How Green Was My Bankruptcy?

You also have to consider degradation of that solar farm of about 10% capacity per year. So they might get 30 megawatts the first year but that will drop to 27 megawatts the second year. 24.3 year 3, 21.9 year 4, 20.7 in year 5. After 5 years they will have lost 1/3 of the original generating capacity due to various things such as individual cell failures, degradation of individual cells, etc.

Here in Australia where our dollar is pretty much parity with the US$, we’re paying about 30 cents / kW-hr (summer tariff) and around 25 as the winter tariff. Our summer tariff is higher because of peak demand for air-con cooling in summer.

At least they don’t frequently have the problem of snow covering the panels for weeks at a time…

Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?

■$820 million divided by 880 MW works out to $931,818 per MW.
■$250 million divided by 30 MW works out to $8,333,333 per MW.

How dare you compare apples to apples like that! This is no longer allowed in post modern science. You have to use “adjusted units” for comparisons between green energy and evil energy. For example, you can’t compare the 30 MW green energy “in the popular measurement, to power 9,000 homes” to the evil energy powering 264,000 homes; no, the evil power must use “home” units of the “Al Gore type” such that it can only power ……. naught ….. naught ……. carry the one …….. ………… 42. You see, this way instead of the cost being about $28k for each home the green plant powers compared to $3k for the evil power, once properly adjusted it’s $28k per home powered greenly compared to $19.5 Million per home* powered evilly.
[*: fine print too small to see.]
For your own sake, I hope you get the hang of this soon.
(Surely, this is not necessary, but just in case: /sarc)

And so the tax dollars must continue to swirl, swirl, swirl down the solar powered drain…

Crosspatch – is that true, where can we get more information in an easilydigestable form?

One of the main benefits of solar energy is that it can be produced at the place of consumption. If you cut out the need for (extra) transmission lines and compare to the energy retail price its almost comparable to conventional energy. Add a decade of further development and I think we will see a lot of solar panels complementing other energy sources, especially photovoltaic and heat producing version.
Big solar farm with todays technology doesnt seem a good idea though.

Most people stop taking in information at the first ‘illion’ and assume that the jumping eco-politico-clowns (sorry Julia and Al) are trustworthy.

I read somewhere that solar panels only produce their peak power when they are aligned to within seven degrees of normal of the the incoming sunlight. That means rigidly mounted solar panels only produce their peak power for about one hour per day (sun moves across sky at fifteen degrees an hour).
Also the efficiency of the current solar panels is just 20% so 1,000 watts of sunlight will give 200 watts of electricity. I understand 40% efficiency UV panels are under development but not commercially available as yet. Does the above UV panel field really produce 30 megawatts?

First of all the prices for solar panels dropped in the last two years dramatically, now you get panels already for 0,7 USD/Watt and the prices are steadily going further down. So taking two year old prices for comparison is already manipulatory. In addition the sun power is free whereas the natural gas operating costs were disregarded. Furthermore PV is producing electricity usually at times of peak consumption, i.e. midday, thus lowering- at least in Europe- the electicity peak prices for industrial customers.
All in all I do not understand why it always has to be “either-or”, I think we will need in the future all sorts of power supply to safeguard our streadily rising consumption needs.

Only those photovoltaic solar plants in the very best locations (think Mojave Dessert) achieve 25% capacity factors. CCGT plants routinely exceed 90% capacity factors. Therefore, the spread between the economics of the two technologies is even more extreme than the author supposes. Yet the band plays on!

David, can you please add the price for the fuel itself to the equation. You don’t want to be blamed for incorrect calculations. My guestimate is that it still boils down to only 2 to 5 cents per Kw.

Magzan says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Not sure where you get that from. Go to the National Grid (UK electricity distributor in case you are not from the UK) website:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Electricity/Data/Demand+Data/
If you plot graphs of the data you will find, particularly in winter, that PV provides very little when it is needed.
JS

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?
How many people do you know who are prepared, voluntarily, to to pay 50% extra for electricity above current rates, solely because the source is “green?” Of course, if you look at the real numbers, which include the degradation of plant and the necessary backup plant, etc. as mentioned by other commenters, that 50% is a major understatement. It is not an efficient use of capital, which is just as much “a resource” as anything else.

A great article David. Very well written and presented. No fudging or weasel words and calculations.. directly comparable costs of energy generation in MW and cents per kw/h to allow people to see just what a major fraud these Govt-backed solar schemes are. I hope many people read this and send it onto family and friends. People really do need to know how they are being robbed blind by these evil buggers.

At least sunlight is free. ????
Dhuh, gas, oil, coal and uranium are all free too. All you have to do is drill a well or build and operate a mine and you have free fuel. Even if you understand arithmetic and calculate the cost it is still much less expensive than solar. The developed cost of every energy source is a direct reflection of its associated pollution, Higher cost means more resources have been exploited and consumed to produce a unit of energy..
All types of energy are only free if you don’t use them, except maybe sunburn and forest fires.

What never ceases to amaze (me) is how the costs of these government mandated things can and do simply skyrocket.
Example:
Presently in the UK, installers are saying they can put 4kW of solar PV on your roof for ~£6,000, call that £1.50 per watt or US$3.2. It is possible to buy (at RETAIL) prices, the basic panels for £0.50 per watt. Each installation is a custom job, with scaffolding, climbing about inside the roof space, lifting and replacing roof-tiles, installing new meters and piles of paperwork for each (4kW) job. Custom built, it still comes in at US$3.2 per watt, delivered, as a turnkey project.
So, given the obvious economy(s) of scale of planting 240 acres of panels in a desert, how do they still turn $3.2 per installed watt into $8.33?
Maybe it is really true that governments, like insurance companies, have more money than they know what to do with.

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
“Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?”
I would say it differently. Everything is always down to the dollars and cents, Ian, especially environmental degradation. The dropping price of PV means that it becomes less destructive for the environment. It is produced using rather noxious chemicals and loads of coal power with all that that entails. When PV cells become cheaper this means the production process becomes less energy intensive and cleaner (because less of those chemicals are used and lost in the process, more of these not only poisonous but also expensive substances are re-used).

@Magzan The OP compared costs for building the power stations and their outputs. The cost of the solar cells is therefore included. I don’t think that anyone is saying the panel cost is an issue as its already fallen to a point where its a relatively small part of the overall cost of the solar farm. It’s everything else that has to be built around the solar farm that makes the electricity expensive for the potential yield. This includes the gas power station required as backup 🙂

GlynnMhor says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm
At least they don’t frequently have the problem of snow covering the panels for weeks at a time…
This area gets quite a bit of snow actually.

Stop solely blaming Obama. Most of this policy was introduced by the two Bushes, and if your boy Romney gets into office, he will expand it even more than Obama. Guaranteed.

…you would have to build 3-4 mw of solar generating capacity to replace each 1 mw do gas, coal or nuclear capacity”.
That still doesn’t solve the problem. The earth’s rotation and declination FIXES the output of the solar panel to the time of day. With conventional sources, as long as one has fuel one has electricity, on demand, 24/7.
The next logical step for the greens will be rationing (read “time of day”).
Cheers!

Enter $3 nat gas, and the Green’s energy plan falls apart. So they must cram it down our throats by back-door restrictions on the generation of power with nat gas. The median household income in $52,026, so for every $1 million in waste, either from wealth destruction or higher prices, we destroy about 20 jobs. And we wonder why the labor force participation rate is falling out of the sky. The liberal secular utopia is really dangerous to our liberty and prosperity

davidmhoffer says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Yes, there is a cost to the economy to support green energy, but look at all the jobs it creates!
True. And most of them are in China….

Others may have said the same above but I’m not going to read all of the comments right now.
“generate 30 megawatts of electricity” (… when the sun doth shine and brand new)
8.3 million per megawatt (… when the sun doth shine, with commercial dual gas/heating oil available at less than 1.0 million per megawatt ginning 24/7/365)
So where is all of this dumb money coming from? $250,000,000 in this case.
I think most realizes these are actually crooks and need to be jailed along with the elected representative and public servants involved for embezzling tax payers monies via collusion, unless this is totally private money invested without ties, once again, back through elected representative and public servants into tax money in like manner.
Makes you fume doesn’t it? Now who is going step forward and stop them? The DOJ? lol.

