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 …
Actually, pv modules are fully recyclable. There are even industries set up to do just that. (See here.)
While it is true that solar only works during the day, in winter they can produce up to 55% of their summer peak. There are also plenty of places in the country have enough sunshine to make solar work. (See here.)
I agree. No one has ever said solar would power industry. No one that I know has ever made that claim. Solar is not base load, not now and probably not ever. Its use has always been for the peak of the day when demand is greatest. The power that industry needs is more available when locally installed solar eases demand on the grid. And I hope the sun is still shining in the next century too.
Solar panels are typically designed to handle a 1” hail stone at terminal velocity and local building codes ensure that panels don’t blow off roofs. Any freak occurrences of bigger hail or stronger winds and you’re probably on the phone to your insurance company already. I’m guessing that’s a reason solar isn’t more popular in the hurricane/tornado belts. We don’t sell a lot of snowmobiles in Miami either.
Competition in industry drives the efficiency you talk about. If Company A can do it cheaper than Company B then they get the sale. This drives costs down. With a Feed-in Tariff, the subsidies are re-evaluated periodically to make sure this is happening and align itself with the long term goals of grid parity. As mentioned in a previous post, in the first two years of FIT, Ontario has reduced installed costs by 43%.
MrC
MrCannuckistan says:
December 3, 2011 at 9:28 am (Edit)
ferd berple,
Solar modules currently come with 25 year power train warranties that guarantee a minimum performance level. Here in Ontario we have some grid tied panels still in service from the late 70’s. The local conservation area uses them as a showcase of what’s possible. 40 years is not unreasonable. So my figures are subsidy free and dropping with every year longer they last.
Subsidy free??? What part of subsidy involved in the 42¢ / kWh payment don’t you understand?
You be sure to let us know when the market matures, my optimistic Northern friend. Some of us who have been exposed to your “once the market matures” nonsense ever since the 1970s you mention above are understandably doubtful of the market maturing much any time soon.
I understand that your panels will last longer than thirty years. The problem is that combined cycle gas power plants also will last longer than thirty years. So we have to pick a common period to compare them apples to apples. That period is 30 years.
So for $50,000 capital costs you get 300,000 kWh over the next 30 years, which is about 17¢ / kWh. Add 2¢ for running costs, that’s 19¢ per kWh. If you are waiting for the market to mature, at 19¢ / kWh it will be a very long wait.
w.
To date there is not been one documented problem with fracking and aquifers. That is confirmed by the EPA. Not one. Ever. The fracking goes on thousands of feet below the aquifers.
When they develop solar and wind that can regularly stand up to tennis ball sized hail, we might have something.
you says:
December 3, 2011 at 6:25 am
Will-
You pure speculation about wind power, and small easy to maintain generators is a tactlessly bs argument. Just admit wind works.
______________________________________
A picture is worth a thousand words:
http://www.gemzies.com/img_photos/fire_in_an_wind_turbine_wind_energy_2_29fe50d390c5ac3bced8a74db4de8dbd_490x350.png
http://www.theresilientearth.com/files/images/german_turbine_fire-der_spiegel.jpg
From Natural News, which is NOT a right wing enclave by any means.
So the big corporate wienies walk away with the $$$ and leave the mess behind to be cleaned up by the land owner or the tax payer.
Windmills were nothing but a wealth transfer mechanism. Transferring dollars from the 99% to the 1% as Occupy Wall Street would say. Too bad they are too blind to see this occurring right under their noses.
Now how about we fines the SOBs for every bat or bird killed and collect some of our money back…. OH that is right no use suing a bankrupt corporation.
Gentlemen
The Advanced Coal with CCS figure looks wildly optimistic. If you look the DOE figures you can see the COE increase for CCS is ilisted as 24% – not the 35% the DOE is officially targeting for future technologies. Placing this in perspective the chart has advanced coal with levelized cost of 109.7 $/Mwh and advance coal with CCS at 136.5 $/Mwh. Calculating… (136.5 – 109.7)/109.7 = a 24% increase in the COE… not the 147 $/Mwh a 35% increase in the COE would produce.
For the official DOE targets see here at:
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/news/techlines/2011/11048-Carbon_Capture_Projects_Selected.html).
It’s also worth noting the DOE’s CCS numbers do not a include the cost of transport, injection, and long term monitoring.
I see another serious problem with the DOE figures. If you look at the capacity factors they have listed for both coal plants and coal plants w/ CCS listed as having 85% factors. I see two major problems with this assumption:
1) A well run base-load coal plant can hit a capacity factor of 90% for the first 20 years of its life. In others words until it’s fully depreciated. A 85% capacity factor is reasonable figure for an older plant with maintenance and dispatch issues. But you wouldn’t make a build decision to build a base-load unit with such a low figure.
