The agency has already approved 17 large-scale solar energy projects on public lands that are expected to produce nearly 6,000 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 1.8 million homes. The department estimated the resource potential of the newly identified development zones at 23,700 megawatts, enough to power seven million homes, by 2030.
Wow! 23,700 megawatts! That’s a lot of megawatts! Right?
No. It’s not…
If all 285,000 acres were covered with solar PV arrays, the “Hot Spots” could have a generating capacity of about 40,000 MW at a cost of about $252 billion.If the same 285,000 acres were covered with natural gas-fired power stations, the “Hot Spots” could have a generating capacity of about 1.8 million MW (1.8 Terawatts) at a cost of about $1.5 trillion.
To put this in a little better perspective…
US electric utilities added an average of 22,734 MW of generating capacity per year from 2001-2010. If the “Hot Spots” acreage was devoted to that annual capacity growth…
Solar PV would consume all 285,000 acres in 21 months at a cost of $143 billion per year.
It would take 80 years for natural gas-fired plants to cover the 285,000 acres at a cost of $19 billion per year.
If every acre of the newly designated Federal land was developed for solar power, it would cover less than two years of the average annual incremental growth in US generating capacity.
It really is ironic that President Obama thinks that, “Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we’d still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil,” while his administration crows about setting aside 285,000 acres of public land for solar power development that can’t even match our average incremental generation capacity growth for two years.
I wonder if the people who oppose developing ANWR because, by itself, it might only cover a few years of our total oil consumption, are simply giddy about “Boot” Salazar’s latest boondoggle… 
Kent Beuchert says:
July 27, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Comparing a conventional plant’s capacity with that of a solar PV field is comparing apples and oranges. That 40,000 MW figure is during the noon hour. Since solar irradiation in those deserts probably averages 7 “suns”per day (summertime), the output of the solar field will be (roughly) 40,000 times 7 or 280,000 MWhrs per day….
________________________________
HUH? “averages 7 “suns”per day” where ever did you get that???
There are tables for calculating all that, just like there are engineering tables for calculating roof slope and snow load or the pole depth for varying soil type and spacing.
Here is one article on the subject: link
and a table is available through this company link
I also suggest you read ENERGY AOL
And guess what? The secret is out that the numbers are hyped and we are being sold a bill of goods by the con artists in the solar business for a fast buck.
@Kent Beuchert,
40,000 MW is the maximum installed capacity if every square inch of the 285,000 acres was covered with solar arrays. The maximun output under any conditions would be 40,000 MW. Under ideal conditions 40,000 Mw could dleiver 40,000 MWhr per hour. The average capacity factor for solar PV is 20-24%. Even if the 285,000-acre array could average a capacity factor of 35%, the daily output would only be 336,000 MWhr per day.
285,000 acres of natural gas-fired power plants have more than 10 times the daily output at nearly 37 million MWhr per day.
Let us not forget that every watt of solar capacity has to be backed up by a watt of NG, or other 24/7 capacity, because it absolutely predictable that the solar output will be 0 for half of the year and will be less than 100% for another quarter of the year. The backup capacity cannot be run flat out, so it will have a higher capital cost than base capacity. You would actually be far better off if you never built the solar.
One county over from me, Indiana Co, Pa, has three coal fired steam plants generating 6 gw, covering probably a few hundred acres total. They consume coal, but have been doing it since the 1960’s.
Solar and wind have some major problems (for now): intermittent or variable output, cost. But I don’t see that land use is one them, at least not in comparison to some traditional forms of power.
The comparison to covering the federal bad lands with traditional natural gas fired boiler plants instead was to poke fun, but it is also impossible with the resources available there. The boiler fired plants of the world require *water*, and a lot of it. Solar PV does not. Those several hundred thousand acres in the western US high plains do not all have ready access to lakes and rivers. Sometimes plants use man made lakes. The nuclear plant in the middle of my state is well run and safe, but it also had a lake built in the 70’s dedicated to cooling the plant, drowning 53 sq km. And I still have not touched on the mining / drilling land required, the rail right of ways for mile long trains, the ash and sludge from coal plants, etc.
As for the cost, unlike solar PV all those theoretical gas plants will still be pulling BTUs through a pipe 25 years from now, and that gas is not going to be $3/mmbtu any more.
