Guest Post by David Middleton
My apologies to the memories of the late Richard Llewellyn and late John Ford; but I just had to borrow their title for this post. This paragraph from a 2010 Telegraph article really says it all…
Its 500,000 photovoltaic panels will generate 30 megawatts of electricity, enough, in the popular measurement, to power 9,000 homes. It is costing about $250 million to build, significantly less than a gas, coal or nuclear power station, which can easily exceed $1 billion. And it represents a sea-change in America’s energy business.
America has been notoriously devoted to hydrocarbon fuels. Big Oil, Big Coal and big Texan hats in the White House were seen by the rest of the world to be keeping it so, whatever the global interest. Oil barons funnelled money to scientists ready to pour doubt on the science of climate change, and conservative Republicans led the charge to pour scorn on those such as the former Democrat vice-president Al Gore who were urging Americans to rethink where their energy was coming from.
The power plant described in the preceding passage is the Cimarron Solar Facility, built on Ted Turner’s 590,823 acre ranch in northern New Mexico. It is indeed true that most natural gas- and coal-fired power plants cost a lot more than $250 million to build. However, it’s also true that most natural gas- and coal-fired power plants have nameplate generating capacities a bit larger than 30 MW…
TVA to build natural gas power plant
By DUNCAN MANSFIELD, Associated Press
Posted June 4, 2009
KNOXVILLE — The Tennessee Valley Authority on Thursday decided to build an $820 million natural gas power plant in northeastern Tennessee to comply with a North Carolina lawsuit over air quality.
The 880-megawatt combined-cycle gas plant would be as large as the 1950s-era, coal-fired John Sevier plant in Rogersville that a federal judge has targeted for new pollution controls on North Carolina’s behalf.
[…]
- $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.
Assuming that the gas-fired plant managed an 85% capacity factor and a 30-yr plant lifetime, the initial capital expenditure would work out to $0.004/kWh… A bit less than half-a-cent per kilowatt-hour. 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… That’s the retail price. As a consumer of electricity, I know which plan I would pick. I’m currently paying about 9 cents per kWh. I sure as heck wouldn’t seek out a provider who would have to raise my current rate by about 50% just to cover their plant construction costs.
Solar photovoltaic electricity is bankruptcy the green way writ large. Here in Texas, Austin Energy has agreed to a long-term purchase agreement to pay $10 million a year for 25 years, for the electricity generated by the Webberville Solar Farm. That works out to more than 15 cents per kWh.
In concert with his efforts to drive up the cost of coal- and natural gas-fired power plants, President Obama has aggressively pursued an agenda of financing expensive power plants with taxpayer dollars. Many of these taxpayer-guaranteed loans have gone to financially strapped companies, lacking the means to repay those loans. In most cases local utilities were coerced or enticed into signing long-term purchase agreements to buy electricity at nearly double the cost of coal- and natural gas-generated electricity. The sole justification for this “green” centralized industrial policy is the Lysenko-like junk science of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming.
The economics of this “green” centralized industrial policy are mind numbingly horrible.
The capex for solar power plants averages between $6- and $7-million per MW of installed capacity. Coal-fired plants generally run less than $2-million per MW and natural gas plants currently run less than $1-million per MW. The average retail residential electricity rate in the U.S. is currently less than 12¢ per kWh. The levelized generation cost for the plants being financed by the Obama administration is more than 20¢ per kWh. His “green” centralized industrial policy will drive the wholesale cost of electricity to nearly double the current retail rate.
One need not literally seize the assets of businesses and install gov’t bureaucrats into management position to effectively nationalize those businesses. All it takes is to make them dependent on gov’t and/or direct their activities through regulatory constraints.
Steve P says:
May 7, 2012 at 6:29 am
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 she has seen so far…
Ah. Got it In context, now — I’d read it as advocating thorium as the only reasonable source of energy *for reactors*.
Mea maxima culpa!
