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.
Justa Joe says:
May 8, 2012 at 9:14 pm
…… 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.”
_________________________
Joe, I think it is the “North Charleston biomass generator” that is actually running that plant. Solar is just a feel good that generates enough electric in the summer during the day to run the LED lights (DC) and possibly the A/C. If it is like the plant where I worked in Columbia SC, it is not heated at all.
I worked in a polystyrene manufacturing facility that used “waste oil” from the process to fire a generator that ran the plant. South Carolina has a big timber industry. There are about 75 primary processing plants that produce 600 million cubic feet or more of “roundwood” South Carolina is also a big farming area.
Those two industries are where the waste biomass is coming from to power that plant. It might work in one or two factories down south but it will not work in the Northeast or especially in the Northwest.
This is just a typical greenie sleight-of-hand to say “SEE it can be done, now let’s do it for ALL industry” They figure people will not notice it is impossible for more than a couple of plants in prime locations.
Gail Combs says:
May 9, 2012 at 3:41 am
Joe, I think it is the “North Charleston biomass generator” that is actually running that plant.
———————–
BTW – Thanks for the heads up on that zombietime article.
Common sense tells us that the Boeing plant requires a lot if not the majority of its juice at least part of the time from the “supplemental” sources. The plant probably runs 2 or 3 shifts. Looking at SCE&G resources they are dominated by conventional electrical generation. I rather doubt they can parce out only the Biomass to Boeing. I haven’t read where the biomass plant(s)’ output is exclusively allocated to Boeing.
Two-thirds of SCE&G’s electricity comes from fossil plants. The V.C. Summer Nuclear Station supplies approximately 19% of SCE&G customers’ electricity. Hydroelectric & Internal Combustion Turbines (nat gas) are also in the mix.
http://www.sceg.com/en/about-sceg/power-plants/
Keep in mind that this singular plant was proffered by Matthew as an example of his claimed “large part of the world” where “renewables” were more cost effective than fossil fuels. We don’t even know if this Boeing plant’s electrical situation is even cost effective.
Justa Joe: Two-thirds of SCE&G’s electricity comes from fossil plants.
Sure. I never said otherwise.
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.”
Sure. I never said otherwise. You are back to the 1% argument. It’s as though you are asserting that 2% is impossible everywhere for everything.
See you next year. On a recent projection, about 35GW of new solar electricity generating capacity will have been installed between now and then. How long do you think it will take to get electricity from PV panels at $0.05/kwh? $0.02/kwh? As pointed out above, that will not be the net cost to the consumer in a bill, just the cost of the generation; and, as others have pointed out, they will still only work in the daytime.
How long before electricity from PV panels is less than electricity from natural gas? Some say never. McKinsey and associates say it’s cheaper in some places now, and the area over which it can be said to be cheaper is growing.
Till next year, …, keep those predictions coming. And read recent reviews. Everything two years old is probably too unreliable.
Meanwhile, here are some notes on nuclear power developments in China:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/china-plans-to-have-5-megawatt-liquid.html#more
Don’t forget batteries: http://www.energy-daily.com/reports/CUNY_Energy_Institute_Battery_System_Could_Reduce_Buildings_Electric_Bills_999.html
Whether or not this one lives up to its promise, batteries will be different in May 2017. that looks like a long ways in the future, but 2007, the year of the Witch Fire in San Diego County, is “only yesterday”.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:27 am
“How long do you think it will take to get electricity from PV panels at $0.05/kwh? $0.02/kwh? ”
I estimate it now to be at 30 US cents or 20 Eurocents, all costs included. I think this will half about every 10 years.2022: 15 US cents; 2032: 7.5 US cents; 2037: 0.05 $/kWh. 2050: 0.02 $/kWh.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:27 am
—————————————
C’mon Matt. Don’t get shifty. You told us that the Boeing SC plant was an example where “renewables” were more effective than fossil fuels. That doesn’t appear to be the case. The plant only appears to be 100% renewables if you have a child like credulity for corporate “green” PR. When will solar energy be a viable entity without the massive subsidization by taxpayers & rate payers, the massive set asides, and the massive mandates & political manipulation?
You continue to tout the reports from this McKinsey outfit. A quick search of the internet shows that KcKinsey is just another “renewables” advocacy group making the usual incredible claims.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 8, 2012 at 4:27 pm
….I also cited the example of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner assembly plant in S.C., and powering A/C in modern southern California…..
___________________________
If you want something “green” that does not produce CO2 and actually can work. Look at this site: http://mb-soft.com/solar/saving.html
Bloomington IN is 52.5F and Sonora (cavern) Texas is ~ 70F (if I remember correctly) Dick was the first guy that I knew of who came up with the concept (1960’s.) He was in the process of building in 1969 – 1972 when I knew him.