If we trust the genius of the invisible hand of an optimally regulated free market, we wouldn’t be stuck with Governments and their crony capitalist, socialist, and communist friends forcing “solutions” that are not yet ready for primetime.

Proponents would tell you that solar and wind power is cost effective when compared to other “new” conventional sources of power. There goes that theory.
In Ontario (or “Ontari-owe” for the financially inclined) distributors must purchase electricity generated by wind and solar ahead of other sources. We have surplus power, so we pay 13.5 to 80 cents per kWh for wind and solar power that we don’t need, and spill “free” water over hydro dams, especially this time of year. We sometimes have to pay other jurisdictions to take this expensive “green” surplus power off our hands. The local power company installed smart meters ($500 a shot?) on my home AND seasonal cottage, along with everyone else’s. The cost is added to the pool of expenditures that will eventually show up on our bills. They are spending hundreds of millions to build transmission lines to tie widely distributed wind and solar projects into the grid. New technology (likely another financial black hole) will be required to manage and stabilize the grid because of the variable nature of wind and solar. All for power we don’t need. How’s that for perverse economics?

George says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:19 am
“Given the degradation of the cells with time-in-service, I guestimate that the pay-back of the “carbon debt” of manufacturing the cells is approximately equal to the service live. ”
The energy payback time for a complete solar installation with German insolation (800 sun hours per year) is about 7 years according to
http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/erntefaktor
(German, but with schmatics explaining the EROEI concept).
Minimum lifetime is usually assumed to be 20 years.
So basically you get 3 calories out for one calory in.

‘crosspatch says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:26
You also have to consider degradation of that solar farm of about 10% capacity per year. ‘
This is pure bologna based on your own references. Panel manufacturers provide 20 to 25 year 80% performance warranties. The data from your references:
Pg 12: Conclusions
There is no statistically significant difference in the performance of the
modules with monocrystalline and polycrystalline cells
(average degradation rate 0.7% per year)
Furthermore two thirds of modules have the final maximum power verified
to be more than 90% of the initial power value after >20 years of outdoor
exposure.
Pg 18:
Conclusions for the 10kW TISO Plant
Not good looking, but perfectly functioning plant
Good expectation for at least 30 year lifetime?
Pg 19:
Average weighted degradation of 5.2%, over the 19 years of operation
(0.4% per annum including initial degradation)
Pg 23:
Conclusions from the operation of a-Si thin film facade
Altogether the system has had an uptime > 99%
It does no good to exaggerate your arguments. I have a solar system that was heavily subsidized by the local municipality. I agree that the ROI simply does not work without subsidies. There are a lot of considerations that go into the costs that are often not considered or are glossed over. The main culprit is installation costs. This is often about 50% of the overall system cost. There is technology that will hopefully significantly reduce the costs such as micro-inverters.

David, you have omitted the most valuable output from these projects – that of warm, fuzzy feelings. WFFs are essential to the mental well being of those who are alarmed by everything. We live in a terrified society, where every shadow, could be a Earth ending event. WFFs will rescue us from mental breakdown, and any cost is gladly paid. WFF is what makes our world go round. MW(e) output is irrelevant to MWFF(emo) output. GK

I have been experimenting with a small solar setup here in central NM. During the winter with the shorter daylight hours, power generation is nearly equivalent with summer due to the colder cell temperatures. I adjust the panel orientation monthly to the optimum point (elevation angle changes) to maximize the power generated. Using the latest generation of inverter technology, I average 20% of rated panel capacity. For example, 1kW of panels would produce on average 200 Watt/hours of power. The article states “500,000” panels. Assuming these are the larger 260W panels (5×10^5*260*20%= 26MW). Close enough to the stated capacity, but no compensation for panel aging (as well as the other degradation issues mentioned).
Panel prices have dropped to below $1/Watt, with the extra costs of inverters and assorted support hardware, a self -installed system (read as free labor), in my area the payback time is around 10 years assuming nothing breaks…..

David Middleton says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:40 am
“EROEI is the perfect example of Lysenko-style accounting to go along with the Lysenko-style science of CAGW. I don’t spend energy to fill my tank. I don’t give energy back to the gas & electric […]
If oil companies (or any businesses) used EROEI to guide their investment decisions, they would go out of business (unless the gov’t was footing the bill).”
Of course they do. Energy and money are interchangeable as long as there is a market price for energy. When you say a decision (e.g. to drill in the Gulf of Mexico) makes sense financially, you also imply that it makes sense energetically. Ignoring political distortions for the moment.
Yes, I know the argument that some forms of energy are more valuable than others, I have ignored that as well. Liquid fuels are more valuable (but conversion methods do exist; and the losses are significant but often only in the order of 15% or so, so that would not be an absolute showstopper. If you absolutely need it liquid, go turn something into a liquid and lose a liitle bit in the conversion).
Anyhow, I just wanted to point to a in my view fair assessment of the energy expenditure for PV. You get some far more glowing assessments from the PV industry; they’ll tell you that the energy payback time is months. They ignore all the contributing factors like the energy cost of the inverters, the installation etc.
I find 7 years not that glorious at all. This is the table from where I found the document.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energier%C3%BCcklaufzeit#Energetische_Amortisationszeit
It is surprisingly informative for a wikipedia page. Notice that a nuclear reactor has to run for just 2 months to pay back the invested energy.
The English wikipedia has other numbers, but also interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested
Historically, high cultures vanished when their EROEI dropped under 3; there was no more enough surplus to maintain a bureaucratic caste. The current EROEI of PV is in that range. I expect it to improve in the future. The subsidy regimes you criticize are the exact symptom of the fact that the current state of PV is best described as uncompetitive. The moment it becomes competitive the subsidies will not be necessary anymore (well, duh).

So let me get this straight. How many endangered plants, butterflies, and lizards were displaced by this government-subsidized solar array built on private land? Were they as worried about what WAS under the panels as they always are about the flora and fauna when the same size track of renewable trees are harvested?
Which group of greenies sued to keep this array from scaring the land? [crickets are so shocked even THEY aren’t making a sound]

Play hard but play fair. Capex isn’t the whole analysis. I see no mention of fuel cost in this article. I’d like to see an analysis of what makes solar capex expensive, and a discussion of likely areas of improvement. Remember that James Watt invented the condenser in 1765. There’s a lot of improvement that happened for traditional means of generation between 1765 and today. Let’s also not forget that the basic problem with fossil fuels is the fossil part. It would be interesting to do a comparison where increased demand for fossil fuel was projected out in light of growing demand in China and other places. Don’t get me wrong. I wouldn’t invest any of my savings in a solar power plant, but then again there was a time when I refused to invest in anything but IBM because I didn’t see a future in the personal computer. Ultimately you have to trust that the operation of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” will sort things out and believe that schemes coming from Washington DC will interfere with that. We like to celebrate success in business, but the operation of the “invisible hand” also involves things that are tried but don’t work out. The future is coal and natural gas. Solar is just business adventurism – but where would progress come from if there were no adventures?

Here in W MD I’m paying $.0625/kWhr (6.25 cents) — minus all the rent-seeker tax/tariff add-ons. I guess that’s what I get for using those coal/gas-powered sources…
Anyone ever notice how all public utility services get more & more “add-ons” as the yrs go by? Your government (local/state/federal) rent-seekers slowly but surely at work….

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
…the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?
————————
This will sound cold in our PC age, but everything involving econmoic transactions does come down to dollars and cents or else how will this solar plant sustain itself? We really cannot organize society based on the whims of the Ted Turners of the world and still maintain prosperity and economic opportunity for the masses.

