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.
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.
Ian of Fremantle says:
May 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm
First off, you are assuming that solar is non-polluting. It isn’t, the production and disposal of solar cells produces a lot of toxic waste. Then there is the heat pollution aspect of all those solar panels. Then you have to consider all of that land that is converted from a natual setting.
Wow. Who knew that the tallest mountain on the planet was in New Mexico?
Avfuktare vind says:
May 4, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Getting rid of power lines would only be feasible if it were possible for solar to completely replace electricity. Since this isn’t possible, there will always be power lines, and the blight of solar panels.
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 $10.957 c/kWh flate rate, or TOU @ur momisugly 13.858 c/kWh from 0700-2000, and 7.076 c/kwh 2000-0700. Full rates are found here:
http://www.springercoop.com/rates.cfm
Basically, the power from Cimmaron costs more for the co-op to buy than it can sell it for. Cimmaron (and other New Mexico solar PV arrays such as Roadrunner in Santa Teresa, NM) exist only because of the NM RPS requirements.
Just think how many searchlights they’ll have to shine on it at night!!!!
benfrommo spews:
Great, you claim the Chinese are getting US$ to build cheap solar panels. Thank you for your support!
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.
Just where did I claim I’m getting more power than the sun puts out?
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).
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.
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.
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.
I think what you’re looking for is “..if it were possible for solar to completely replace fossil fuels or nuclear means of generating electricity”. Or some such.
@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.
Brewster says:
May 7, 2012 at 8:20 am
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…..
Show me the proof or don’t make extraordinary claims. Its that simple. How does a device which extracts energy from the sun get the same energy in the summer as it does in the winter and vice versa when the sun’s energy is 42% (less then half) of what it is in the winter? How is that possible? That is such an extraordinary claim that I don’t know where to begin.
Prove me wrong if you can. If you do, Ill eat my hat and admit I am wrong. Until then, you can post all you want, but tell one lie as they say and I trust nothing of what you say. Or just admit you are wrong and I will accept it, and move on. Its that simple.
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.
BTW,
The solar insolation _difference_ between winter/summer in NM is ~40% not winter being only 42% of summer as you falsely claim. Are you sure you were not looking at Minnesota (MN)???
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
“It is costing about $250 million to build, significantly less than a gas, coal or nuclear power station…”
The fraud and deciet of the media is notorious Anthony. I suggest you start applying the “liar” label to Charles Lawrence and the Telegraph too.
benfrommo: I always say never to economic systems that require subsidies for survival.
Well, those include the air transportation system, which receives government subsidies for air traffic control and airports; and most of the surface road system which is paid for out of state and local taxes.
Matthew Marler,
While I agree with your comments in general, I have to point out that your examples do not require subsidies. The market is there. Regulation providing for a level playing field and public safety is required. But are subsidies required? No.
And benfrommo, are you aware that an oligopoly is probably the most intensely competitive economic model? eg: Japanese cars. Toyota and Honda are fiercely competitive with each other and with the other Japanese manufacturers. The result is ever higher quality at lower cost for the consumer.
Competition improves everything in nature. But self-serving groups and individuals do everything in their power to insulate themselves from competition, whether it is a public employee labor union, or a subsidized solar plant. Eliminate the subsidies, make them compete, and the country will be much better off.
Smokey: I have to point out that your examples do not require subsidies.
That is not something that we know. What we know is that they persist while receiving perpetual subsidies.
Matthew Marler,
I agree with your comment on perpetual subsidies. Regarding what we know, I’ll leave you with this question: Do you think if all government subsidies were eliminated, that air travel would cease, and airports would stop operating?
The government serves a valuable function regulating fair competition and promoting public safety. Taxpayer subsidies are not necessary for either of those functions.
Smokey: Do you think if all government subsidies were eliminated, that air travel would cease, and airports would stop operating?
They would be reduced and they would be more expensive. For some participants, the subsidies are required.
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. Which milestones are achieved in which which year I don’t know, but the whole discussion will be different in 10 years, and I expect electricity at $.02/kwh (at the source) in 5 years. Previous successful subsidy programs were for radar, jet engines, aircraft design, and medical R&D, railroads, waterways (e.g. the Intracoastal Waterway and Mississippi Valley systems) and canals.
