Posted on 07/03/2007 1:32:27 PM PDT by P-40
Development of the solar energy industry in Texas would have a significant economic impact for consumers, the environment and workers, according to a study released by the IC2 Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.
Opportunity on the Horizon: Photovoltaics in Texas finds the benefits of nurturing the solar energy industry will stimulate the state's economy, reduce the cost of power for consumers and minimize greenhouse gas emissions.
"Worldwide, the cost of converting sunlight to electricity is rapidly decreasing. The right public policies, combined with emerging and increasingly efficient technologies in solar power, would create a solid opportunity for Texas to build an economic engine on this non-polluting resource," Joel Serface of Clean Energy Incubator said.
The paper cites a recent University of California-Berkeley study that finds the solar industry produces seven to 11 times as many jobs on a megawatt capacity basis as coal-fired power plants and has a larger positive trickle-down effect than wind energy.
Estimates suggest Texas could generate 123,000 new high-wage, technology-related, advanced manufacturing and electrical services jobs by 2020 by actively moving toward solar power. It is predicted these jobs would be created across the entire state as large solar farms grow in West Texas, silicon plants develop along the Gulf Coast and manufacturing centers appear in Central Texas.
The report evaluates the competitive benefits Texas has in the worldwide market and compares the overall results of Texan efforts against other states and international competitors. The study notes that although Texas consumed more energy than any other state and has the best overall climate for producing solar energy year-round, it ranked 8th in solar adoption in 2006, producing just 1/100th of the solar energy of California.
Texans pay about 13 cents per kilowatt hour for electricity. It is believed that the production of photovoltaics, like other semiconductors, would follow a predictable decline in costs. Analysts predict this cost decline will translate to between 10 to 15 cents per kilowatt-hour as early as 2010.
In 1999, the Texas Legislature adopted a bill that introduced the retail competition in the sale of electricity and renewable portfolio standards (RPS) to consumers. Since 2002, electricity-users in deregulated markets have been able to choose their power providers from a multitude of retailers. The legislation requires energy providers to increase the amount of renewable energy produced through a combination of solar, wind, geothermal, hydro wave, tidal, biomass-based waste products or landfill gas.
To date, energy producers have chosen to focus on wind energy for a multitude of reasons, including federal tax incentives for producers, the large amount of wind resources in the state and the scalability of large wind projects. The report concludes that the legislation has brought many benefits to consumers across the state and can be used as a roadmap for the successful expansion of solar power across the state.
Worldwide, investors are confident in the future of solar power. The solar industry grew to $10.6 billion in revenues in 2006 and is estimated to be greater than $30 billion, with some analyst estimates as high as $72 billion for the entire solar value chain by 2010.
The report outlines several recommendations to strengthen the state's solar strategy. Starting with leadership to create the policies necessary for success, Texas could leverage its natural resources, skilled workforce, existing industries and entrepreneurial spirit to create a new energy industry, the report says.
So could population growth.
TVA did an extreme background check after I'd been there a couple of years. They looked into everything - credit rating, and such. They actually interviewed the 3 references I provided. The check was much stricter than the one I got when I obtained my concealed-carry permit in 2001. TVA management claimed that they "lost" the previous background check that they acquired upon employment. Pretty invasive IMHO. Once again, your homeland-security tax dollars well spent.
This is strange. At Davis-Besse and Point Beach the security forces were armed to the teeth. Kewaunee also. In fact, at almost every nuclear plant I have been to they were heavily armed and ran training exercises all the time, hostage-taking, threats to structures, outside force intrusion, etc. Even the Battelle Research Labs had armed security personnel.
Nuclear has government regulations that require armed security, transmission and generation do not. It doesn't make much sense IMHO. At least TVA had the TVA Police (US Marshalls) in the area. FE has few armed security except at the nukes. Maybe it's that blue-state mentality. Anyway, I can say with some certainty that things are a bit more secure at the control center than one might conclude based purely upon observation.
Because I don’t agree with you that nuclear energy is clean and solar is an ineffective use of resources, I am drinking kool-aid?
With that single statement alone, I think everyone can see who is drinking the red stuff.
“Re: Let’s start by pointing out that in Three Mile Island nobody was killed or injured.” I live not too far from Three Mile Island, so please don’t lecture me on how safe that accident supposedly was. “
You mean only people who live next to TMI are knowledge about nuclear power?
So you’ve lived for years near a nuclear power plant, and you are safe? don’t glow in the dark? Who’d a thunk!
“I would much rather have fields full of solar panels than 1 nuclear power plant near me. “
well then, move to the arizona desert. Putting solar panels in arable land in ofen-cloudy PA is a waste of good real estate. it will never happen.