I am highly skeptical of the traditional wind and solar power solutions as replacements for petrochemical energy. These techniques require huge, extensive structures to produce the same energy that we presently obtain from petrochemicals. I see no effort being made to construct these or set aside land that will be dedicated to this purpose on the scale that would be required when petrochemical energy is no longer available. If we are going to limit ourselves to these resources after petrochemical energy is depleted, I believe that most of our current global population will disappear, because modern agriculture depends on abundant cheap energy. Some have said this will mean “The End of Liberalism” and a return to the barbarous practices of past ages.
There are indications that we may, at the very least, be approaching the “End of the Beginning” of the exploitation of petrochemical energy as we are having to go ever farther to find new sources, which are of ever lower grade quality fuel. (In the middle of the last century, the “Rich Texas Oilman” was a media stereotype, now it is the “Rich Arab Prince.”)
The talk of ‘electric cars’ seems to be missing the point also. I do not suppose anyone has calculated the size of the solar panel array needed to keep just one car fully operational–not to mention trucks or taxis. Of course, nobody is talking about electric aircraft.
The only energy option that I can see as possibly replacing petrochemical energy is thorium nuclear, but, except for one small start-up company, no real effort is being made in that direction either. As far as I know, no university in this country has built, or plans to build a thorium cycle reactor and they also have been in the process of decommissioning their uranium reactors, so that ever fewer trained nuclear engineers are bring graduated.
RE: Spector: (May 8, 2012 at 3:08 am)
Why did you say thorium, one might ask . . . that is based on the assertion that this element is so common in the Earth’s crust that it will always be available. I understand this is not true for the fuel of today’s uranium reactors. Also thorium liquid state recycling reactors should produce orders of magnitude less of the dangerous, long lasting, transuranic waste (plutonium, etc.) products, which must be cumulatively sequestered for tens of thousands of years.
No, you just made stuff up out of second hand hearsay. Sorry. You really need to learn something about basic physics and engineering.
Well duh!
And as you keep ignoring (since you don’t seem to understand), there are other physical conditions that determine PV power output other than how many hours of light there is during the day. And tell me again how a difference of 4 hours of daylight between summer/winter creates a 60% difference in insolation?
Some basic physics for you: Higher altitudes have thinner air, mainly lower levels of moisture and dust loads (read this as clearer, i.e. more intense sunlight). Angle of incidence, this is the angle the sun makes with the plane of the solar panel. When a solar panel is on a fixed (non-tracking) mount, one wants to maximize the angle of incidence (as near normal as possible) to collect maximum light. Compensations for cell temperature can be applied on top of this panel orientation optimization to take advantage of the cooler cell temperatures (more power) provided during the morning hours.
But I though your second hand hearsay anecdote claimed to optimize angle of incidence? I guess you didn’t understand what they were doing.
Sigh, you just don’t get it do you. Weight the inverse temperature profiles on top of the solar insolation curves and optimize with local cloud cover trends. The information is out there, you just need to have the slightest clue about what you are trying to do.
Yes, I’m not arguing with this. Solar has no advantages large scale unless costs go down more and efficient storage is invented.
True tracking solar panels will maximize power during the day and given the daylight hour differences between summer/winter, power will be nearly proportionally higher during the summer. With fixed panel systems, the sun cannot be tracked. Optimizations must be made. These optimizations are more effective for winter power generation than for summer, i.e. the summer advantage over winter is less. In my experiments, I’ve found further tweaks based on local conditions that give a percentage power increase over simple optimum panel positioning. This also provides more gain for winter months than summer. I realize you have no clue how solar PV energy is produced and what must be done to get the most out of it, but at least don’t go calling people liars and spouting off made up numbers as ‘proof’, all you are doing is showing the world how ignorant you are while patting yourself on the back. It’s called narcism, look it up.
Stas Peterson says:
May 7, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Hey Stas, couple quick questions:
Since we’ve got a lot of coal, abundant natural gas, as well as arguable amounts of remaining crude, why do we even need nuclear at all?
How high is your basketball court piled with the waste, and what is the source of your data?
What needs to be done at Fukushima?
Here is a video showing an official, sometimes dry, discussion of what might be called ‘near term’ energy outlook–perhaps for the next fifty years with increasing unconventional petrochemical production. On a long term basis, there will eventually be a need to convert to a new energy source. Perpetual Petroleum as a primary source of energy is an obvious fantasy.