Also, if the some of this land becomes somehow that irreplaceable, then rooftops and other already-used spaces will do. Here’s the largest roof array in the US, 9 MW over 25 acres, on top of a chiller warehouse in NJ.
http://goo.gl/maps/T9FmM
One might try, but I doubt that roof could be covered with gas power plants.
eh wrong maps link …
http://goo.gl/maps/EAgXr
Falstaff says:
July 30, 2012 at 10:23 pm
Solar and wind have some major problems (for now): intermittent or variable output, cost. But I don’t see that land use is one them, at least not in comparison to some traditional forms of power…One might try, but I doubt that roof could be covered with gas power plants.
You wouldn’t have to cover the roof with gas plants — just install a single 9mW one in a corner.
The advantages — you’d only have to reinforce the roof in one corner, rather than the entire roof; you’d have access to the plant’s full 9mW 24/7 rather than just 20-25% for three hours (max — it’s *Camden*, the Overcast Capitol of NJ) a day; you’d save on maintenance overtime by not sending a crew up once a week to clean particulates and bird droppings (seagulls love the Camden waterfront); and your ‘lectric power won’t be interrupted during snow events. Camden’s winter temps are buffered somewhat by Philly’s UHI presence, but it *does* get snow in the winter — *wet* snow, so you can’t just whisk it off with a horsehair broom.
@ur momisuglyFalstaff,
Yes, the covering of “every square inch” with both types of power plants was a bit of sarcasm. However, the power densities are simple calculations. Natural gas plants deliver about 6 MW/ac and solar PV plants deliver about 0.15 MW/ac.
As far as gas prices go… I find the oil & gas for a living… Been doing that for more than 30 years. I learned a long time ago that price predictions, beyond inflation estimates, were little more than guesses.
While wellhead natural gas prices are unlikely to remain as low as they are forever… Many shale plays are subeconomic at $7/mcf gas producers will drill and produce as much gas as they can and LNG exports won’t be significant for decades, if ever. Most of the LNG market is in Asia, LNG tankers are too big for the Panama canal and there are no LNG terminals on the west coast (and unlikely to be any due to rampant mental greent@ur momisugly#dation in CA, OR & WA).
US LNG Terminals
All of the LNG terminals were built to import LNG, except Kenai AK. Kenai exports Cook Inlet gas to Japan. Prior to the shale boom we were consuming more gas than domestic production could provide. Only one LNG terminal in Louisiana has been approved for conversion to an export facility.
There will be more *proved* reserves of natural gas in the ground 30 years from now… A lot more. The resource potential will also be much greater.
Proved natural gas reserves in the US have grown by more than 50% since the shale gas boom took off in the late 1990’s. These are proved reserves…
US Natural Gas Proved Reserves
The proved reserves have actually grown as US natural gas production has increased…
US Natural Gas Production
Even at $10/mcf, the levellized 30-yr cost of natural gas-fired electricity is only 11-12 cents/kWh. Solar PV is ~21 cents/kWh. Plus, almost all of the cost of solar is up front. It not only costs more; but you have to pay for it years before you use it. Almost all of the cost of gas-fired generation is incurred as the power is generated. Apply a standard discount rate to the solar CapEx and the economics fail even worse.
Cold winters, hurricanes, economic booms and other unusual events may trigger short term price spikes, but the only way that US natural gas prices are likely to rise to the point of making solar competetive would be through regulatory malfeasance regarding fracking. And this will likely be the case for at least the next 20-30 years.
Correction…
Many shale plays are subeconomic at less than $5-6/mcf. July 2018 Henry Hub gas futures are only in the $4.20-$4.70 range. The average annual price paid by power plants will likely be less than $10/mcf for a long time to come because they hedge their purchases in advance, at$7/mcf gas producers will drill and produce as much gas as they can and LNG exports won’t be significant for decades, if ever.
@D. Middleton
Yes, the covering of “every square inch” with both types of power plants was a bit of sarcasm. However, the power densities are simple calculations. Natural gas plants deliver about 6 MW/ac and solar PV plants deliver about 0.15 MW/ac.
Yes that’s the *plant* area requirement, but again as per my original post: 1) in some cases such as this warehouse the area is effectively free, an already sunk cost by the owner so its irrelevant, and 2) the gas/coal/nuclear plant has other requirements besides the plant – fuel drilling/mining, fuel transportation via rail/pipelines, large waste area storage in the case of coal ash, and water access (sometimes quite large like North Anna’s 53 sq km lake), where as solar PV requires none of these. Solar has some very difficult problems to overcome via intermittent supply and cost, but this uses-too-much-land criticism is a red herring in my view. I want to see the land use critics out carrying signs in the corn-ethanol fields (35 *million* acres in the US) or on golf courses in the Arizona desert before I take them seriously.