2) It is not realistic to assume a CCS system with sensitive downstream Carbon Capture equipment, no CO2 storage capacity, and a need to have continuous flow into a pipeline is going to be capable of maintaining a 85% capacity factor. Hence, the 85% capacity factor the DOE is using for plants with CCS looks wildly optimistic. This is one of a number of major reasons utilities are not prepared to endorse CCS as a commercial technology… just too many unknowns
Bottom line… these are DOE fantasy estimates. Looks to me like the DOE/EPA are proceeding with their current dishonest presentation of CCS as being both commercially available and cheaper than it actually is.
Kforestcat
When it is 102 degrees F in the shade in Texas?
And it is an hour before dinnertime?
What do you do – just SHUT down a whole society?
Stop living?
Where do you reside anyway – La La land?
.
Dave Springer says:
December 3, 2011 at 11:29 am
Dave, I’ve worked as a tax accountant. A tax credit is deducted directly from your taxes. A tax deduction is deducted from your income. I am well aware of the difference between a credit and a deduction. I passed the freakin’ U.S. Government test to be an enrolled agent tax preparer. I also was quite accurate in what I said about my own situation. If I pay a tax overseas, it is subtracted from my US taxes, not taken as a deduction against my income.
Having lived overseas for about a third of my life, I know more than a little about these questions.
Finally, why do you have to be so snarly and ugly and nasty? All it does is make you look like a vicious, vindictive little man. I know a hell of a lot about overseas taxes. I used to do the taxes for the US Consul in the Solomon Islands.
Give your assumptions about me a rest, Dave. I’m neither a bad guy nor a fool. Yes, I may be wrong, I definitely have been more than once … but that’s no excuse for you to be a dick about it. And when after your unpleasant abuse it turns out I’m right, as in this case, then you look really, really foolish.
w.
Gail, 14,000 wind turbines have been abandoned because government has never placed decommissioning requirements on renewables they way they exist for any other form of generation. If, God help you, you’re a farmer who allowed a bunch of these for rent money on your property, you’re going to be stuck with the abandoned hulks at some time in the future.
Dennis Ray Wingo says:
December 3, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Sorry for my lack of clarity, Dennis. I meant grid-connected solar systems. As I mentioned in the head post, there’s lots of places off the grid where solar makes sense.
w.
Gail, wind does not work. Well, not on a large scale. I might be able to light my house with it if I get the batteries and the charging controller and have enough wind averaged over the day but I have lived in places in the US where we went without a breath of a breeze for a week or more in the middle of a blazing hot summer (mid Atlantic states with a stagnant Bermuda high just sitting there with nearly 100 degree heat and humidity nearly as high). No wind day or night for a week or two.
Wind is fine as a novelty but it can not be relied on for national infrastructure. Unlike conventional power where a major wind or ice storm might take out your distribution for a week or three, a major ice, wind, or hail storm in this case takes out your generation capacity that takes a lot longer to replace and is more expensive. Are we to replace a regions entire generation capacity every time a hurricane or hail storm hits?
That is just dumb.
Grey lensman says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:06 am
The very first hydroelectric plant was installed in 1868. It is still operational with the original equipment……
_______________________________
Bingo!
I have the feeling the numbers for nuclear are way off too especially if thorium is brought up to commercial use.
Bills in Congress dealing with thorium: http://www.thoriumenergy.com/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1
http://www.usrareearths.com/eco/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26&Itemid=56
Somewhere in my archives I have an ad from BC Hydro from the 1980s which, to paraphrase, essentially says to wait about 20 years for the market to mature before they would consider solar panels.
Now we are supposed to wait 20 years for the market to mature, that would put BC Hydro’s original estimate at about 50 years for the market to mature.
I will try to find that BC Hydro ad and scan it and post a link to it. This will either take minutes or months to accomplish as my archives remind me of the warehouse scene at the end of the Indiana Jones movie.
Someone mentioned 102 F in the shade, what about 44 C in the shade (Australia Penrith years ago) at a dog show, some dogs dropped dead from heat exhaustion, and people were jumping into the nearby river fully clothed with their dogs too. Lucky the sharks didn’t come up that far.
