I wrote the Peace Corps manual on windmill construction. I’ve lived off the grid on solar. Renewables rock … just not for the grid.
Energy is development. Taxing it or making it more expensive hurts the economy, and in particular it hurts the poor. A rich man doesn’t care how much he has to pay for electricity or to fill his gas tank. Price hikes on electricity, the kind you are blithely proposing in the name of some holy goal, hurt the poor. You may not care about hurting the economy and or about hurting the poor.
I do.
w.
Willis writes “We are currently transitioning away from coal and towards natural gas without direction.”
And thats a good move as far as I’m concerned, but not a sustainable one. So all the effort and costs we pay for transitioning towards natural gas will ultimately need to be made again when we transition away from it. And meanwhile, looking at your picture, the price is mostly related to the gas itself and thats only going to increase.
I like PV solar because the more of it that is out there, the lower the overall running cost. The cost is born up front and whilst you may not immediately see the benefit of that, I certainly can. Society as a whole doesn’t share my point of view because we’re living very much in a “I want it now” society.
TimTheToolMan says:
December 5, 2011 at 1:10 am
Thanks for the reply, Tim.
Your solution to possible future transition costs is to triple the price of electricity and maintain that indefinitely?
Yes, but at present the supply is increasing. It will be around for decades. Certainly some time in the future we’ll have to replace aging gas plants with something. By that time it may be an energy source undreamed of at present.
But tripling current energy prices to solve that possible future transition cost? Sorry, that’s spending a dollar to save a dime.
You have no evidence that the savings will be significant. Solar is not some new technology with huge savings to be realized. Much of the low-hanging fruit was plucked a while ago. There will be incremental savings, but not huge savings. And you need huge savings to bring it into line with other power sources.
No, the cost is not “borne up front”. It is generally taken as a long term loan, and paid back by increased electricity rates over the long term. It is a continuous and unnecessary burden.
You have not replied to the issue that any tax or increase of energy prices is a hugely regressive tax hitting the poor the hardest …
Thanks,
w.
Re:TimTheToolMan: (December 4, 2011 at 11:01 pm)
“One way or another we’re going to be transitioning away from oil and I’d prefer the significant related expenses and efforts were directed towards renewables rather than increasingly ramping up our mining and processing of coal.”
I will agree that we should be looking to find a replacement energy resource as the limited stores of economically recoverable geo-carbon energy are depleted. But traditional ‘renewable’ energy resources, those ultimately based on energy from the sun or geothermal energy, I think must be ruled out as they never have been able to support more than a small fraction of our energy needs. One might ask; how large would a solar energy farm have to be if it were to supply the total energy now used in the state of California? How many people would be required to keep the cells clean and functional? What would we do at night or in cloudy weather? How much expensive copper would be required to link all those cells together?
I suspect that all we can look forward to is a reversion of population and lifestyle back to the 1880’s, if we are going to be limited to energy from the sun as our primary energy resource. In that case, government officials who see this coming might be forced to put in place various unpleasant policies to facilitate an orderly population reduction.
The only energy resource that I see on the horizon that has any real likelihood of replacing ‘Carbon Power’ at our current rate of use is energy from thorium.
”Renewables alone, are not going to power this economy,” Mitt Romney.
ferd berple says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:52 am
“However, this won’t happen, because only the rich can afford the $50,000 investment, which means the poor in Ontario are paying the rich to install solar power.”
As it is allways, with subsidies. A few gets a lot from the many.
A funny everyday story from Norway:
A few years back a new independent company started producing milk much cheaper than the govmint milk. The govmint forced them to put on a tax on it, so the price became equal to the govmint milk. Oh yes.
Willis writes “Your solution to possible future transition costs is to triple the price of electricity and maintain that indefinitely?”
No, because I dont believe the cost is actually that high in the longer term. These studies are always based around what is known today and one can only imagine what might happen in the future as a result. But inevitably they dont form part of any projection as those changes tend to be speculative. I’m speculating.