Even at $10/mcf, the levellized 30-yr cost of natural gas-fired electricity is only 11-12 cents/kWh. Solar PV is ~21 cents/kWh.
Well solar PV is more expensive than that in cloudy areas, and in sunny areas for industrial projects the 2012 price is under 16 cents / kWh. The important point however is that solar PV LCOE has been falling at 15% per year and that is bound to continue for some time. The price of gas will no doubt continue to see some ups and downs, but over the long term it is only going to continue rising, as it has done historically.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9190us3a.htm
In the case of this NJ warehouse, NJ can’t be bothered apparently to build much more in the way of new centralized electric generation, is letting the license on its nuclear plant lapse, so the warehouse owner can reasonably expect the price of electricity in NJ (already an expensive 14 c/kWh) to increase substantially over the life of that facility.
Meanwhile, back on the farm . . .
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/suntech-not-solvent-without-chinese-assistance-maxim-says.html?cmpid=yhoo
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/31/suntech-may-be-a-victim-of-chinas-own-game-of-fra.aspx
@Bill Tuff
You wouldn’t have to cover the roof with gas plants — just install a single 9mW one in a corner.
Just? And just install a 100,000 cf/hour gas connection (i.e. 30 megajoule/sec), and just permit the emissions.
you’d have access to the plant’s full 9mW 24/7 rather than just 20-25% for three hours (max —
Note this a chiller warehouse, a very good application for solar PV. The large majority of the power is needed in the summer during the day.
it’s *Camden*, the Overcast Capitol of NJ) a day;
In the winter maybe, when they don’t need much power. Otherwise the Philly – Camden area receives a June average of 6 kWh/m^2/day of solar radiation (not electric output) per NREL, about the same as Phoenix in the Spring and Fall.
you’d save on maintenance overtime by not sending a crew up once a week to clean particulates and bird droppings (seagulls love the Camden waterfront);
It also rains in Camden-Philly.
Falstaff says:
July 31, 2012 at 11:21 am
…NJ can’t be bothered apparently to build much more in the way of new centralized electric generation, is letting the license on its nuclear plant lapse…
Where’d you hear that? NJ doesn’t have *a* nuke plant — it has four, and none of them are letting their permits lapse. The site in Toms River (aka Oyster Creek) is scheduled to run until it’s deactivated in seven years and the three in Salem all renewed their 10-year permits last year.
It’s not that NJ “can’t be bothered” to build new electrical plants. Back in the ’90s, the greenheads (Jersey residents will understand the reference) pushed to have any new power station use co-generation technology — combustible refuse dried in natural gas ovens and then burned to heat steam boilers — all very eco-friendly, and they work.
Then they mounted NIMBY campaigns all over the state to prevent any of them from being built.
Laurie Bowen says:
July 31, 2012 at 11:45 am
Meanwhile, back on the farm . . .
Wow. Looks like the cost of solar isn’t gonna go down anytime in the near future.
Falstaff says:
July 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm
@Bill Tuff [okay, that’s one nobody else has come up with before!]
Just? And just install a 100,000 cf/hour gas connection (i.e. 30 megajoule/sec), and just permit the emissions.
Odd — your sole concern originally was just the impracticality of covering the roof with gas plants.
Note this a chiller warehouse, a very good application for solar PV. The large majority of the power is needed in the summer during the day.
Note that chiller plants have to be maintained at a constant temperature year-round. In the winter time, the power’s needed to *warm* the bays slightly keep the produce from freezing.
In the winter maybe, when they don’t need much power. Otherwise the Philly – Camden area receives a June average of 6 kWh/m^2/day of solar radiation (not electric output) per NREL, about the same as Phoenix in the Spring and Fall.
They *do* need the power in the winter. And you evidently don’t do much flying over the Philly/Camden area – there’s a thin haze layer that forms periodically in spring and fall that looks clear when you’re looking up, but produces a “milk bottle effect” when you’re looking down from above. It scatters the light.
It also rains in Camden-Philly.