Unconventional Oil and Gas: Reshaping Energy Markets
“Published on Apr 12, 2012 by csisdc”
1 likes, 0 dislikes, 52 views; 1 Hr, 19:37 min
“Amid volatile energy markets, one notable bright spot has emerged on the energy landscape: the development of vast unconventional oil and gas resources in the United States. The success of these resources has widespread economic, geopolitical, and environmental implications and offers a unique opportunity to rethink conventional energy policy.”
Benfrommo, Brewster: Gentlemen, Gentlemen…. Civility, please.
I never really looked at the relative seasonal output of my rooftop installation, but my impression was that the variation wasn’t all that much. So my initial reaction to your comment, Ben, was that your numbers were high but possibly due to some local condition. However, the discussion prompted me to go take another look at my electric bill, and I see that my original impression was wrong. In July I produced 550 KWH, but in January only 231. No, a single 6 month period with no controls on any of the variables isn’t worth much statistically. Heuristically, however, it illustrates the danger of relying on unexamined impressions, rather than looking at the numbers. (One reason I didn’t notice the difference is that excess production in the summer was carried over month to month to reduce my electric bill–mostly to zero.)
Personally, I am utterly opposed to large commercial solar projects. One good reason for solar is to make us less dependent on Bullmoose Industries. (That’s a reference to Al Capp’s L’il Abner, for you young whippersnappers.) And I think the economics are also a good reason, but only if you live in the sunbelt. Temptation here is to elaborate that, but I’ll resist.
The present administration has wasted more than enough money on wind and solar to have designed and built several Molten Salt fluoride nuclear reactors. Oak Ridge National Labs operated the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment for about 5 years over 40 years ago. They can use Uranium, Thorium or waste fuel from present reactors as fuel.
Characteristics of liquid core reactors:
a) These reactors will shut themselves down with no harm if there is a power failure.
b) They can not blow up or explode.
c) 100 Megawatt units can be manufactured in a factory and shipped on a tractor trailer truck for emergencies.
d) They can destroy spent nuclear fuel form other reactors.
e) The reactor operates at very low pressure (near atmospheric).
f) There is no need for a huge containment vessel.
g) One ton of Thorium fuel will produce a gigawatt of power for a year.
h) The US government already has over 330 tons of thorium stored in the Nevada desert.
i) Thorium is plentiful in the US and the world.
j) Fuel can be added while the unit is operation.
k) Fuel reprocessing is carried out while the reactor is in operation.
l) They will follow the load over a considerable range without control rods or other controls.
m) Valuable fission by products can by processed out while it is in operating.
n) They will consume near 100% of the nuclear fuel; current reactors only consume from 0.005% to 0.007% of the nuclear fuel before it has to be removed from the reactor.
O) The fission products that are not valuable will decay to be harmless in a few hundred years rather than the thousands of years necessary for present day reactors.
The projected cost per KW for such a plant would be less than $0.10.
Steve P says:
May 6, 2012 at 9:50 am
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.
___________________________
As a chemist who worked in plastics, textiles and the drug industries I really rather save petrochemicals for other applications. You can make so many useful things out of long chain hydrocarbons so why burn it if you can use thorium for energy (electricity) instead?
From what I can see the whole debate needs a healthy dose of common sense. Use the correct chemical/engineering application in the correct place and kick the money sucking politicians and their corporate buddies away from the public money trough.
Troy Jordan says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:31 am
I am glad you wrote that. As with continued investment in almost everything else, I think that the price per kwh would eventually be driven down with continued investment, though I would be surprised if the initial units achieve the price that you “project” — the quotes are for emphasis, not mockery or disdain.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:58 am
I am glad you wrote that. As with continued investment in almost everything else, I think that the price per kwh would eventually be driven down with continued investment, though I would be surprised if the initial units achieve the price that you “project” — the quotes are for emphasis, not mockery or disdain.