A large component of the cost associated in those figures is the cost of energy itself and so drops in running cost are of a long term benefit in keeping costs low even if they initially cost more. I dont think its always easy to see that. So for example for argument’s sake imagine if we already had 100% solar PV then what is the cost to create another panel? Much lower than projected as there is a very low energy cost component and thats an obvious example. Its not always easy to see the related lower costs associated with all the activities surrounding the activity as well as the activity itself.
Willis then goes on “You have no evidence that the savings will be significant.”
You’re right. However I do believe the world where energy is not a resource based commodity (beyond initial manufacture obviously) would be a better one for many reasons eventually both economic and political.
Thats all ideal…I am more a realist than that, however, and fully expect we will go down the path of least resistance because thats what we always do. I can still have my say on the matter though.
@Willis
“But with hydro (or almost any other conventional technology) you only need to maintain one really big generator on the ground.”
Really?
[sigh]
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=hydroelectric+generator&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGHP_en___US455&ie=UTF-8&biw=1280&bih=677&sei=_NPcTqCXI8qDsgLn0KH0DQ&tbm=isch
[SNIP: Policy -REP]
[SNIP: Policy -REP]
(attempt 3 to get this comment posted)
[REPLY: It will NOT posted. You have a grievance. Click on the ABOUT tab under the WUWT graphic and then click on “contact”, but this propensity for flame wars stops. -REP]
Spector says:
December 4, 2011 at 6:24 pm
“Here is a recent video of a talk given by Dr. David LeBlanc on the design of thorium-based nuclear reactors with low potential energy cost. As far as I know, thorium-nuclear is the only energy resource that can meet our current needs indefinitely.”
The we’re screwed.
“As a point of balance, here is a reference to a web article that is critical of the Molten Salt Reactor concept. The writer characterizes the supporters of ‘Energy from Thorium’ as a ‘Cargo Cult.’ I would hope that the problems raised by this writer prove to be false, illusory, or soluble.”
Unfortunately it IS cargo cult science.
It’s far too difficult to process solid fuel thorium. That leaves liquid fuels which in general is liquid flourine salt a.k.a. “LFTR” designs.
The problem with these is that liquid flourine at 700C temperature is so highly corrosive that few materials can withstand it for very long. The second problem is that the few materials that don’t rapidly corrode cannot withstand the high neutron flux from the liquid fuel.
These two problems combine into one where there are no known materials from which you can construct pumps and plumbing to shuttle the liquid fuel around that won’t fail so quickly that the inspection and replacement interval makes the whole enchilada economically impractical.
This is simply a bunch of people trying to make a fast buck by getting research funding and ignorant idealists who are willing to give it to them.
But hey, it’s a small step ahead of fusion (cold or hot) in practicality but it’s a long way behind solar (hydro, wind, biomass, biosynthetic).
Ultimately the sun is the only practical energy source that can meet our needs into the foreseeable future. Fortunately there’s far more sunlight than we need and there’s absolutely no engineering brick walls in the way of being able to produce cheap, abundant, carbon-neutral liquid hydrocarbon fuels by employing genetically modified microorganisms to turn air, water, and sunlight into those fuels. There is no basic discovery needed to accomplish this which means it’s an engineering problem not a science problem. When you have a situation like the LFTR where there’s no known material that can meet the design requirements it means there’s basic discovery involved and discovery of a novel material that doesn’t exist cannot be predicted nor even guaranteed. Sythetic biology on the other can be guaranteed because the technology and materials required already exist in nature and just need to be recombined rather than be invented. The recombination technology is in its infancy but is beyond proof-of-concept. The first completely artificial genome that brought a lifeless bacterial shell devoid of DNA back to life upon insertion happened a couple of years ago. It’s only a matter of time until the painstaking, error-prone process of creating synthetic organisms gets cheap enough and fast enough so that the trial-and-error process of recombining various desireable functions of different organisms into one super-efficient hydrocarbon fuel producer will meet with success. The Venter Institute is leading the way. Any thorium reactor, even if it could become economical someday, is almost certain to be obsolete and uncompetitive by the time it could be brought online commercially. Even the most optimistic estimates put a working, commissioned, commercial thorium reactor at least 20 years in the future and then it has to operate for another 20 years to recoup the cost of building it. That’s 40 years altogether and if something much cheaper comes along in the meantime it means anyone who invested in thorium will lose money and investors, at least the smart ones, don’t tie up money for that long without a really good chance of seeing substantial profit from it. Therefore thorium reactors are something only governments will possibly undertake. The United States government already built one and the classified details of its operation over ten years back in the 1950’s and 1960’s isn’t inspiring any new investment in it. One might wonder why the only nation in the world with actual experience with LFTRs is panning the notion of taking a second look at it.