And the Delaware is tidal all the way to Trenton. I used to do high-rise window-washing in Philly and Camden – I had to use a 1:5 solution of sudsy ammonia and a wallpaper scraper to get salt encrustations off the windows along the waterfront. All rain did was make interesting patterns in the particulates.
@Bill Tuttle:
Note that chiller plants have to be maintained at a constant temperature year-round. In the winter time, the power’s needed to *warm* the bays slightly keep the produce from freezing.
They *do* need the power in the winter
Nobody said no power was needed in the winter. The vast majority of the *electric* power for a chiller warehouse is used in the summer, during the day. And if this one is like most I’ve worked, they use gas heat in the winter not electric.
…over the Philly/Camden area – there’s a thin haze layer that forms periodically … produces a “milk bottle effect” when you’re looking down from above. It scatters the light.
… I had to use a 1:5 solution of sudsy ammonia and a wallpaper scraper to get salt encrustations off the windows along the waterfront. All rain did was make interesting patterns in the particulates.
. The numbers are what they are – 6 kWh/m^2/day solar radiation in Philadelphia (June) – *measured* over decades – not predicted from some model.
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/pubs/redbook/PDFs/PA.PDF
And as everyone can see here, at least on occasion, all the way from above the atmosphere that roof gets some none-hazy sun.
http://goo.gl/maps/EAgXr
@Bill Tuttle:
Where’d you hear that? NJ doesn’t have *a* nuke plant — it has four,
Sorry for the sloppy *a*. NJ has three nuke plants (four total reactors) Salem (2), Oyster (1), and Hope (1).
and none of them are letting their permits lapse….
Yes that’s exactly what’s happening at Oyster, the owners are closing the plant early. The plant is certified until 2029 by the NRC, *at least*, but it is closing in seven years mainly over a squabble forced by NJ officials that want the plant to use evaporative cooling towers instead all water cooling from the local bay (another reminder of the cooling requirements of heat engines). The Gloucester Marine Terminal warehouse will still need power competitive with Pennsylvania power across the river come the Oyster shut down, and New Jersey electric rates are already comparatively high. This solar array allows them to be immune to what decisions the NJ NIMBY’s may or may not do in the future.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2013630128_apusoystercreekearlyclosing.html
It’s not that NJ “can’t be bothered” to build new electrical plants. …Then they mounted NIMBY campaigns all over the state to prevent any of them from being built.
NIMBY’s are what I have in mind when I say can’t be bothered. Every state has NIMBY’s, but many states have elected leadership that don’t cave into them.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/04/07/largest-rooftop-solar-power-plant-in-north-america-formally-completed/
Falstaff says:
July 31, 2012 at 1:54 pm
The numbers are what they are – 6 kWh/m^2/day solar radiation in Philadelphia (June) – *measured* over decades…
With a +/- 11% uncertainty level.
From the link: “Riverside will generate the equivalent of up to 80 percent of the Terminal’s power demand.”
I wish them luck with the array, but I hope they’re not expecting it to be that efficient.
Falstaff says:
July 31, 2012 at 2:26 pm
@ur momisugly me: “and none of them are letting their permits lapse….”
Yes that’s exactly what’s happening at Oyster, the owners are closing the plant early.
Nope, they already *renewed* their permit, so they didn’t let their permit lapse, the greenheads made it economically unfeasible for OC to continue operating until 2029. A better way of phrasing your original sentence would be “NJ…appears unconcerned that one of its nuke plants is closing 10 years early” or “NJ’s legislature will be forcing 25% of the state’s nuke generation capacity offline by 2019.”
Most of NJ’s NIMBY-organizers seem to have Princeton connections — not that I’m equating correlation with causality, y’unnerstand…
@Bill Tuttle:
Nope, they already *renewed* their permit, so they didn’t let their permit lapse, the greenheads made it economically unfeasible for OC to continue operating until 2029. A better way of phrasing your original sentence would be “NJ…appears unconcerned that one of its nuke plants is closing 10 years early” or “NJ’s legislature will be forcing 25% of the state’s nuke generation capacity offline by 2019.”
Fair enough, agreed.
@Bill Tuttle:
From the link: “Riverside will generate the equivalent of up to 80 percent of the Terminal’s power demand.”
I wish them luck with the array, but I hope they’re not expecting it to be that efficient.
That is a load share metric, not efficiency. So with a 9 MWe PV array on the roof we might guess the peak lighting/HVAC/etc load of the warehouse is ~11 MWe.