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
“Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?”
Actually, yes, the “environment” would be far better off if more attention were paid to market prices. If that solar plant costs ten times what a gas-fired plant would cost (per megawatt), then effectively it’s eating up approximately ten times the resources initially.
During operation, it then is supposed to gain back that disadvantage due to the gas plant’s requirement for fuel. However, you also have the required maintenance on the solar plant to consider. Virtually all of these considerations (plus all the others that might be missed or, when regulators with an attitude are involved, consciously ignored) will eventually be captured in a price somewhere.
If, in the end, you consume a product that costs ten times the cost of another product, you’ve probably consumed nearly ten times the resources, assuming the market is allowed to function properly. In short, the solar plant is wasting significant resources, not money, but real resources.
There are external costs, of course, but a good economist can devise ways to capture those in pricing, and that’s where the regulators should focus their efforts, instead of on favoring one method of production over another while completely ignoring pricing signals (as is the case with solar and wind today.)
And this isn’t even considering the quite likely possibility that millions of dollars of government loans are being bled off the project into the pockets of our President’s bundlers…

These solar panels will create hundreds of jobs. Low-paid low-life cleaners’ jobs, mostly illegal aliens, cleaning the panels from desert dust, continuously for the 25 years of the PV’s expected lifetime. I just wonder from where qre they getting all that water and how much it will cost. If the panels are not cleaned continuously, their efficiency will drop dramatically, especellially in a desert environment where it doesn’t rain.

Fundamentals are: If solar was cost effective it wouldn’t need subsidies. It would just be cheaper. It isn’t. Many places in the US have 200 or more cloudy days per year. How is solar going to work there? Binghamton New York is an example. Solar is generally a big giant waste of time and money for most of the US. Where you CAN possibly gain efficiency is to build a system as if you are going to run your home off-grid. Have the storage and charge controllers. Now, charge your system at night off the grid. Have a natural gas generator for charging your system when the power is out. Now if you want to add a wind turbine or solar panels for additional charging, fine. The point here is you have “load shifted” the house to charge at night when electricity prices with the new smart meters might be cheaper. But even that is huge expense gone to get around government regulation.
The primary issue is that there is NO NEED for all of this. The reason they claim to be doing all this is to reduce carbon emissions and nobody to date has shown any good reason to reduce carbon emissions except some computer models that have not matched observations. If you want to get rid of CO2, build nuclear power and recycle the fuel.

Is it time to get back into NAT & maybe a little coal? Kind of looks like it… Now that solar imploded…
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=UNG+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=my
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/davidsterman/2012/05/02/why_im_now_bullish_on_this_hated_commodity/page/2
Or stick to guns stocks?

Let’s not forget the grid disruption caused by cloud shadows in particular,
and more generally by the lack of the inherent grid synchronization capability
of rotating generators. The only kind of solar power plant that avoids this
is the solar chimney, basically a vertical windmill runing steady, 24/7.
But it’s as expensive and land-wasting as the rest.

Slightly off-topic: a note on solar power in India:http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Ambitious_Solar_Program_in_India_Drives_Prices_to_Impressive_Lows_999.html
Back to today’s topic:
$820 million divided by 880 MW works out to $931,818 per MW.
$250 million divided by 30 MW works out to $8,333,333 per MW.

That’s nice, but the natural gas plant, at $820 million, won’t produce any electricity. For the production of electricity, it has to buy natural gas, the prices for which, over the next 30 years, are not known, but will most likely average out to more than current gas prices.
Assuming a 25% capacity factor and a 30-yr plant lifetime for the Cimarron Solar Facility, the initial capital expenditure works out to $0.127/kWh… Almost 13 cents per kilowatt-hour! The average residential electricity rate in the US is currently around 12 cents per kWh
Solar power produces electricity to meet peak demand. Other methods of meeting peak demand cost way more than average costs, so this is probably price-competitive, in that area, for meeting peak demand. It would be helpful to know the actual cost in that area, to confirm this; anybody know? Peak demand is strongly driven by A/C, and A/C demands are generally reduced at night, and in cloudy days.
And lastly, PV prices continue to decline. A good solar power review every year at about this time might be a good idea.
I am in favor of building more natural gas fired power plants, but natural gas will not be as plentiful and cheap in the future as solar power.

Arid NM gets lots of (daylight) sun because there are few clouds. Few clouds means little rain to wash off the dust. A layer of accumulated dust means lower efficiency. How much valuable well-water will be needed to periodically clean the panels, where will it come from, and who will do the panel-washing? The solar radiation may be free, but the operating costs are not.
And, just as the cost of natural gas at a distant burner tip can be much higher than that at a wellhead where it is produced (particularly one located far from a pipeline), beware the value ascribed to power generated in a desert far from very many motors and lightbulbs that can utilize it.

Matthew R Marler says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:21 am
“Solar power produces electricity to meet peak demand. Other methods of meeting peak demand cost way more than average costs, so this is probably price-competitive, in that area, for meeting peak demand. It would be helpful to know the actual cost in that area, to confirm this; anybody know? Peak demand is strongly driven by A/C, and A/C demands are generally reduced at night, and in cloudy days. ”
Let me correct you, Matthew. We’ve heard the “Solar power produces at peak demand” meme often. It is not entirely accurate. It must read: “Solar Power, WHEN it produces, it produces most during peak demand hours.” But it cannot replace a peaker plant, as a peaker plant is ready to deliver; that’s part of the contract; solar power can never deliver on demand.
BUT what solar power does very well is it destroys the economics of peaker plants. Under German law, renewable electricity must be preferred by the grid operators. This means that NatGas peaker plants idle even more than they usually would. It has gotten so bad that none of our utilities is willing to invest in new peaker plants. They are urgently needed as the German nuke phase out has created a perilous situation for the grid.
How will that be resolved? Well, guess what, taxpayer Euros or ratepayer Euros will pay for it… a neverending chain of market intervention… chalk another one up for the Greens…

DirkH: solar power can never deliver on demand.
In places where peak demand is heavily influenced by A/C, delivery rises as demand rises. In a lot of places, that is good enough for now. From time to time, in extremely cold weather, gas does not deliver power on demand either, though it is more reliable overall than solar. To my knowledge, solar is not “replacing” peaker plants, but adding new capacity to meet increasing demand.

@ David Middleton
“I don’t know” would have sufficed. What’s relevant to a writer is often tangential to what’s relevant to a reader. In addition to what you say I object to regulators trying to mold consumption by interfering with light bulbs – the great icon for *good* ideas.

Jon at WA says: …. I see a vision of a twister full of flying panels, a cartoon for JOSH?

Probably similar to the problem of the John Hancock Tower in Boston back in the mid 70’s but on a much much broader scale. ‘Pei got his way’ and created an airfoil anchored to the ground at the bottom and twisting in the breeze at the top. The oscillating strain racked the heavy glass panels right out of their frames that came crashing down all around the building. They replaced them with plywood while wrestling with how to fix the problem earning the building the nickname “Plywood Ranch” at the time referencing an existing retail lumber chain of the same name at the time.

David, oil, particularly light sweet crude is most definitely a fungible asset; almost to the extent that gold is. it is traded on the global market and a bbl of oil costs the UK, France, Japan or the USA the same (shipping costs may vary). To a lesser extent coal and CNG are fungible assets. Electricity is NOT a fungible asset for all the obvious reasons, not the least of which is that you have to generate it at the time you need it. Further, there is high value and low value electricity. Despite claims to the contrary, “renewable” electricity sources such as wind and solar tend to be very cost and low-value sources. One might argue that solar provides augmented capacity for business use (particularly in the summer months) on sunny, cloudless days. The problem is the businesses are located a long way away from where the solar electricity is produced, inverted to AC, stepped up in voltage and sent through transmission lines that are inconveniently not resistance free. On the flip side, most residences use the most electricity after the sun goes down.

I live in Northern California and get my electricity from PG&E, For me electricity costs $.34/kWh and if it costs $.12 or $.01 to produce, the difference to me, as the end consumer, is much smaller than to someone who pays only $.12/kWh for their power.
Interestingly, PG&E’s “Tier 1” residential rate for regular households is only ~$.13/kWh, Tier 2 is ~$.15/kWh. However, just about all households I know of end up in Tier 4 or 5, where the rate is $.34/kWh. This is an improvement over $.42/kWh PG&E used to charge for the top tier, but the trade-off for lowering the top rate was the shift of tiers down, so that more consumers ended up in Tier 4.
To be absolutely fair, PG&E does discount their rates for low-income households, starting at $.08/kWh and topping out at $.12/kWh. With a seasonal rate program, there are additional discounts for the low-income consumers, (like top winter rate of $.08).