You would need 4,000 plants of the type described below to equate to 1 Three Mile Island.
8,000,000 MWh from TMI vs 2,000 MWh from this plant.
http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2594.htm
It would take up 10,000 acres or about 18 square miles.
“Because I don’t agree with you that nuclear energy is clean and solar is an ineffective use of resources, I am drinking kool-aid?”
It’s a matter of numbers.
Solar costs 4 times to 10 times the alternatives. By any reasonable definition that is ‘ineffective use of resources’. are you willing to spend 30 cents a kilowatt for energy or 6 cents a kilowatt. And how much American manufacturing would you be willing to see shut down and jobs lost due to our uncompetitiveness in choosing expensive energy? 100,000 jobs? a million jobs?
Yes, nuclear is clean. Zero carbon footprint. Zero emissions. Tiny amounts of waste compared with say coal plants. Well-managed processes for the whole life cycle. The most strictly managed industry and source of energy, with very good 40 year safety record in US commercial operation.
less disruption to environment than even wind and solar, which take up space and real estate, impacting natural habitats, causing noise, etc.
Much like the cost of IC processing power and memory, solar costs are going to be dropping over the coming years and decades. You can ignore tha facts if you want, but the future is solar.
http://news.com.com/Shrinking+the+cost+for+solar+power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html
Much like the cost of IC processing power and memory, solar costs are going to be dropping over the coming years and decades. You can ignore the facts if you want, but the future is solar.
http://news.com.com/Shrinking+the+cost+for+solar+power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html
Very good point ...
NG is a great fuel for many uses and we ought not waste it on baseload electricity generation.
I’ve further looked into the CO2 emissions impact of shifting to nuclear. If Nuclear displaced both coal and NG for electricity generation, we could shift our NG use over to transport (eg for bus fleets), which runs a lot cleaner and has less CO2 emissions than gasoline.
The net result is that the shift to nuclear could cut CO2 emissions by 50% overall, by refactoring how energy is used overall.
“And if that means spending some effort improving the load-following capability of nuclear plants, “
The ‘fast’ reactors can be better at load-following.
We have been hearing that claim for years - ‘lower costs are on the horizon’.
Comparing it with ICs is bogus. I am in the semiconductor industry, that’s my expertise, I have a PhD, and know this: The cost reduction in ICs, that has followed the ‘Moore’s Law’ curve, is all about our ability to put more and more transistors *in the same area*.
The cost of the same square centimeter of silicon wafer has *not* gone down at the same rate. Now, PV costs may come down as non-silicon substrate, eg thin-film PVs improve, but they too are far from competitive.
The article you link says that solar thermal is ‘most promising’ and that ...”Solar thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour.” Meanwhile, you can build a new nuclear power plant today and get energy for 4-5 cents a kilowatt hour, one-third the cost.
Did it occur to you that if we can develop solar technologies for lower costs, we could dothe same for *other* technologies?
we can increase thermal efficiency at nuclear power plants, use combined cycle techniques and boost the cost-effectiveness. Plants have figured out how to run fuel assemblies longer, reduce the outae time for re-fueling, and increase and ‘uprate’ the power of plants. All these cut the cost per kilowatt. it’s possible nuclear power could also get cheaper, especially if we figure out how to build nuclear power plants for less money, which is the main cost of them.
Solar power is too diffuse to enable the kind of low-environmental-impact high-and-reliable energy generation that we would need to power the lives of millions of people in a city. Nuclear power can do it today in an environmentally responsible and economical manner.
“You can ignore tha facts if you want, but the future is solar.” - I am aware of *all* the facts, not just a few. The future is not with one form of energy alone, but this much is certain: Only a fraction of our energy will come directly from solar. We cannot afford it to be any more.
Why do you think the largest company in the semiconductor-equipment space (Applied Materials) is getting into the solar biz? Because they believe they can lower the costs of solar similar to IC’s.
Why do you think the largest company in the semiconductor-equipment space (Applied Materials) is getting into the solar biz? “
Because with all the Federal tax money and govt subsidies, there is a growing demand for equipment to make the stuff.
“Because they believe they can lower the costs of solar similar to IC’s.”
Nope, that’s ignorant babble. An Intel processor 1o,000 times more powerful than the Intel x286 (that came out 20+ years ago) takes up less silicon area than the 286 did... how? we made transistors that much more smaller. Solar energy depends on the *constant* amount of solar energy hitting a particular area. making devices smallar helps not one bit. It’s simply physically impossible to gain better economics for solar PVs the same way.
Anyway, that is solar PVs and your linked article said solar thermal is most promising. Which is it, thermal or PVs?
Thanks. I’ll get back with you soon. Things got a bit busy all of a sudden...to put it mildly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.