Anyone mention Bermuda, lived there couldn’t do without air conditioners in the bedrooms. Humidity plus temps phhewww. Had to keep a covered heater in the walk ins to stop leather mildewing up. Even the sea was warm, like stepping into a tepid bath, or a tropical aquarium. With the little tropical fish swimming around you it was great. I’m no water baby but I could stay in the sea for hours and not get hypothermia, different from Oz and UK.
crosspatch says:
December 3, 2011 at 7:29 pm
“. . . aquifers . . .”
The ‘not normally greenie weenie’ (although he is one today) started with god and the water table. Then returned with rocket scientist and “acquifers” and including “breaking the rocks above” something to free the gas. If I ask what that ‘something’ is, I suppose I’ll hear about brain surgeons and stratigraphy.
Learning is such a slow process. If he ever gets the words and facts straightened out, we can move on to discussion.
If I understand it correctly, this study leaves room for too many fudge factors and assumptions, which are easily manipulated to sway the final result. For instance, as many have stated, the land-based wind costs don’t pass the “smell test” because the study’s predicted costs are significantly lower than the known costs associated with wind farms that are currently operating. I understand that they’re looking at “new” generation sources, but why not simply use the range of ACTUAL operating and capital costs for plants in each category, as many readers have done in their comments? The apparently understated costs for land-based wind leaves one wondering what other figures may be skewed. This tends to discredit the whole study.
As a EE & MS, having worked in the energy & alternative energy industry (engr., operations & maintenance) for 40 yrs the thought of harnessing wind and PV energy has always attracted me… probably just for the satisfaction of harnessing new technology & initiating the learning curve involved. However each time I get really excited, I redo my homework, due dilligence & cost analysis, and I find that I really can’t breakeven on a 4-5 Kw PV grid-tie system even after 20 yrs…. (Colorado Spgs, CO). I’d really love to put a system in, & I’ve got the perfect place to do so, but I just don’t have the extra $20-$30K hanging around that I can play with and essentially throw away… so to speak.
But having an extensive applied engineering background I always like to look at competitive renewable power supply ideas & proposals to see how practical they are & how well they hold up to realistic economic evaluations.
I recently did a critique of Colorado Springs Utilities Renewable Energy Sources (RES) power generation plans which call for an initial 10% RES utilization eventually graduating to a 20% RES power supply. My comments as listed below cover both wind and PV solar systems in general and identify many of the problems that so many WUWT readers have also noticed and already pointed out.
Resource citation & info: EWEA: European Wind Energy Association, 5-Volume Study: Publication Wind Energy: The Facts, Part 3, Wind Energy Economics
Based on detailed audits and studies of EU community wind farms there are several key areas of concern which I have highlighted below. Each of these needs to be carefully studied and evaluated with detailed sensitivity analysis of each area of concern:
1. Developing a wind farm with the intent of establishing base-loaded power availability is extremely difficult, given the variable nature of wind and the high probability that wind will not be available during peak power usage periods. Research has shown that wind farms only capture about 20-30% of the available wind (kinetic) energy and generate on average about 20-22% of their full load capacity. Therefore to obtain an average of 1 MW of power, one must provide approximately 5 MW of wind generation. At a rough cost of $2.3 MM/MW this turns out to be a very costly proposition. This is what the UK and the rest of the EU are currently realizing.
2. Wind farms (regardless of size) will not reduce the base-load requirement for hydrocarbon based power generation facilities due to the intermittent nature of wind. One can’t simply capture and store the wind or sunlight for use on demand. In contrast, with hydrocarbon based power generation, high density potential energy is readily available for conversion into kinetic energy on demand. This is the reason why conventional power plants are so popular. They are relatively small, easy to build and operate, incredibly practical and will always be required until high density power storage becomes practical and demonstrable.
3. Wind energy (and solar energy for that matter) are often based on a 20-30 year economic life. Conventional multi-fueled hydrocarbon based power generation facilities are based on a 40-60 year economic life. The short economic life of renewable energy sources is especially problematic, since maintenance costs approach replacement costs often before the first 20 years of the life-cycle period.
4. Operation and maintenance costs for wind farms can approach 25 – 30% of the overall power generation costs, especially with intermittent or zero wind flow conditions.
5. Renewal energy sources (RES) such as wind or photo-voltaic (PV-solar) are not necessarily benign to the environment. As research and analysis has shown, substantial quantities of birds are very susceptible to being killed. Videos of these turbine blade bird kills have been displayed on YouTube.
6. From a power security and reliability standpoint, both wind and PV-solar farms are susceptible to damage from severe weather due to natural occurring events such as storms or heavy weather, or from human sabotage. Remote, low density power sites are very susceptible to being rendered useless by either of these possibilities.