Mr.D.Imwit says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:16 pm
You can all mock Solar Power but just have a look at this efficient German solar farm as published by yours truly WUWT.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/05/solar-showdown-weeds-vs-silicon/
OOPS!
By “efficient German solar farm” they were of course referring to the green stuff on top, not the irrelevant flat structures underneath!

“”””” dscott says:
May 5, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Interesting industry response to falling PV prices:
Why Solarcity Is Succeeding in a Difficult Solar Industry “””””
Because their customers are too damn dumb, and they allow Solar City to use THEIR real estate for Solar Cty’s solar collecting system, for zero rental cost, and then THEY allow Solar City to sell THEM back THEIR own solar energy, instead of buying THEIR own solar panels and gathering THEIR solar energy for themselves, without Solar City.
So what is the going rate per square foot for office space rental ? Seems like that would be a good price to charge Solar City for Roof space rental.

David Middleton: This is like me saying, “We need to drill this well right now, because I think rig rates will decline by 40% over the next two years.”
That is true. Drillers think things like that; they cut back drilling when they anticipate increases in costs or decreases in oil prices. These are calculated risks, and the question arises, how solidly are the expectations based on good evidence?
Complementarily, one could say “We need to avoid investments in solar because the prices have never declined as promised, and we know for sure that gas prices will never be higher than now”.
Perhaps we can meet again in 5 years and compare notes. I expect that electricity prices for new PV installations will be less than 1/4 what they are now.

Dave, great post, it looks like I missed another good one
To the weirdos arguing “gonna get better”…. it delivers x,y, or z….. nonsense.
My thoughts……..Comparing solar energy to traditional forms is incredibly vapid. From nameplate to uptime they’re apples to oranges…… or better ripe to rotten. Uptime is the most egregrious comparison. Yes, traditional plants, as individual plants don’t have the daylight uptime as solar plants. But, traditional plants don’t operate by themselves. They work in tandem to where if one is down the others are up. At night, all regional solar plants are down. Always.
In most places peak solar output does not coincide with peak demand. Typically peak demand occurs between 4pm-8pm. This is the typical peak output times for solar.
Comparing various fuels in like terms is almost as vapid as nameplate capacity. While their functions overlap, they aren’t the same and have different market forces effecting their value. 1btu of coal energy is not equal to 1btu of gasolene. It’s stupid to make such comparisons.
The cost of solar energy underscores how little importance fuel for energy has on the retail cost of electricity. We could make nat gas and coal free and most would only see about a 2 cent/kWh reduction in cost.
Well, we can extrapolate from there regarding the various other issues.

“”””” davidmhoffer says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:58 pm
You’v forgotten that very critical factor in green thinking, job creation:
Solar panels require thousands of person years to build the manufacturing plant and install the solar panels. “””””
The “green Job” creation, is the very reason that the tax payer should stay out of the solar energy business. A real economically viable industry creates fewer jobs; not more jobs, than that which it replaces, otherwise the real cost can NEVER go down.
It is NOT an economic problem; it is a TECHNOLOGY PROBLEM !
Namely the technology DOES NOT EXIST !
Solar energy when it is made available to us by the sun, is supplied at a power density of 1362 W/m^2 extra-terrestrially (TSI); or more practically at about 1kW/m^2 for a ground level air mass one or maybe AM-2 location. That is the best conditions peak power density.
Present high production Single Crystal silicon PV panels, apparently can reach 23% solar to PV (DC) conversion efficiency; probably more like 20% in really high volume.
Solar city Cadmium Telluride solar panels don’t come anywhere near that.
The current record for solar-PV conversion efficiency is 43.5% for a triple junction; triple bandgap solar cell, and I am sure that is not terrestrial solar. That is an admirable figure, and better is yet to come. The PV group at Santa Barbara under Shoji Nakamura, are working on a GaN/InGaN PV junction for the shorter wavelength (wider bandgap) cap for a multi junction; multi bandgap PV cell, and they believe they may be able to reach 60% total solar conversion efficiency.
Such technologies are not cheap; but such cells are used in multi sun concentrator optical arrays such as have been pioneered By Roland Winston; formerly of the U of Chicago, and now with the U of California; Merced; who knows more about optimised non imaging optics, than anyone on earth. He has actually made solar images that are brighter than the sun (inside high refractive index YAG crystal non-imaging concentrators.
Unfortunately such two axis steered Optical concentrator arrays, are even less land efficient than are flat solar panels.
The two axis steered mirror steam turbine thermal solar arrays, may be the worst of all in terms of land utilisation, because most of the mirrors are off-axis mirrors, focussing on a common focal point boiler system. But steam turbine technology is well developed, and may yield solar-electricity conversion efficiencies in the 40-60 % range. Those systems are Carnot efficiency constrained, so they rely on very high steam pressures and Temperatures to reach those efficiency levels.
Meanwhile other groups are spending taxpayer dollars on low efficiency PV converters that can be cheaply sprayed on base substrates. I call those the garden hose sprayed fence systems.
They brag about how cheaply they can spray their goop on to battleship plate substrates; well they aren’t too efficient; maybe 5-10%
Hey you can cover land with Saran wrap quite cheaply; and it also doesn’t give you a whole lot of solar energy collection efficiency.
In the end NOTHING matters in solar PV technology, besides total conversion efficiency; from solar photons in to 60 (50) Hz AC electricity out. No matter what it costs the land availability and cost set the economic basis; so efficiency is the first, second, and third most important technology problem and that is not yet solved.
I truly believe the high tech PV folks are going to reach that 60% conversion efficiency; at least for the solar – DC , and it won’t surprise me a bit if they do it in the next five years.
But these charlatans of the Solyndra type; who had the perfect technology scam, long before they had a financing and political skullduggery scam, will keep on bleeding the taxpayer for their fly by night schemes like Energy Sectretary atom trapping Nobellist Steven Chul\’s microbial renewable energy.
But so long as alternative energy is perceived as an economics problem to be solved by economists (and their political hacks); instead of a science and engineering problem to be solved by scientists, engineers and technologists; then the world will wait for free green clean renewable and plentiful, non polluting alternative energy.
In the meantime we do have that stored chemical energy that comes from liquid and gaseous “rocks” deep beneath our feet, known as petroleum and natural gas.; not to mention that fossilized bio fuel known as coal.

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?
_______________________________
And how many acres of land have those panels taken out of the biosphere? plants do not grow well under solar panels and you are going to want the vegetation kept trimmed back around the panels so they do not end up in the shade. Mowing would be a real pain and could damage the panels. That means the best most economical method will be to use a seasonal or year long Complete Vegetation Killer such as Ortho Ground Clear Complete Vegetation Killer
You are talking about 240 ac of completely dead ground soaked in chemicals where nothing lives.