Dirk H: I estimate it now to be at 30 US cents or 20 Eurocents, all costs included. I think this will half about every 10 years.2022: 15 US cents; 2032: 7.5 US cents; 2037: 0.05 $/kWh. 2050: 0.02 $/kWh.
You could be right. I think recent trends argue against 10 years for the “halving time”, but as everyone knows the future is hard to predict, and the grid charges and other electricity charges are not “halving”.
See you next year.
Matthew R Marler says:
May 9, 2012 at 9:46 am
Meanwhile, here are some notes on nuclear power developments in China:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/china-plans-to-have-5-megawatt-liquid.html#more
___________________
OH, I LOVE this part.
I am not sure where I saw it in my copious reading, but the Chinese were over here rather recently and getting all the information about Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors from Oak Ridge as part of the World Trade Organization’s Information Technology Agreement.
China is targeting patents as a source of economic power: China’s race for patents
Here are other some links:
http://www.ustr.gov/trade-topics/industry-manufacturing/industry-initiatives/information-technology
http://www.sinomania.com/CHINANEWS/china-wto.html
http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/info_tech_agreement.pd
Matthew R Marler says:
May 9, 2012 at 11:20 am
“You could be right. I think recent trends argue against 10 years ”
I used to be on the “5 years” side but found more data…
To add to China’s race for patents, including the thorium flouride reactor, are these tidbits. Chinese hackers steal private data from 760 firms this also included research universities and government institutions.
I trust that everyone here will remain sceptical about future prices in the solar power industry? There are several claims of prices “halving within X years” which is not even realistic for a power industry based as it is.
We have plenty of options for power. The question is whether the Government is going to keep picking winner and losers or let the best source win?
Cost should be what holds back solar and wind..but look how that works out…instead of cost, the Government has picked the winners here and everyone else pays for that choice.
How nice that the Government can pick what companies win and lose. From personal solar panels to large solar power plants, the end result is the same, more Government Pork when we are already broke and in debt. And who pays for this?
Every little person. The costs that the utilities are forced to pay are simply passed onto the users of electricity. Therefore, even the poorest person without a job in todays recession pays for these choices our Government makes on their behalf. How nice for the solar power industry that the Government makes that decision for someone who can not afford to pay the power bill?
These guys predictions about halving the price of solar in X number of years are funny. It reminds me of all of the electric vehicle fanboys invoking “Moore’s Law” to convince people to buy into EV’s.
http://gigaom.com/cleantech/dear-friedman-there-is-no-moores-law-for-batteries/
Solar has more problems than just the high cost.
My impression is that Uranium Nuclear beat out Thorium Nuclear for much the same reason that the Apple Macintosh lost out to the IBM PC despite being considered by many to be a technically superior system.
According to the Google Tech-Talk video “The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn’t This Happen …”, he indicates that President Nixon was committed to achieve U. S. energy independence by the development of a more conventional breeder reactor that would use neutron transmutation to convert a more abundant, but non-fissile form of uranium into fissile plutonium. The Nixon Administration apparently viewed the thorium nuclear work to be an unwanted distraction to the main effort and shut it down. After vast amounts of government money were spent on uranium breeder project, it was cancelled by President Carter, who believed the government should be pushing solar power instead. There was also the disturbing fact that the plutonium it produced would be perfect for the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn’t This Happen (and why is now the right time?)
“Uploaded by GoogleTechTalks on Dec 22, 2011”
461 likes, 13 dislikes; 38,675 Views; 36:02 min
“Google Tech Talk
December 16, 2011
Presented by Kirk Sorensen”
One interesting video that also may be applicable is Joe Bonometti’s upbeat “Lessons Learned” presentation for potential Thorium Developers on the typical problems encountered on earlier technical programs of similar scope. It illustrates why some projects, such as developing a new energy source for mankind, can be much more easily said than done.
Joe Bonometti – LFTR Development Lessons Learned @ur momisugly TEAC3
“Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Dec 26, 2011”
22 likes, 1 dislikes, 12,577 Views, 36:02 min
“http://thoriumremix.com/2012/ Joe Bonometti summarizes lessons learned from similar engineering projects, and how to avoid these pitfalls when constructing the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
“Presented at the 3rd Thorium Energy Alliance Conference, in Washington DC. http://thoriumenergyalliance.com
“Watch a feature length documentary on Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4“
Troy;
I do b’lieve you mean 10¢ per W capacity, $100/KW.
The GAO has recently determined that recoverable shale oil in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming is 30-60% of 3 TRILLION barrels. Which is a much recoverable reserves as the entire rest of the planet currently.