Another solar manufacturer gives up

Sustainable photovoltaic salvation is the most ignorant of the green meainie parlor tricks. Exposed to sunlight certain elements will surrender a loose outer shell electron, which is a one-way, one-time element erosion process. The cheapest and most popular are the crystal Silicon grid, Boron emitter, and Phosporus conductor cells, producing 1.5 watts, at 1.5 volts per square foot. Sunlight strips the outer shell fifth electron which travels across the stable four outer shell Silicon cubic grid by way of the three outer shell electron Phosporus atoms. To be usable 24/7 this direct current must be stored in batteries, capacitors, flywheels or some other energy loss system. To be transported over distance requires a DC/AC inverter with losses. This system consumes five times the investment & recycle energy that it produces in the entire service cycle. Production involves toxic waste that no civilized country will allow workers or the environment to endure, hence production in a third world, slave state, toxic waste dump. For more on this read “Green Prince of Darkness” at Canada Free Press or the updated version at the Faux Science Slayer website.

There is oil, there is nuclear, but there is nothing else yet “beyond petroleum”.

FauxScienceSlayer says:
March 8, 2013 at 8:06 am
“Sustainable photovoltaic salvation is the most ignorant of the green meainie parlor tricks. Exposed to sunlight certain elements will surrender a loose outer shell electron, which is a one-way, one-time element erosion process. ”
No it’s not. If it were a PV cell would lose its efficiency immediately. It’s not necessary to spew BS to be against subsidizing the stuff. In California, with 2,500 sun hours and high PG&E prices, PV should already be economic without subsidies.

MorningGuy says:
March 8, 2013 at 5:41 am
“sure the Germans have paid dearly for solar and wind, but HAVE is the operative word, and I’m not talking about the old price for renewables, I’m talking about the new price…”
We continue to pay 250 EUR per capita and year to the owners of PV and wind so they can pay back their credits. (20 bn EUR a year; exponentially rising; was 16 bn EUR a year before)
“see figure 1 – price of system installed in Germany, note it’s gone from 5Euro/kW to 1.75Euro/kW and it’s going down like a brick balloon… what do you think that price is going to be in 2020 ???”
Prices for PV go down by half in about 10 years since 1980. Still, as long as there is no mass storage this just serves to irritate the existing power plants which we can’t get rid of, and does nothing to bring down electricity prices, which are now at 0.25 Euro / kWh. (private household end price)

This one’s actually quite sad. I considered BP to be one of the old school solar vendors along with ARCOsolar and Exxon Enterprises. The !#!%$# China price is to blame.

kim says:
March 7, 2013 at 7:12 pm
New logo? Maybe a Sinclair dinosaur munching on a thicket of windmills.
============
Nice visual, kim
cn

mwhite says:
March 8, 2013 at 2:09 am
“Night Falls On China’s Solar Industry”
————————————————–
This tells us everything we need to know about the folly of governments thinking they can advance an industry/technology/economy through subsidies. Every possible negative outcome that classic economics predicts could result from such government intervention has been realized; fraud, price distortions, production inefficiencies, opportunity costs and lost equity.
The loss of capital is the biggest travesty. Just how much could have been done to improve the lives of people, especially in developing countries, with the billions of dollars wasted by wealthy governments tilting at windmills?

MorningGuy says:
March 8, 2013 at 1:02 am
“It’s becoming that fossil fuels are now the more expensive energy, sure wind and solar is intermittent and will always need some kind of fossil fuel base load, but renewables are now cheaper”
Sorry, I’m reading the comments from bottom to top… So the Morning-Guy says, renewables are now cheaper, as long as they have Big Sugardaddy Fossil Fuels holding its tiny hand and giving it pocket money ALL OF THE TIME? Because that’s what it is – “some kind of fossil fuel base load” is providing a SERVICE to Tiny Renewables; and Tiny Renewables expects this service to be provided for free? No, Morning-Guy; services are not free, and neither are lunches where I come from. Pay up if you want Sugardaddy to bail you out every time the sun don’t shine or the wind don’t blow.

Solar’s problem in a nutshell:
Residential solar costs about $5,000 per peak KW, installed.
Large scale commercial solar costs about $4100 per KW.
In sunny south Texas, that 1KW will produce about $138 of electricity per year, retail.
In rainy Seattle, that 1KW will produce only $42 of electricity.
If instead, one took that $5,000 and purchased dividend stock, the dividend return would be $250./yr plus appreciation on the capital.
It’s a no brainer for those who can get past the ideology and still think.

Actually, I have already seen solar panels constructed using next century technology. They are soft, flexible sheets attached to a fractal support, they are not producing electricity, but an energy rich, non-toxic, not flammable chemical made of water and air, to be stored locally for later use (when it gets dark). These solar panels are not expensive, are recycled when disposed of, have a pleasant shade, smell good and oh, they are greeen.