Avfuktare vind says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm
One of the main benefits of solar energy is that it can be produced at the place of consumption….
_______________________________
No one is saying solar panels do not have their place if used with a bit of sense. Solar powered electric fence chargers for example are great for large ranches as are solar panels for providing some electric in third world countries that do not have the transmission capability. Wind mills for pumping water or grinding grain in third world countries are also decent on site applications.

boydo3 N Albany says:
May 4, 2012 at 11:41 pm
At least they won’t have to look for a place to encapsulate and contain vast quantities of radioactive waste for thousands of years……We should be finding new ways to provide the energy our children and our children’s children will need. Gas and oil are highly concentrated and very valuable sources of energy. But they are limited indeed. They should be conserved. We’re gonna need them, big time.
Time to dump this silly propaganda from the oil and gas industry and start looking to future sources of energy, whatever they may be.
_______________________________
Then I hope you are supporting thorium. It is the only reasonable source of energy I have seen so far and can be used in conventional nuclear reactors. ( EM smith on thorium )
Change.Org: Get Nuclear’s ‘Clean’ Little Secret Off the Backburner
Other references:
http://energyfromthorium.com/faq/
http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html
http://www.txchnologist.com/2011/the-thorium-laser-the-completely-plausible-idea-for-nuclear-cars
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2009/03/18/a-report-on-thorium-the-newest-of-the-technology-m
Physics Forums: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=358038
World Nuclear.org: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html and mini-reactors -> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html

Solar cells only work when the sun is shining. To have electricity flowing 24/7, there must be either a system for storage of excess electricity produced (batteries) or a back-up generating system (natural gas, coal, diesel or nuclear. Therefore, since consumers require electricity 24/7, the costs of the back-up generating system or the storage system must be added into the cost of the solar generating system. And since all the systems’ (solar, gas, coal, diesel and nuclear) outputs must be the same, there is no good reason for the solar anyway!
Jay Davis

What caught my eye in the gov’t documents depicted was the word “centralized”. What’s with the notion that electricity generation requires thousands of homes to be served from one generating plant? It’s not economical. Small natural gas fueled plants are quite efficient. What’s being centralized is POWER over people, evern since Insull got the bug in his hat to impose regulated monopoly.

benfrommo says:
BS:
For one, solar insolation difference from summer to winter in central NM is approx 42% . You know how I know this? Well let me tell you a story….

Yep, quite the story!
I monitor my system automatically. Summer heat reduces PV voltage, winter cold increases it. Learn some engineering dude!
NM has elevations ranging from 3000+ feet to over 130000 feet. The air in places ranges from hazy humid to dry-as-a-bone clear, winter and summer.
I’m sure your father had good access to MPPT inverters back in the 80’s as well. If not, I’m sure he was outside adjusting his load point every few minutes to properly extract maximum power from his panels. He surely did some temperature compensation as well.

benfrommo says:
I don’t want to pay for your novelty projects in the NM desert that you make up things about and lie about.

I don’t recall you giving me a dime.

Brewster,
I pay taxes. The solar panels you buy are subsidized by the Government. Ergo I am paying for your novelty projects in the desert.
The technology has not progressed that far at all since the 80’s. I hate to tell you this, but automatically tracking it with computers versus tracking it with tools he bought by hand is not all that different.
That being said, are you seriously arguing that somehow your solar panels are overcoming the laws of physics and extracting more power from the sun then the sun puts out? I mean, by golly I think you just came up with something that I will call perpetual motion or free energy from nothing!
As far as this comment goes:
NM has elevations ranging from 3000+ feet to over 130000 feet. The air in places ranges from hazy humid to dry-as-a-bone clear, winter and summer.
Well yes, of course it does, that is NM. we lived in central NM at an elevation of approx 5-6k. Where do you live that you bork the laws of physics and somehow the Earth does not tilt during the winter or summer at all? Come on, we all want to know this. Where in central NM do you live? In the winter I remember the cold winter days when it would snow at night and the snow would melt before noon because desert snow is fickle and does not stick around for long. The day-time temperatures often melt it and it was not uncommon at all to get snow at night and then get temperatures of up to 50-60 degrees F the next day in the middle of winter. That is at an elevation of 5-6k too mind you.
So if temperature does play such a “Super role” in your efficiency I really am curious on how this works in central NM because your location is critical in this. Yes, New Mexico ranges from deserts to high deserts to even forests and mountains. The state is rather varied and anyone who thinks for a second that the state is automatically a great place for solar panels needs to remember that the state is covered in mountains, has local weather conditions all across the state, and is one of the most varied states as far as topology goes.
This is why I read your post and was so sceptical to begin with. I used to live there as a very young kid and I remember the desert weather very well. The coldest days in the high desert were when it was cloudy, but when the sun is shining you would tend to get the hotter days.
Granted, maybe my memory is off since I was young, but I do recall the average high being around 50 or so in the winter…..so what is your experience since you live there?
Why am I pestering you about this? Because I want you to show us your actual data and to show us your actual information instead of making claims that do not make since for central NM. Show me the proof.
I have lived most of my life in Missouri, which is the show me state, and I want you to show me the proof. I might have lived my early years in New Mexico, but I grew up in Missouri and want to see your proof since your claims are rather far-fetched and I don’t tend to believe far-fetched claims without proof. Show us your data. Show us your proof that despite the Earth tilting away from the sun in the winter according to physics and science, your panels still produce the same power.

That $.12/kWh figure is inflated when you take out high prices induced by California and other blue state stupidity. Most of the middle of the country enjoys ~$0.09/kWh.
As an aside I also have a problem with the EIA’s levelized costs for wind. I simply do not believe that a proper accounting of availability has been made for wind when it shows a lower levelized cost than nuclear.
@Mathew Marler
Quoting directly from your McKinsey source,
“Indeed, the cost of a typical commercial system could fall 40 percent by 2015 and an additional 30 percent by 2020…”
That is not a 40% annual decline. It is a 40% decline from 2012 to 2015 and an additional 30% decline in the following 5 years. Given that even the Chinese are realizing that they are subsidizing a boondoggle, I find the claim highly suspect. Furthermore, if you look at their comparison figure at the bottom of the posting you see that they claim solar is already competitive with existing grid-tied sources in “good sunlight, developed markets (e.g. California (where have I heard that one before?), Spain, Austrialia.” Even more absurd they claim that electricity costs in those markets are already $.20-.30/kWh. Well California can essentially buy the same power I access here in the Midwest at $.09/kWh, so those costs are completely distorted by other political agendas.

David Middleton: In its present state “green” energy, particularly solar, is not economically viable. Tidal, wind and solar power sources are intermittent… And the initial real investment ($) is far higher than fossil fuels.
It would cost more than $6 trillion to replace the nation’s current coal and natural gas power plants with solar power plants… Which would leave you with no capital to expand generation capacity and 6-8 hours of electricity per day.
Building commercial solar plants now is exactly like building UNIVAC’s 60 years ago, with two big differences:
At the present time, solar is economically viable in some places. As costs continue to decline (I can’t tell for sure whether you are stating outright that costs will NOT continue to decline, but you seem so), it will become economically viable in more places. I would not propose to replace the entire fossil fuel based electrical power generating capacity with solar power; building commercial solar power plants is only like installing UNIVAC’s in every home in your imagination, since no one is proposing anything like that.
Up above a price of $0.13/kwh for electricity from solar power was quoted, and compared to average costs of $0.09/kwh for a particular person, and $0.12/kwh for people nationwide. Of those, which do you expect to decline the most in the next 5 years? On recent trends, solar will decline about 80% or more over the next 5 years, but other sources will most likely increase in cost. Because my grandparents lived into their 80s and I am only 65, I expect to see electricity from solar power at under $0.01/kwh; PV factories powered completely by sunlight (following the example of the Boeing 787 assembly plant in South Carolina, which is 100% powered by solar and other renewables); and hydrogen and butanol from solar power cheaper than natural gas on an energy equivalent basis. I don’t expect that you and I can resume this discussion and compare notes when I am 85, but perhaps 5 years from now we’ll still be slogging away at WUWT, and we’ll be able to resume this discussion.
For what it’s worth, I favor more development of America’s coal, oil and natural gas resources, I just do not expect the price reductions to parallel the price reductions of solar. I would, of course, be happy if they did. I also favor diverse nuclear power technologies.
I linked to a cost analysis from McKinsey and associates forecasting 40% declines in the cost of solar power over the next 2 years. We’ll probably still be here in May 2014, and we can appraise their forecast.

Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:34 am

Then I hope you are supporting thorium. It is the only reasonable source of energy I have seen so far and can be used in conventional nuclear reactors.

And what about coal? We have plenty. The only ostensible reason for not burning all we need is the CO2 scare, and CAGW hysteria.

jabre says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:27 am
Panel manufacturers provide 20 to 25 year 80% performance warranties.
Unless the climate on Turner Ranch is sunny and mild all year long, with no precipitation, no tumbleweeds, no pollen, and no wind to deposit talcum-powder dust on them, those panels won’t last half that long, let alone deliver 80% performance.