7. At the present time, the learning curve for RES (wind) is very steep since design parameters for wind generators, e.g., size, basic construction, blade design, required maintenance and operation are evolving very quickly…similar to the design of early personal computers. Overall costs of turbine towers, generators and maintenance are decreasing as operational experience with existing wind farms increases. The maturing of optimum engineering designs can take 30 years or more. I would caution a quick rush into procuring wind generators based on capital incentives, rather than careful analysis of overall system costs. A more cautious approach would be to set up a pilot plant with only a few generators on an intended wind farm site and then use the operations and maintenance costs, data and experience gained to carefully plan a commercial size facility, if it is economically justified. This avoids the risk of placing all your eggs in one basket. This is common practice for petro-chemical plants utilizing new or non-developed technologies.
8. There is considerable interest in developing RES to reduce CSU’s carbon footprint. This is very noble, but not very cost effective regardless of who, how, what or why it is mandated. It is generally understood that if we were to totally de-industrialize the US economy, it will not measurably reduce the world’s carbon footprint. The world’s engineering and scientific bodies have a considerable amount to learn in order to gain a more intelligent understanding of how CO2 affects our environment. The preponderance of data so far suggests that the world is generally better off in a more CO2 rich environment as opposed to the opposite. I definitely hope for my sake and yours that they don’t outlaw CO2… it could be a fatal decision for all of us.
We don’t NEED thorium. We can use conventional power. PLEASE read “Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste”. You build a facility with two conventional plants and one reprocessing facility. After the initial fuel load, the only thing you ever bring into the facility is natural uranium 238, no enriched uranium ever moves again. No nuclear fuel ever leaves the plant. The waste decays to background in a few hundred years instead of tens of thousands. Yes, it utilizes plutonium, but an isotope of plutonium that isn’t used for weapons. But more importantly, that plutonium never leaves the site. Nothing leaves the site but the fairly short-lived waste. No need for a “yucca mountain”, no need for storage of spent fuel rods. We are being stupid with nuclear power for no good reason.
Wind/solar isn’t the answer when a hail storm or hurricane takes out the entire generation capacity for a region. I have never heard of a nuclear or even a coal power plant being taken out by a hail storm or hurricane. Turkey Point power plant did sustain damage in Andrew with damage to a smokestack and water tank of one of its conventional coal generators. Such a storm would completely wipe out all solar and wind generating capacity. We can NOT strategically rely on wind and solar to provide reliable power in the face of bad weather. We CAN rely on coal and nuclear to do that.
Meant “conventional nuclear power”, not “conventional power”.
Willis,
thank you for a very interesting article and to (most of) the contributors for extra information and links.
@ur momisugly Bill DiPuccio – 50 years to pay off?
I’ve just had solar PV installed here. My calculations are for a return (conservatively) of 6.6% p.a. but that is after subsidies. Without them I estimated 1.1% p.a.
@ur momisugly Mr.Cannuckistan – solar PV giving 55% of peak in winter?
I checked out my neighbours results and for 2 quarters of the year the amount generated was about 15% of the amount generated. Of course, this was in Adelaide (South Australia) where the sun doesn’t shine as brightly as in Canada sarc now off/.
@ur momisugly Philip Bradley, Perth – largest wind farm off-line because of mice eating cables – would that be the Albany scheme? When I was visiting it, I noted the high Capacity Factor claimed as likely [41%] and put it down to the ideal siting. Since then I’ve found out that it actually runs around 32%, or less if the mice are hungry. NOTE heroic refraining from gags about Nature.
Our local Sunday paper has a report today on the up-take of solar PV here under the old scheme of 44c per MWh generated (gross amount, not what went back into the grid). The highest % of houses taking this option was on the coast SOUTH of Adelaide in the ‘retirement belt’ at around 39%. obviously the “sea-changers” had funds available. The 13 other suburbs listed are all “mortgage belt” homes. It appears that the common reason was to avoid future electricity price rises, apart of course from greedy bastards like myself. For comparison purposes local costs are 10-11 c (overnight rate) 20-23c (Peak rate 27c) per KWh in daytime, but with rises of 16% p.a. likely.
Not least of the reasons for rising costs is the necessity to up-grade the local parts of the grid because all those solar cells start (& stop) generating at the same time, leading to higher voltages in the lines and at the local sub-stations.
SA also has the highest % of wind capacity installed of any state in Aust. (approx. 20%) which was the boast of our recently departed (and “financially, scientifically, and truthfully challenged”) Premier. The backup costs to that don’t help, as the local CF is 20-25%.