No, you never said what his power levels were, you wrongly claimed the winter solar insolation was 42% of summer.
Relating solar system power output directly to solar insolation is just nutty. You still will not specify if the panels peak power point was tracked during the day and if panel orientation was adjusted to maximize daily power generation.
Solar insolation could only be determined with a solar panel IF the panel could track the sun (maintain a solar incident of 1.0) and was in a temperature controlled environment. IF these tow conditions are met, THEN you can argue that the daily power output of a panel linearly tracks with solar insolence. Dad’s 30 year old RV inverter tied into a radio shack solar cell mounted on the dog house roof is hardly proof of anything.
Sorry, arbitrary claims about relating solar system power outputs to winter/summer seasons without any specifics as to panel orientation, inverter technology, temperature, etc. is basically meaningless.
Solar Energy Zealots going strong since 1970. Too bad we can’t say that for actual solar power output.
Mattew Marler says:
Airports and air transportation “…would be reduced and they would be more expensive.”
That was not the question.
Brewster, There is nothing to say to you in those regards. I already answered those questions in previous posts. But since you want to dodge the pertinent question, here is more proof that you are wrong.
Just look at the length of day during the winter versus the summer in central New Mexico. How is a solar system going to produce power when the sun is set? That is more then 4 hours more of daylight on average during the summer then the winter.
And the altitude…the angle of incidence. Why are you trying to argue this in the first place?
Source: (For Albuquerque, NM)
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=394&month=6&year=2012&obj=sun&afl=-11&day=1
Date Sunrise Sunset LOD Solar: noon Altitude Distance
Jun 20, 2012 5:53 AM 8:24 PM 14h 31m 27s 1:08 PM 78.3° 152.026
Dec 21, 2012 7:11 AM 4:59 PM 9h 47m 29s 12:05 PM 31.5° 147.155
Face it, solar power has serious disadvantage during winter outside of the tropics.
Boydo3,
The” vast amount” of high level radioactive waste in the entire world would fit onto one basketball court. Or did you even know that? Did you know that of that “vast”, one basketball court pile of long lived radioactive waste, only less than 1/2 of one percent stays dangerously radiaoctive for more than 100 years? The other 99.5% is safe in about a hundred years give or take.
The only long lasting high level radiaoctive waste is less than 1/2 of 1% of the sludge that Mr. Carter and the his stupid cohorts, wished to bury under a mountain at the edge of Death Valley.
The French have developed a process that takes 1/4 of the 1%, or about half, of the long lived radioactive waste and tranmutes it in special incinerators. This isn’t theoretical either, they already do it, rather routinely. We already have 104 of these special incinerators, and could do the same, except for JACKASSES like Mr. Gore and Mr. Obama, who won’t consider doing so.
We already know how to take the other half or the other 1/4 of 1% and incinerate it too, leaving Nada, None, Zero, Eephus of such long lived radioactive waste, instead transmuting it into short lived radioactive materials, that are safe in a hundred years or so.
We store the Gold in Fort Knox for longer than that. Surely we know how to store something safely for a mere hundred years. But for this portion, we need to build a special incinerator to do so, which we also know how to do, too. We even have three acknowledged designs, to accomplish it too. So there is no insurmountable problem to removing all high level radiaoctive waste, enduring for more than a hundred years or so.
I can’t help it if you are ignorant, and/or stupid, and never heard of “Actinide Burning”. Dig the dirt out of your ears, and open your eyes, and stop listening only to greenie idiots and their propaganda. Your CASSANDARA JACKASSES don’t want you to know we could have no radioactive waste at all in a hundred years, or so.
By the way, did I tell you we already plan to build the special incinerator required, for the other half of the long lived rdaioactive waste, and many more besides? Did I tell you that you could make money while we did it, and make electricity to sell, too? Wecan and would, if we had the will to do it.
Smokey: That was not the question.
You omitted the part where I wrote that the subsidies were necessary for some of the participants in the market.
I think we have exhausted these topics for this year. I’ll end my contribution by repeating what three things that I wrote earlier.
1. Be cautious with sentences that have the word “never.”
2. We ought to review the technologies and economics of renewable energy supplies next year.
3. I also support development of fossil and nuclear fuels.