The videos and data that I based my estimate on said electricity for less than the cost of coal @ur momisugly $0.04/ KWH. Since the data and videos were a couple of years old I increased my estimate to “less than $0.10/KWH”
Steve P says:
May 8, 2012 at 8:02 am
What needs to be done at Fukushima?
Who knows? We don’t know what’s really happened. We’ve got enough to piece together that it was far worse than reported – Japan has of a few days ago now closed down all its nuclear reactors, some 50 of them, they say for maintenance.
“Time is running out for the 35 million people in the Tokyo metropolitan area though and in fact, in a year or two all of northern Japan might become quite uninhabitable. Radiation levels are creeping up and it is sad.”
http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/atomic-suicide
http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html
“Japan’s former Ambassador to Switzerland, Mr. Mitsuhei Murata, was invited to speak at the Public Hearing of the Budgetary Committee of the House of Councilors on March 22, 2012, on the Fukushima nuclear power plants accident. Before the Committee, Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries.”
Image of it here: http://blog.imva.info/ http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/hanging-thread
http://enenews.com/breaking-us-senator-issues-press-release-on-no-4-spent-fuel-pool-warns-situation-worse-than-reported-after-tour-of-fukushima-plant-urges-japanese-to-accept-international-help
http://ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com/category/radioactivity-from-fukushima-nuclear-plant/
http://www.colinandrews.net/Japan-NuclearAlertUpdates-2012-Debate-Colin-Andrews.html
Last time I looked at this I’d found mention that the usual reporting of deaths by region etc. was now excluding the area immediately affected
I should also add I most certainly am not “Anti-coal” far from it. Coal plants should continue to run as long as they are safe to run. However thorium is an abundant resource in the USA with no other use and therefore should be looked at as an energy source for future power plants especially the mini-nuclear plants that decrease energy loss from long distance transmission.
…..
On the decrease in the price of solar. It has been over forty years that solar has been on the market. That make it a “mature market,” unless there is some sort of major breakthrough it is not going to get much cheaper. Solar has been around almost as long as commercially available computers. Home computers had pretty much fully penetrated the home market in the mid eighties. Prices are still dropping but not at the rate they were. Essentially you are talking an exponential curve.
WIKI “PC hard disk capacity (in GB). The plot is logarithmic, so the fitted line corresponds to exponential growth.” graph
Here is an article that explains it better than I can The Seduction Of The Exponential Curve
Gail Combs says:
May 8, 2012 at 10:34 am
So far, it hasn’t been an either/or proposition – we’ve been able to burn our fuel, and tinker with it too – and I’ve seen no credible evidence that we will be running out of anything anytime soon; certainly not coal, and probably not natural gas either. The question about oil reserves is open, I think, and the biogenic origin of fossil fuels itself remains a theory, and one with some special pleading to make it work.
Whatever happened to that Nazi coal gasification process? Did I read correctly that those papers were sealed after WWII for 50 years? And then sealed again for 50 more, or was that just my imagination?
Thorium seems to be everyone’s darling these days, but there are no operating commercial thorium reactors, and my take on it is that daunting engineering challenges remain.
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy
Finally, I’d like to draw special attention to this interesting dichotomy, from the debatepedia link, just above:
So, on the one hand, the engineering challenges of building weapons from thorium waste are too daunting, but on the other, the engineering challenges of reprocessing and extracting the U-233 are within our grasp.
It does not compute.
RE: Steve P: (May 6, 2012 at 9:50 am)
“. . . And what about coal? We have plenty. The only ostensible reason for not burning all we need is the CO2 scare, and CAGW hysteria.”
Yes, until we run out of it. Remember that the plenty we have is based on current usage modes, not the usage rate, perhaps more than fifty years away when we start using it to manufacture all our liquid transportation fuels as the Germans did during World War II.
The primary technical problem I see with nuclear reactors is handling the structural neutron corrosion issue. Just as, for example, the flow of neutrons can cause thorium to change into fissile uranium, that same flow can cause structural carbon-twelve to become stable nitrogen-fifteen after three successive neutron captures. I assume this is a well-known and manageable situation.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 7, 2012 at 2:33 pm
I think that with the right level of continued subsidies for R&D, the costs of electricity and fuel from alternative sources will be reduced below the costs from fossil fuels in my lifetime. This is already true of ethanol in Brazil and solar for electricity in large parts of the world.