Matthew R Marler says:
May 5, 2012 at 1:47 pm
If solar prices decline 40% every 2 years, as expected in the review I posted, then the discussion will be much different in 5 years.
If people expect that after 40 years that suddenly solar is going to jump down in prices due to anything other then increased subsidies, they are seriously deluded. If you increase subsidies and make things cheaper by Government intervention, well then of course the cost of solar goes down for the consumer!
But the consumer is still paying for it and the actual cost is still the same and its really just being delusional in the end or lying to say that costs are going down. The costs are the same as before, the only thing that is changing is that there is more Government financing going into solar.
That is great if you are some weird person who thinks Government money is “cost neutral” or some other nonsense like that, but that money does cost the economy and costs real jobs in the real world. Delusional, like I said.

benfrommo says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:31 am
“If people expect that after 40 years that suddenly solar is going to jump down in prices due to anything other then increased subsidies, they are seriously deluded. If you increase subsidies and make things cheaper by Government intervention, well then of course the cost of solar goes down for the consumer!”
Ben, there is a real phenomenon called the experience curve. For different industrial products, costs scale differently with volume, and in the past, with each doubling of the volume of produced PV modules, costs went down by 18%. (An extreme example is software where all the cost is in development so each volume doubling causes a drop of 50% in per unit costs)
The module prices don’t go down through subsidies, as most subsidies are Feed In Tariffs for the user of the PV module.
I looked at the cost curves, there was this optimistic assumption by Edenhofer in one of the PIK reports that costs of PV half each 5 years or so it looked like, it was this document
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/srren-spm-fd4
BUT I found various other graphs that give a price of 7 USD per WattPeak in 1980 so I think Edenhofer is overly optimistic.
Oh,I see that Edenhofer paper was the infamous Renewables report by the IPCC and they have memory-holed it. Maybe their numbers were fake and they don’t want me to see them again. Stuff happens.
Well, anyhow, the experience curve effects are probably real.

benfrommo: If people expect that after 40 years that suddenly solar is going to jump down in prices due to anything other then increased subsidies, they are seriously deluded.
No one is claiming “suddenly”. “Tipping point”, maybe.
Bill Tuttle: ask any former Solyndra employee how that marketing strategy worked out for them…
As you probably know, American Airlines has gone bust and been bought by a former competitor. For reliable news of the industry, I’d recommend you get the information from the purchaser, not AA. Same with solar. Look to the companies who sold 30+ GW of solar generating capacity last year, not the bankrupts.

A last note on natural gas pricing. Some private investors and some municipalities are planning and constructing new pipelines and liquified natural gas terminals to sell more US natural gas to the rest of the world. Once those are completed, US natural gas prices, like US petroleum prices, will be subject to bidding by foreign purchasers. That’s likely to raise the price of US natural gas above what it is now. But, that’s the future, and we won’t know for sure for a few years yet.

As others have aptly pointed out, the fuel costs for electricity generation are a relatively small proportion of the overall costs of generating and transmitting adequate electricity supplies on demand. The apostles of ethanol like to point out that there’s only about 5 cents worth of corn in a box of cornflakes. Of course there’s much more than that in a pound of beef or pork and they miss the broader point. But the basic premise is valid (within certain constraints), that a tripling of corn prices will do little to affect the cost of a box of corn flakes. In terms of generating electricity, most of the cost exists in the form of facilities, equipment, infrastructure and manpower. Fuel is indeed a factor but it pales relative to the cost of regulatory burdens. Other industries are more sensitive to fuel costs (e.g. shipping, airlines).
A friend of mine is a mechanical engineer and a motorhead. He likes to restore classic muscle cars to showroom quality. Most of these cars get maybe 18 mpg at best. Several years ago we discussed this with reference to the mileage of modern vehicles. He provided me with this example. Suppose he spends $15,000 (and his own time as a hobby) restoring a vintage 1969 Pontiac Firebird and it gets 18 mph. Now compare this to a new $30,000 vehicle that gets unlimited mileage. This was back when gasoline was about $1.75/gal. He would have to drive his restored vehicle over 154,000 miles before he hit the break even point on fuel costs relative to the greater acquisition cost of the modern vehicle. Assuming fuel prices remained the same and that he drove an average of 11,000 miles/year, it would take him 14 years to break even. I encourage everyone looking to dump a paid-for 5 year vehicle for a much more expensive but more fuel efficient vehicle in the name of fuel economy. Plug in whatever numbers you want, assume a best case/worst case scenario and see how many years it is likely to take to break even.
The same analogy can be extrapolated to solar power. Even if PV panels magically became “free”, the necessary real estate, regulatory burdens, infrastructure, transmission lines, maintenance and manpower would still exist. So too would the reality that solar only makes electricity when the sun is shining and requires spinning backup. Like wind power it also places unnecessary burdens on the grid. If PV panels were free we could all cover our roofs and backyards with panels, buy expensive charge controllers, inverters and (very expensive) deep cycle batteries and live “off the grid”. That still would not obviate the need to maintain and replace the batteries and panels when they fail (and they will) nor will it do much for that stretch of 4 or 5 cloudy days that even the best sited installations encounter.
The sun and the wind may be “free”, but harvesting them for something useful is very expensive. Until that changes solar and wind power will remain non-viable for the purposes of generating utility electricity. Even when something appears to be “free”…it almost never is.

The paradigm of centralized, photovoltaic generating stations that then transmit power to high density urban areas is severely flawed. If PVs has any chance of becoming economically viable, it is as rooftop installations to provide supplementary power, peak off set power in areas where peak loads are caused by the demand for air conditioning, and back up generation when there are power outages. With a homeowner owned installation in a low density suburb, PVs benefits from being installed on an existing structure rather than a purpose built facility and the homeowner will take care of cleaning dust and snow off of the panels.
Of course the best backup power for PV or wind is hydroelectric. A hydro plant can be brought on line very quickly.

James Crawford says:
May 6, 2012 at 3:23 pm
The paradigm of centralized, photovoltaic generating stations that then transmit power to high density urban areas is severely flawed. If PVs has any chance of becoming economically viable, it is as rooftop installations to provide supplementary power, peak off set power in areas where peak loads are caused by the demand for air conditioning, and back up generation when there are power outages.
Your first one is not a good example. Other power sources can do this cheaper, more efficiently and in the long run with less CO2 emissions (see nuclear power).
There is zero advantage of using anything hooked into the national grid that isn’t competitive with the national grid as far as cost goes or is not superior in some form. Solar and wind are inferior sources of power compared to any other source of power hooked into the national grid. They are not on demand power sources and therefore inferior. Why spend more money on solar power and hook it into the national grid? There is zero reason.
As far as temporary sources of power during power outages, that is one usage for solar that makes sense. Or even wind for that matter perhaps if you can set-up a portable system (doubtful) but perhaps that is just solar’s domain. Something that can be hooked up to make a temporary power grid while the real grid is fixed is something that makes sense, can be inferior in that some power is better then none…and there you go.
————————————————————————————————————–
@DirkH, the experience curve will not work with solar power or anything driven with subsidies. There is no incentive to drive down costs in manufacturing because if they drive down costs, the subsidies get cut. So why would these companies spend more money to increase efficiency when they would end up saving nothing and probably in the end manage to just lose subsidy money? The subsidies are simply determined to make sure that companies that manufacture these products can make X profit and stay in business so that the better solar companies keep going and the ones that are managed by morons go out of business. It seems like capitalism on the surface, but you can not apply the theories and practices of capitalism economics to this at all.
In essence, the experience curve and build-up of factories will just produce what is called a “standardized” company and process that every company uses. There is no reason to be in competition all that much except to make sure no one new pops up, you just want to be efficient enough to make sure the top dogs stay at the top, so you keep anyone new from coming into the market. You do this by making yourselves just slightly more efficient and hide the earnings by investing in inventory or something of that nature. So the various companies talk to each other and instead of competing, they share just enough insights to stay on par with each other and in the end these companies just become copies of each other and what does this end with eventually?
I will let you figure it out, but this system produces not innovation but standardization and lack of competition to the point that the companies simply cooperate together to lobby congress for subsidies and other stuff like that. That is what happens when Government picks the winners not based on whether the product is good or bad, but on whether people “like the technology” and instead of letting the industry either succeed or fail in the real world, we let delusions run wild.
I hope this explains why the experiences of the software industry and elsewhere will never be seen with solar. And if you do want to see these experiences, you have to eliminate every competitive edge these companies have and force them to play on an even playing field as every other company. Eliminate subsidies, tax breaks, FITS, and everything. Make it a truly level playing field and if the technology can survive, it will, otherwise bust….

jayhd says:
May 6, 2012 at 6:20 am
Solar cells only work when the sun is shining. . .