Willis:
According to the Globe and Mail — you’re wrong…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/installers-homeowners-cash-in-on-solar-industry-slump/article2259666/
Virtually everyone in the sector believes the time will come – likely within the next decade – when the price of solar power equipment falls to the point where solar is competitive with other forms of power generation. At that point FIT-like support won’t be needed and the sector will have reached the Holy Grail of “grid-parity.”
Now when have they ever been wrong…???
However, Mr. Robertson noted that Ontario’s FIT program – like similar schemes around the world – was designed so that the price developers get for the renewable power they generate falls as the cost of producing it declines.
And of course I though they were signing 20 year contracts — silly me…
Now, I’m off to see the Wizard… for reliable information. 😉
Colin Megson says:
December 4, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Too bad there’s no known material that can simultaneously resist the corrosive action of 700C molten salt and high neutron flux.
Other than not being able to build pumps and plumbing to shuttle the liquid fuel around they’re a really cool item, huh? Sort of like electric cars are really great if only there was an affordable battery with the power/density of gasoline.
What part of “there is no known material that meets the critical design criteria for pumps and plumbing” do you not understand?
coldlynx says:
December 3, 2011 at 2:00 am
“Never thought I would disagree with You Willis, but on this I do.”
You probably hadn’t realized that once Willis reaches a conclusion then to him it becomes dogma.
“You and US Energy Information Administration compare solar cells with other large scale electricity production alternatives. But solar cell is mainly, as on Your boat, a small scale solution for electrical consumers. Solar Cells have to be seen from small scale consumer perspective not from a large scale production perspective. With solar cell on my house will I get more independent from large companies, energy taxes and grid utility companies. I love that. Then can can I show them my longest finger. That feeling is worth a lot to me.”
Yes of course. A minimal amount of research shows that the mass market potential is in residential and small commercial grid-ties. Cutting out the need to store power in batteries or some other scheme and instead selling excess generation back onto the grid with net metering is the way to go. Batteries easily double the levelized cost of the system and are only economically viable when the grid is so far away you can’t afford the cost of getting a connection to it.
The decentralized nature of this also means that the current grid can handle a lot more capacity because when you have excess generation it will likely be consumed by your closest neighbors who don’t generate their own juice so it doesn’t add to the amperage on high tension long distance grid elements.
“Price for PV panels is now below USD1 per watt and falling.
That give in Sunny states a annual output of up to 2 kWh electricity. Grid inverters are now also falling in price. It is in many places now a good investment for consumers but not for producers to get solar panels.”
Funny how it works that way with solid state electronics. One might have thought Willis was an astute enough observer old enough to appreciate what happened with radios, telephones, televisions, microwave ovens, and other solid state electronics. PV panels and grid-ties are no different except they have yet to see the benefit of economy of scale and adoption of industry standards.
“I have been in computer business since 1982 and I see a very similar development as the PC went through. Now is large scale computing made by many small PC processors. In the very near future will many small scale PV installations in total be producing larger amount of electricity than large scale production facilities. Just because it is good investment, for consumers.”
I’ve been in the computer business since the 1970’s but it doesn’t seem like it should take a rocket scientist to appreciate the price/performance curve in electronics from infancy to common household item.
“And of the joy to get independent. A small scale revolution. ;-)”
I’m not really interested in flipping off my electric company. It’s a cooperative to begin with and isn’t particularly offensive in any of its practices and serves an awful lot of rural customers with prices similar to densely populated areas where transmission costs are much lower. The retail price they sell power to me at is half the price they’ll buy it from me at which is reasonable. If PV generation price goes the way of other solid state electronics I’ll be able to sell electricity to the local coop at a profit. Now THAT would be cool.