——————————–
Brazilian Alcohol based fuel is not below the cost of “gasolina comum” (per unit of energy). Anyway Brazilians pay more for fuel than Americans, and their per capita fuel usage is WAAYYY less. The gas is below American standards down there too at about 85 octane. You mustn’t listen to Bill Maher.
Since solar and wind combined don’t even account for 1% of the electricity produced worldwide where is this “large part of the world” where solar out performs fossil fuels? It appears only Germany has more PER CAPITA solar than the USA, and from what I’ve read solar is a loser in Germany & the USA.
Justa Joe: Brazilian Alcohol based fuel is not below the cost of “gasolina comum” (per unit of energy).
I got my information from an article published in Science a few years ago. Since then, the cost of producing ethanol has declined slightly in Brazil, and the cost of gasoline has increased somewhat, along with the world market increase in petroleum.
where is this “large part of the world” where solar out performs fossil fuels?
Places with lots of sunshine but poor roads and grids. Rural India is included, and some other areas named in the McKinsey report I provided the link to above.
Steve P says:
May 8, 2012 at 12:15 pm
….Thorium seems to be everyone’s darling these days, but there are no operating commercial thorium reactors, and my take on it is that daunting engineering challenges remain….
______________________________
There are no operating commercial thorium plants because the military wanted weapons materials and I am sure there are major regulatory hoops to jump through to make the change to thorium in currently operating nuclear reactors a royal donkey fest.
See: EM smith on thorium: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/21/the-moon-and-sick-plans/#comment-964024 He states, with back-up links, that thorium can be used in all the USA nuclear plants already in operation. Oak ridge operated a thorium reactor for four years before it was shut down.
Please note when I say I prefer thorium, I meant as an alternative to Solar, Wind and dinosaur farts… or was that unicorn farts. And yes I am aware of adiabatic oil, however if we are going to spend tax money chasing unicorn farts at least have it something with a real possibility of a return on investment and safer than the current nuclear plants. Thorium seems to fit that description.
Myrrh says:
May 8, 2012 at 11:48 am
Steve P says:
May 8, 2012 at 8:02 am
What needs to be done at Fukushima?
Who knows? We don’t know what’s really happened.
____________________________
Here is the update as of 27 April 2012 for Fukushima at World Nuclear Association: [we provide information on nuclear power, nuclear energy, sustainable development, mitigating climate change….] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/fukushima_accident_inf129.html
You can compare it to their report for Chernobyl: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
For what it is worth we have Kevin Cave here on WUWT who lives near Fukushima and reported on it. His name links to this website: http://hackfud.net/
Matthew R Marler says:
May 8, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Justa Joe: Brazilian Alcohol based fuel is not below the cost of “gasolina comum” (per unit of energy).
I got my information from an article published in Science a few years ago. Since then, the cost of producing ethanol has declined slightly in Brazil, and the cost of gasoline has increased somewhat, along with the world market increase in petroleum.
——————————-
I’d love to see this article because I lived and worked in Brazil, and “álcool” may be slightly less per liter than gasoline, but this is not offset by the lesser amount of energy per liter contained in alcohol vs. gasoline. From my observation it’s a wash. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Brazil’s sugar alcohol fuel biz is anything but a government sponsored make work program just like the USA’s corn alcohol program. It’s certainly not the panacea that you’re trying to make it out to be evidenced by the fact that Brazil is trying to exploit all of its Petroleum resources. None the less fuel is more expensive in Brazil particularly factored against per capita income. Why would I want that?
………………..
where is this “large part of the world” where solar out performs fossil fuels?
Places with lots of sunshine but poor roads and grids. Rural India is included, and some other areas named in the McKinsey report I provided the link to above.
———————————
Take a step back. Take a deep breath. You’re comparing Brazil (almost a 3rd world country) & India (a 3rd world country) with the USA. Rural India’s energy demands are not in the same universe as that of the USA. Nobody sane can accept “rural India” as an example of a model to be followed by the USA.