Well, not entirely. You can fire up some diesel generators at night and shine powerful floodlights on the solar panels. As I recall, some company in Spain tried this. As long as you are getting a government subsidy for the electricity you supply from your ‘solar’ cells, does it matter how efficient they are?
Spain is doing really well, now, aren’t they?—leading the path to our ‘green’ future.
/Mr Lynn

benfrommo: I hope this explains why the experiences of the software industry and elsewhere will never be seen with solar.
Beware of sentences containing the word “never”.

gerrydorrian66 says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:59 pm
In the UK, the green boom seems to be fuelled by the desire of rich people to make more money by hosting heavily- and even fully-subsidised wind-farms, and I’m sure, as flooding continues during the heavy rainfall of our “drought”, solar cell farms will follow. It’s enclosure all over again

For those not familiar with Brit terminology, this refers to the notorious de-population of the Scottish Highlands by new English landlords to make room for large sheep farms after the defeat of the Scots armies. Lots of things now associated with Scotland, like the usually seen styles of arms-to-the side dancing, were actually introduced (from France in that instance) and modified (no touching, arms still, etc.) to suit the Calvinist tastes of the new landlords. Scots fled across the world, notably to North America.

Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Whether or not you believe in CAGW and on this blog most are sceptical as indeed am I, the development of non polluting forms of energy production surely is a plus for the environment. Isn’t it? Everything isn’t always down to the dollars and cents. Is it?
===================================================
Ian….. I don’t wish to pile on, so forgive me……… but, I don’t believe you understand what the function of “dollars and cents” is.
The question isn’t what “pollutes” more or less. Pollution is stupid expression. Everything pollutes. With or without mankind. Everything.
The question is always, “What works for the greatest good of mankind?”.
I firmly believe windmills and solar panels work against the greater good. It is silly to think otherwise. We’ve shown the utiliization of our fuels have increased our quality and quanity of life. It has also been shown that we can increase our quanity and quality of life and still increase quality and quanity of the flora and fauna of the earth.
Sustainable is a chatch word with alarmists/leftists. But, consider the American bison. They would be extinct if not for us being able to utilize other resources. In fact, their numbers have increased to the will of the American people. Why? Because they serve no utility to nature any further. They would have died out save for our efforts……. only accomplished by our utilization of various sources of fuel, food, and energy. Polar bears….. the same answer. Certain species of trees…. again, the same. A hungry person will eat the last of anything to save themselves. As all living things would do so.
Our use of energy and fuels saves us from being reduced to animals. It pisses me off for anyone to suggest we should return to such an existance. Anyone believing we should are either evil or stupid. Either way, if we left it to Darwin…….

Matthew R Marler says:
May 6, 2012 at 8:26 pm
benfrommo: I hope this explains why the experiences of the software industry and elsewhere will never be seen with solar.
Beware of sentences containing the word “never”.
———————————————————————————
I always say never to economic systems that require subsidies for survival. They are depended on said subsidies and in the end they will eventually die out when the host decides to just get rid of the leech.
Mark my words, one way or another, the entire solar energy boondangle will fall along with wind because the US as it is has almost no money and it is just plain nuts to think that a country that is going bankrupt has the money to spend on “novelty” power sources.
Projects like these are doomed to failure because they will eventually run out of other people’s money to spend. And then what happens? Do they magically become efficient or just go bankrupt? Any takers on what will happen to solar and wind companies when the subsidies dry up completely?
Heck, this article above shows the costs in a comparison so that should show what will happen if the subsidies and “attempt at leveling the playing field for these novelties” stops when our out of touch leaders in Washington really do realize that you can not spend money you do not have forever on novelty projects like this.
They are already spending 100 billion a year on this in the US (wind + solar) so not sure this entire economic system can survive once the real cuts start coming to the budget. The first things to go when times are tough are the novelty stuff like this.

benfrommo says:
May 6, 2012 at 4:30 pm
“@DirkH, the experience curve will not work with solar power or anything driven with subsidies.”
The 18% cost per unit reduction on doubling of volume was not a prognosis; it is what is observed with the price curve in the past. The subsidies are – at least in Germany – not given to the companies Solyndra-style. The subsidy is the FIT. So the user of the PV panel will shop for the cheapest panels. That is competition in my book. Even though the end user will get a subsidy.
“I hope this explains why the experiences of the software industry and elsewhere will never be seen with solar. ”
Of course you cannot expect to see the 50% reduction per unit cost in PV due to the need for physical manufacture, shipping and handling. I used software as the example for the extreme end of experience curves. Different products show different experience curves. For PV cells, it was 18% per doubling in the past. You cannot prove that it can’t happen; history has already refuted your argument.
I am against subsidies just like you. But I won’t deny that scale effects exist.

Bill Tuttle says:
May 6, 2012 at 10:33 pm

Gail was talking about advancing thorium reactors and your response was coal-fired generators, which I thought an interesting disconnect.

Bill, thanks for the partial clarification, but if you read again, I think it’s pretty clear I was challenging Gail’s assertion that “thorium…is the only reasonable source of energy I have seen so far”
Gail Combs says:
May 6, 2012 at 5:34 am

Then I hope you are supporting thorium. It is the only reasonable source of energy I have seen so far and can be used in conventional nuclear reactors.

….and, I did specify burning the coal, so there was no disconnect, at least in my comment.
Steve P says:
May 6, 2012 at 9:50 am

If the CO2 scare is a scam, then we can freely burn all the coal we need.

That’s the point.

ANother factor is that the output of a gas powered plant does not degrade significantly over time. That is, at the end of it’s 30 year operating life, a natural gas fired plant wll be producing almost as much power as it did when it first opened. Solar plants on the other had do degrade significantly. It may be producing 30MW on day one, but it will be producing much less, perhaps as much as 50% less by the end of it’s life.

NM has elevations ranging from 3000+ feet to over 130000 feet

Wow. Who knew that the tallest mountain on the planet was in New Mexico?

From the FERC database, for Q1 (Jan-Mar 2012), buried within the quarterly data spreadsheet for Southern Company Services, Cimmaron produced 65490 MWh (25.6% cf average) and received $137/MWh (13.7 c/kWh). The power is purchased by the Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assoc, a co-op of many smaller power utilities.
The Cimmaron array is within the territory of Springerville Elec Co-op. Residential rates are $10.957 c/kWh flate rate, or TOU @ 13.858 c/kWh from 0700-2000, and 7.076 c/kwh 2000-0700. Full rates are found here:
http://www.springercoop.com/rates.cfm
Basically, the power from Cimmaron costs more for the co-op to buy than it can sell it for. Cimmaron (and other New Mexico solar PV arrays such as Roadrunner in Santa Teresa, NM) exist only because of the NM RPS requirements.

benfrommo spews:

Brewster,
I pay taxes. The solar panels you buy are subsidized by the Government. Ergo I am paying for your novelty projects in the desert.

Great, you claim the Chinese are getting US$ to build cheap solar panels. Thank you for your support!

The technology has not progressed that far at all since the 80′s. I hate to tell you this, but automatically tracking it with computers versus tracking it with tools he bought by hand is not all that different.