@Morningguy:
Those figures are absolutely horrendous, and of course skewed by Australia’s abominable policies.
Take the following with this disclosure and caveat: I work in the energy industry in Texas for one of the largest companies in the nation. The numbers represented here are abstract generalizations, real market prices change by the minute – but you will get the idea.
A breakdown of electricity cost per MW by source:
Hydro: $55
Nat. Gas: $66/76
Coal: $78
Wind: $88
Nuke: $145
and just for fun,
Solar PV: $200-450+?
Again, don’t berate me if you have a source or personal information that disagrees with these numbers; I am talking in generalizations about the Texas grid/market. Why Texas? It’s where I live and work, and it is a special case: Texas has its own grid compared to the rest of America. Also several things to keep in mind about these numbers:
How you calculate the cost per MW delivered greatly affects the price. For example, hydro looks like the clear winner because it’s so cheap, and it is, AFTER the dam, etc. is built. Nuke is expensive because it has to account for decom/dismantle costs on the backend. The gas split is for two main types of gas plants, combined cycle and peakers.
Also, there is lots more to consider besides just price. People don’t want/need cheap power, they want cheap and reliable power. Reliability and grid stability is hugely important, and that makes a good “mix” of power delivered to the grid important. There are different types of demand to be met – generally speaking, baseload, and peak demand. Baseload is the power you need on all the time, low and slow – like street lights, hospitals, whatever else. Peak demand is just what it sounds like – people wake up and do stuff requiring power. A good example here is a summer afternoon – you know that pretty much every A/C unit in the state will kick on around 4pm, which is a big jump in the load and amount of power required.
SO, a breakdown of usefulness by source:
Hydro: good baseload, and potentially peak power (just open/close more gates). Drought can affect this – every lake in Texas is fake (except for Caddo lake which was made by a “natural dam” in a big storm… lol)
Gas: combined cycle is more traditional generation – burning gas to heat water for steam. Better for baseload. Peaker plants are typically gas fired turbines – imagine jet engines – and they can switch on/off in minutes or seconds – great for handling dynamic load.
Coal: good base. Not generally fast to fire up/power down.
Wind: you get power when the wind blows. The wind doesn’t care what time of day/year it is.
Nuke: great base, somewhat good for peak as well (depends on plant design – nuke can scale up/down its output more easily than say a coal plant).
Solar: depends on the weather, and only during daytime.
So now you see, to deal with changes in load it’s important to have different generation capability to handle it. Most generation here comes from coal and gas, because they are the cheapest and among the most effective at their respective roles and scalability.
Now when it comes to what’s best to build going forward, let’s also consider uptime. Nuke is by far the most reliable, it will be online delivering to the grid perhaps 92-95% of its lifespan. Hydro is also usually very reliable, and can change with weather patterns… basically in Texas, we get what we can. Coal and CC gas will be up maybe 80% of the time, can vary quite a bit depending on type/age of plant. Peakers by definition are only on when needed, as they are more expensive and less efficient than CC gas. Wind… you get what you get. The global average I believe is around 20%, Texas is a little higher… maybe 22, 23%. Remember when the wind is down, the “backup” gas plants have to power up to compensate. The “backup” running the other ~80% of the time. And solar is not even worth talking about, there’s so little of it anyway.
So let’s see here. Compared to wind power, a plant burning hydrocarbons is 15-30% cheaper, on average 4 times more reliable, and most importantly, controllable. Your state/country mileage may vary, but it shouldn’t by much, unless you have stupid policies implemented like Australia. In fact there’s more going on than what I’ve already written. The production tax credit has expired, and shows no signs of being renewed. That was a national 2 cents per kw subsidy from the government to help wind power be more competitive. And, in Texas, gas has been so cheap, it drives market prices for all types of power. So much so, that it was becoming not economically feasible to build more generation. Try increasing your load for a few years without increasing your generation alongside and let me know how it works out. So, the PUC is increasing the heat rates, which is the cap on which wholesale power can be sold on the market. Those 60 or 70 dollar prices are allowed to spike up to $3000/MW in dire peak demand circumstances. But going forward, that is being increased 50% to $4500. There is talk of doubling that to $9000 in the future. Of course these costs will probably filter down to the end consumer – but most projections I’ve seen are an increase in yearly costs around $200 per family. $17 per month to ensure I won’t suffer a rolling blackout during summer/winter seems fair and affordable to me, we’ll see how things pan out in the years to come. Certainly this is a pittance compared to the costs that drive energy poverty in the UK and elsewhere. The costs that make coal so expensive versus wind.
So when you talk about renewables being cheaper than coal/gas, Morningguy and others, let’s remember to keep some things in perspective. First of all, consider the government policies that horribly alter the end price. In Australia they have renewable subsidies on top of carbon taxes. There is no real reason for coal to be that expensive there, it is in fact their second highest export behind iron. Australia has a lot of coal. Secondly, price is not everything. You must consider reliability, uptime, and delivery/ability to meet demand. And to that end, if you can’t control that delivery, what good is it at all? Renewables in general really need that breakthrough of energy storage technology to be worthwhile and competitive, and even then, I see that as a crutch propping up inferior technologies. Current batteries, pumped water, etc. just fails versus traditional power generation.
IMO, if we really want to get away from conventional generation, nuke is the ONLY feasible way to go. It is cheap enough, extremely safe and reliable, scalable, and we can build different kinds of plants to handle different kinds of loads. There are some good reasons why we process grains with electrically powered machines and not windmills these days.
For more fun information, check real time and forecast conditions at http://www.ercot.com
On topic:
Commercial, large scale solar PV is a joke. It works in space, not on the ground. We have things like clouds, nighttime, dust, etc. that really get in the way. When you factor in cost, uptime, reliability, and other relevant concerns to large scale power generation, it’s just awful, worse than wind. Competition from China notwithstanding, the only reason there has been a slight solar boom in the USA is massive tax credits and other incentives.

DirkH says:
March 8, 2013 at 11:53 am
So the Morning-Guy says, renewables are now cheaper, as long as they have Big Sugardaddy Fossil Fuels holding its tiny hand and giving it pocket money ALL OF THE TIME? Because that’s what it is – “some kind of fossil fuel base load” is providing a SERVICE to Tiny Renewables; and Tiny Renewables expects this service to be provided for free? No, Morning-Guy; services are not free, and neither are lunches where I come from. Pay up if you want Sugardaddy to bail you out every time the sun don’t shine or the wind don’t blow.
Why don’t you cut out all the emotive language them maybe we can have a rational conversation.
Why do you see it as us against them? I think power companies benefit from a mix of technologies.