It would be interesting to see a comparison of retail electricity rates versus the percentage of “renewables” installed. My guess is that they both climb together.
Re the difficulties of costing power, I point out that the overnight rate from coal stations is enough to keep the stations running under load ready for the peak demand to come (once the sun comes up). But as a guide to the real cost that figure is a guide.
As is the French price to the UK for nuclear power in their last 4 winters when those thousands of wind turbines weren’t generating. That was 69 euros per MWh or roughly 50c (US) per KWh.
Apologies for the lengthy response, but most of you will read this on Sunday, unless you’re outside maintaining your renewables.
The majority of the land area of the US is subject to hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, and hail. Some places are subject to all four. Let me put it this way: if your turbine and solar panels get destroyed, you are going to want the grid power to be there. So … the grid power has to be there to back you up. If we place a significant portion of our power generation into modes that are subject to being wiped out by the weather, that is just plain stupid.
“crosspatch: Let me put it this way: if your turbine and solar panels get destroyed, you are going to want the grid power!”
And if your big power plants are destroyed by an earthquake (as recently in Japan) than you are more than happy to have some solar panels on your roof.
BTW I do not believe that solar power will never by competitive for consumers, the prices are falling and with roof-top installations there are no major infrastructure costs. Furthermore as the EIA already pointed out in the past due to growing energy demand worldwide we need all sources, so it is not gas, coal or solar and wind but all of them together if we want to maintain our standard of living.
kakatoa says:
December 3, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Catcracking……….
I am not sure if anyone answered your question (real estate taxes and self generation improvements)-
I live in CA, and in my state the legislature wanted to support self generation so they passed a law that excludes the investment in self generation from real estate taxes. A recent post by Willis showed a graph/table noting that investors in large scale RE projects don’t have to pay real estate taxes on the capital costs for PV (the example may of been concentrating solar).
As an FYI I put my PV system in back in 2006 and it has been very robust output wise- my variation (%CV) in output in the sunny CA summers has been between 2% and 4%. My 6.12 kw system produces 9300 kwh per year (average of 5 years production).
———————————————————————————————-
Doesn’t look like a very good deal to me. Based on current prices for grid tied systems, your cost would be in the order of $40,000 (ignoring and federal and state cash backs you received.) Interest on that money at 5% per year is $2000. At 20 cents a kW, you don’t even earn enough to pay the interest on the capital. You may as well have invested it in a good dividend stock and used it to pay for the extra electricity. Even at your tier three four and five levels, it takes 23 years using a 5% discount rate and 30 cents a kWhr to get to the break even point, at which time you will be replacing panels and inverters and tie systems, if not before. And how is your system doing in the Santa Ana winds I wonder. Just curious as my panels sure don’t like dirt, rain, clouds or snow. Maybe turning off the air conditioner and opening a window would be the most cost effective. (I have a 3kW gen set on my horse trailer and it barely runs the air conditioning – 3 kW – that’s the equivalent of turning on my electric kettle, my two slice toaster and a couple of light bulbs, the radio and the range hood – anything more and the overload kicks the gen set off. Just so people get and idea of what we are talking about.)
So good for you if you paid less or got cash backs from governments, but I can’t make the numbers work for me without subsidies of some sort. Someone is paying.
Thanks, Willis, especially for raising the point of peak load vs. base load, and how solar and wind need backup gen capacity: that is so often forgotten.
I’m a bit more optimistic than you on solar, though not much. It looks to me like the infrastructural costs (costs other than the solar cells) could change, depending in the infrastructure needed for various hypothetical systems. Certain types of mounts don’t cost much, and access roads can be dirt, etc, so I’m hopeful that in the future, the price might be competitive. However, we’re nowhere near there yet, and IMHO subsidies make it less, not more, likely that we’ll get there. I don’t mind subsidizing true research (a very small cost compared to subsidizing generation stations like we’re doing now) but I would like to see the subsidy of production end.
Speaking of solar; one thing I hate are solar garden lights. Sure, free electricity, but they cost many times any savings in battery replacement every year or two, are unreliable, etc. They are great for spots where it’s too hard to run wiring, but nowhere else. I’d much rather take the time to run low-voltage wiring. (plus I get decent lighting that way; the solar ones are so often uselessly weak).
That is an eye opening piece. Well done. It would support The theory that solar will find its niche in micro applications until there is some revolutionary technical change that sidesteps the economics you highlight.
On wind, the big failing in most analysis is the focus on capacity utilisation. Like solar cell production cots, that isn’t the constraining factor. What matters is the uncertainty. The fact the we really have no idea h