Here is where you show your ignorance. 30 years of inverter technology makes a world of difference. No one was standing outside with their panels tweaking the load by hand every few minutes back in the 80’s. You don’t seem to grasp the significance of the I/V curve of a PV cell. This is critical to maximize panel efficiency over changes in light and temperature. It is all done automatically now. If you can’t grasp what this all means then I feel sorry for you. Data logging can be done with a volt meter and pad of paper or a data acquisition system. Nothing fancy needed for that.

That being said, are you seriously arguing that somehow your solar panels are overcoming the laws of physics and extracting more power from the sun then the sun puts out? I mean, by golly I think you just came up with something that I will call perpetual motion or free energy from nothing!

Just where did I claim I’m getting more power than the sun puts out?

…So if temperature does play such a “Super role” in your efficiency I really am curious on how this works in central NM because your location is critical in this.

Did you know a typical PV cell has a temperature coefficient of 0.4-0.5% V/degC ? Obviously you did not. Did you know that the peak power point of a PV cell shifts with temperature and light? obviously not. Consider that a typical cell will have its power reduced 25% on a ‘normal’ NM summer day versus a winter day? (you can do it!) What would a reduction of power by 25% do to a panels power production (hint: no math required).

Yes, New Mexico ranges from deserts to high deserts to even forests and mountains. The state is rather varied and anyone who thinks for a second that the state is automatically a great place for solar panels needs to remember that the state is covered in mountains, has local weather conditions all across the state, and is one of the most varied states as far as topology goes.

Now you have those synapses firing!
Did you know that giving a solar panel on a fixed mount about 10 deg. of eastward tilt during the summer will boost power generation by favoring improved solar angle of incidence when the cell is cooler?
Did you know that another 5 deg. or so also boost power since anyone who lives in NM (my entire life, 50 years, thank you) knows that during the summer, virtually every afternoon/evening, will have clouds form. You may not realize this but clouds actually block sunlight and it is better to collect photons more efficiently during the morning hours than waste optimum panel orientation on cloud blocked photons during the heat of the afternoon.
Did you know that the solar angle of incidence is much more constrained during the winter versus summer? This allows for greater light capture efficiency during the winter with a fixed mount system.

Granted, maybe my memory is off since I was young, but I do recall the average high being around 50 or so in the winter…..so what is your experience since you live there?

Depends, are you talking about Roswell or Chama?
Anyone with knowledge of science would deem that optimum PV panel orientation has to consider weighing angle of solar incidence with typical cell temperature curves determined by local weather trends. Simply setting a panel facing dead south with an elevation approximating where the sun will track is only getting part of the optimum power from their system. You only seem to have 30 year old second hand knowledge of what you talk about.

Why am I pestering you about this? Because I want you to show us your actual data and to show us your actual information instead of making claims that do not make since for central NM. Show me the proof.

Sorry, I have no motivation to give people with attitudes like yours anything. You have shown that you think solar panel power is maximized by pointing to some angle based on a solar insolence chart and plugging in daddy’s RV battery inverter. I contend that local conditions such as temperature trends, expected cloud cover, maximized solar angle of incidence, atmospheric opacity due to spring conditions (air born dust for ex.), and peak power point tracking. Conditions are harsher in the summer. Panel efficiency is down by double digit percent, afternoon illumination is iffy, the solar angle of incidence tracks wider of normal than during the winter. Winter conditions bring cool temperatures, crystal clear, low humidity skies.
Look, I know PV solar will never work commercial scale unless there is a way to efficiently store energy. Without this, every solar installation will require a backup generator for unexpected events (namely clouds).
A home system lets me cut my grid power costs when panels are producing power and use grid power when they are not. The early bird gets the worm, I am in the noise as far as utility power consumption goes and my load changes don’t even get seen. If everyone did this (equivalent of a utility scale solar plant), the grid power supplier would go nuts when a cloud floats over.

@Dirkh
Regardless of how the subsidy is figured in through tax breaks, fits or whichever, why would a company want to lower costs? If they lower costs, and there is not a need for as high of subsidies regardless of whether its a FIT, or whatever, the FIT will be reduced and the company will be back to square one. The reason you see efficiency increases and scales of industrialization increase is that competition breeds larger companies to put their competitors out of business which also drives them to make even larger profits.
There is no incentive here. I explained how the companies will more then likely band together to increase efficiency as a group to drive newer companies out, but to keep subsidies high, they will want to make sure that it appears they are barely breaking even. That is the point in an artificially tailored business….make your money and not make waves when you are forced to work together with your competition to ensure that subsidies are kept as high as possible.
Competition simply breeds ever increasing cost cuts that then also drives subsidies and FITS down. That is reality, and the companies are not stupid. They realize this, so in the end why would they scale their manufacturing up instead of just building additional factories which costs less, carries less risk, and above all else ensures that the process is fair for everyone in their group?
Remember, they are forced to work WITH their competition to ensure that subsidies remain as high as possible regardless of how they are applied. This is not your normal business and you can’t apply lessons that you learn from previous businesses in any respect. The companies have zero incentive to risk it all on scaling production up when the subsidies could be cut in 2 years and make that investment a complete loss. The FIT could be likewise reduced which is the same thing.
This is why you do not see the scaling and I did not make this clear before because I thought I could explain it in fewer words, but that is artificial markets for you in a nutshell. That is how they work because frankly why should these companies be stupid and shoot themselves in the foot? They are in business to make money and those businesses regardless of what business it is that do not make money go out of business.
But like I said, you will see marginal cost decreases as the larger companies will find more efficient ways to do things (not the 20% mind you) but they will pass some of this onto the consumer just to make sure that any increase in subsidy dollar and fits is kept with current companies. That is the name of the game with this kind of business. If a large ramp-up does happen, they will just build additional facilities that are no bigger then what they have now…because that is the name of the game. They are in it to make money and since they are solely depended on FITS, subsidies or tax breaks to survive, investing in larger scale production methods is a risk none of them is going to make. And if they do, well good for them, they made it so that subsidies can be reduced across the board…good job stupid as they say.

benfrommo says:
Its like this sir. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Your claim that you can get the same energy from the sun during the winter (or roughly) as during the summer is VERY extraordinary considering the solar insolation in that part of the country is roughly 42% rounded up. (41.something to be exact.) – difference between winter and summer…..

Until you learn some basic physics and learn that PV power is tied to solar angle of incidence and cell temperature, NOT solar insolation, I’m going to ignore you. Read up on it, learn something, crunch some numbers, pop the lid on your Prozac.

Brewster, that is uncalled for. There is no need for insults. I am going by what I remember from central NEW MEXICO and the readings my dad got from his solar cells. Those were his actual power output levels.
All you have to do to prove me wrong is show me your actual power readings over the winter and summer months. If you have indeed gathered similar amounts of power and want to prove it, why is this so hard to do? I am not asking for much here.
If you want some empirical proof that you are wrong, another poster already provided it. So I will let that stand and I am done on this topic and I am sure everyone else who bothers to read this far into the thread will let this stand too without you providing proof.
Just read and see what PV cells actually accomplish in real world situations:
Richard Hanson says:
May 6, 2012 at 12:41 pm
The following data is the total energy produced each month in 2011 by PV power sources connected to the national grid of Spain. The source is the annual report of Red Electrica, Spain’s only transmission and electrical system operator. The report stated that the sources are a mixture of fixed and tracking arrays. Spain began 2011 with 3647 MWs (name plate) of installed PV power and the year ended with 3903 MWs, a difference of just 7%. About ¾ of the PV power sources are located in southern Spain, at about the same latitude as northern New Mexico. For 2011, Jan. produced about 36% of July. Regardless of the year to year variations it’s clear that winter months produce substantially lower energy outputs than the summer months. Solar thermal (parabolic mirrors…I don’t know what the solar towers will do) does even worse with winter months at about 20% the output of summer months.
2011 Mwh
Jan 340 *
Feb 462
March 526
Apr 691
May 771
June 829
July 901 *
Aug 827
Sept 757
Oct 655
Nov 387
Dec 423
2012
Jan 495
Feb 641
March 789
Apr 684