Justa Joe: It’s certainly not the panacea that you’re trying to make it out to be evidenced by the fact that Brazil is trying to exploit all of its Petroleum resources.
I didn’t claim it was a panacea.
Nobody sane can accept “rural India” as an example of a model to be followed by the USA.
I also cited the example of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner assembly plant in S.C., and powering A/C in modern southern California.
Since solar and wind combined don’t even account for 1% of the electricity produced worldwide
At one time, fewer than 1% of American homes even had electricity. At one time, fewer than 1% had radios. At one time, fewer than 1% had televisions, then fewer than 1% had color televisions, then fewer than 1% had cable. And so on. At one time fewer than 1% of the world’s children received measles vaccines. At one time, less than 1% of the transoceanic travel was by air, and at one time less than 1% was by jet-powered aircraft (at that time, jet engine development was even more heavily subsidized than it is now.)
The world installed about 27GW of solar electric generating capacity in 2011, more than it installed nuclear powered electric generating capacity. What will happen in the future can not be predicted any better now than any time previously, but the technologies and economics of the alternative energy sources are being changed rapidly.
I think we have beaten this issue to death for now, and we should revisit it next May, and in May 2014, to see, among other things, whether the predicted 40% reduction in PV power has been achieved. I think you’ll agree that a reduction from $0.13 to $0.08 would be noteworthy, should it occur, especially noteworthy if the export of LNG from the US has raised the cost of electricity from gas compared to what it is now.
oops that’s $0.13/kwh and $0.08/kwh. And if it’s $0.05/kwh by 2016, even more noteworthy yet. That may seem like a long time in the future, but it’s only the next scheduled US presidential election. These administrations really fly past in a hurry.
Justa Joe says:
May 8, 2012 at 4:02 pm
….You’re comparing Brazil (almost a 3rd world country) & India (a 3rd world country) with the USA. Rural India’s energy demands are not in the same universe as that of the USA. Nobody sane can accept “rural India” as an example of a model to be followed by the USA.
___________________________________
I am afraid you are wrong Joe, the naive city-dwelling supermarket preditors who yearn for the “simple life” depicted in Walt Disney movies seem to be real luddites.
Zombie really catches the essence of what I mean.
Here is more evidence of this “back to the simple life” mind set.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm
I didn’t claim it [Brazilian alcohol based fuel] was a panacea.
———————–
It’s not “already” cheaper than fossil fuel either.
At one time, fewer than 1% of American homes even had electricity. At one time, fewer than 1% had radios. At one time, fewer than 1% had televisions, then fewer than 1% had color televisions, then fewer than 1% had cable. And so on. At one …
———————–
Sorry friend, Your analog(ies) are all flawed. You see we already are 100% electrified. Nobody really needs what you’re peddling.
The world installed about 27GW of solar electric generating capacity in 2011, more than it installed nuclear powered electric generating capacity.
———————–
That solar power did not come into existence by market forces. It was forced on the people politically so the solar bubble is due to burst. We’re seeing that already it would appear.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 6, 2012 at 9:36 am
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);
——————————-
Under the arrangement with Boeing, SCE&G will own and maintain the solar generation system and will supplement the solar-generated energy with power from its system resources, coupled with green attributes from its North Charleston biomass generator, to meet all of Boeing’s energy requirements.
http://www.charlestonbusiness.com/news/41866-sce-amp-g-completes-boeing-rsquo-s-solar-rooftop-project
Seems like a lot of PR. a lot of govt grant money, and bit of sleight of hand. It also seems like your 100% “green” miracle solar powered plant has only been obstensibly solar powered for about 6 months, which would make it a tad premature to declare it a complete success for their 100% “renewable” goal. My guess would be that SCE&G has an incredible amount of electrical service going into that plant. Being involved in mfr’ing one thing I know you absolutely cannot go down.
to paraphrase Chris Horner one can build a windmill with a steel mill, but you can’t run a steel mill with a windmill. My guess if we factored in the whole Boeing 787 supply chain about 1% of the energy used to make that jet would be from “renewables.”