Here is what the acolytes of solar power don't want you to know...

self | July 15, 2003 | Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

Here is what the acolytes of solar power don't want you to know...

These are the essentials you need in order to appreciate the absurdity of using solar cell power systems as any kind of sensible alternative. After you read this, ask yourself again how much sense solar power really makes.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SUN'S ENERGY WHEN
WE USE SOLAR CELLS TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY:

	SOURCE	LOSS - %	POWER - W/m2
1.	solar constant	--	1370W
2.	atmosphere	27	1000W
3.	clouds	21	790W
4.	sun angle1	49	403W
5.	night2	50	201W
6.	cell efficiency3	85	30W
7.	dust/reflection4	10	27W
8.	packaging5	20	22W
9.	DC to AC inverter	25	16W
10.	storage	30	11W
Source Notes: 1.   Calculated for both hour angle and a latitude angle of 37º. 2.   See link. Continental U.S. average sunshine is 4.8 kilowatt-hours/       square meter/day, or 200 watts/square meter. That value is nearly       identical with total losses shown for items 1-5 above. 3.   See table on linked page. 4.   Dust, bird droppings, scratches, etc. estimated to be about 4%.       Reflections, per Fresnel's Law, would be another 6%. 5.   See link for data sheet on typical solar panel. Data shows an       overall efficiency of 10.3%, at nominal conditions. This is       nearly identical with total losses shown for items 6-8 above.

Net efficiency = 11.4 Watts/m² or a mere 0.83% (!)

But read on, it gets worse.

• The current average rate of U.S. energy consumption is about 3.3 trillion Watts. Based on the above efficiency data, we would need to cover the entire state of New Mexico with solar cells just to generate this amount of energy!   [+]

• And because of the 2% annual growth rate in our energy consumption, in only 35 years we would also have to cover the entire state of Arizona as well!   [+]

• And the irony is that the environmentalists, who are so obsessed with the use of solar power now, would be the first to scream bloody murder at the idea of such large areas of wild lands being permanently covered over with solar generating plants!   [+]   [+]   (Note: Both articles are written by the same author!)

• Worse still, the entire world-wide production of photovoltaic (PV) cells is so small (300 MW) that it can't even keep up with the annual U.S. growth rate in energy consumption (66,000 MW), much less produce enough PV cells to supply the base amount of energy that we currently use (3,300,000 MW). To do that, PV cell production would have to ramp up over 100,000%!   [+]   (Scroll down to chart)

• The initial capitalization cost of a solar PV generating plant is at least 10 times the cost of a large conventional plant. And that is exclusive of the mammoth land acquisition costs necessary to accommodate the vast expanse of solar cells.

  Here is an example:
  Siemens Solar (now Shell Solar) produces a popular line of large solar arrays intended for commercial, industrial and consumer applications. A big seller is their SP-150, supposedly a 150 watt unit that measures 1.32 square meters. The problem is, it only produces 150 watts under carefully controlled laboratory conditions where the incident light intensity is boosted to 1000 watts per square meter (unrealistically high, see items 2 and 3 in above table) and the PV cells are artificially cooled to 25º C. But when Shell tests that same unit under more realistic conditions of 800 watts per square meter and little cooling for the PV cells, the output drops to 109 watts. When sun angle and night time are factored in (see items 4 and 5 in above table), the average level of power production drops to a piddling 28 watts. (That is only 21 watts per square meter(!) which is nearly identical to the value shown for item 8 in the above table.)   [+]   [+]

  In quantity, this unit sells for $700. That calculates out to $25 per watt. By way of comparison, the initial capitalization cost for a conventional power plant is on the order of $0.75 to $1.00 per watt. That makes the solar "alternative" 33 times more expensive than the conventional power plants of today, and we haven't even figured in the additional cost of the inverters and power storage systems that solar needs (or the land acquisition costs).

  Solar proponents would be quick to point out that, while the capitalization costs may be higher for solar, they don't need to purchase the expensive fossil fuels that conventional plants use. While that is true, what they aren't telling you is that the cost of financing the much higher initial debt load for solar, is greater than the cost of the fuels that conventional plants use. (TANSTAAFL !)

• PV cells have a limited lifetime. As a consequence, manufacturers offer only limited warranties on power output, some as short as 20 years.   [+]

• A violent storm, such as a hail storm, can decimate a solar power plant. A storm covering only one square mile (the size of a small 50 MW solar plant) could destroy a half billion dollars in solar panels.

• PV cells have a nasty little habit of loosing conversion efficiency when you put them out in the warm sunlight. A hot day can lower the output power by up to 20%!   [+]

• A solar PV generating plant is not without maintenance. How are you going to wash the tens of thousands of square miles of PV cells of the dirt, dust and bird droppings that will collect over time? How will they be kept free of snow and ice during winter? A 1000 MW solar plant can lose 40 MW of power (retail value, about $50 million per year) by failing to keep the PV cells clean of dirt. Losses would be even greater for snow and ice.

• Solar PV generating plants incur inefficiencies quite foreign to conventional power plants. First, there is no need for energy storage in a conventional plant, as night time doesn't affect generating capacity. Second, there is no need for an inverter to change DC to AC. The inverter is a bigger deal than it first appears to be, because the inverter for a public utility must produce a very pure sine wave and that is much harder to do while still maintaining high conversion efficiency.

• The consumer that purchases a solar power generating system for home installation pays only a small fraction of its real cost, often as low as only 25%. That is because every sale is subsidized by direct payments of your tax dollars and by the government placing un-funded mandates on utility companies, requiring them to push the solar power "alternative". These unfunded mandates are re-paid by the rest of us in the form of higher utility bills.   [+]

Is there any use for solar power that makes sense?
Yes, solar power makes sense in those limited applications where the customer does not have convenient or economic access to the power grid, such as with remote country or mountain top homes. It is also useful for powering mobile or portable equipment such as utility, emergency, scientific devices, etc., where it is not otherwise feasible to hook to the power grid.

But other than those narrow exceptions, it makes no economic, engineering, ecological or practical sense to use solar power as a replacement for, or even as a compliment to, conventional power plants. Solar may have its' own specialty niche, but in no way does that rise to the level of an "alternative" to conventional power plants.

[Boot Hill]

SierraWasp says:   "...the alternative energy dreamers [that] believe the laws of physics and economics are a bunch of crappola."

Your comment from another thread motivated me to post this.

--Boot Hill

[Support Free Republic]

We Replaced Patrick Leahy's Brains With Folger's Crystals. Let's See If Anyone Notices!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[The Red Zone]

Based on the above efficiency data, we would need to cover the entire state of New Mexico with solar cells just to generate this amount of energy!

I can think of worse things to do with New Mexico (just kidding)

[Boot Hill]

PeaceBeWithYou asks:   "Got a source or a link?"

Well I didn't when you first asked this on the other thread, but now I do! Thanks for the suggestion.

--Boot Hill

[The Red Zone]

Oh, also this is based on the model of using solar power to generate electric power via photocells. Some of which is going to be used again for heat in such things as electric furnaces and toasters. Better to collect the radiation as heat in the first place, for those applications.

I'm not an eco freak, but I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation.

[Boot Hill]

The Red Zone says:   "...I perceive there certainly are ways that solar can help America's energy situation."

I agree that there are some limited ways solar energy can be put to use. However, it is currently being sold (and funded by your tax dollars) as a serious competitor, alternative and compliment to conventional electrical generation. That's what I've got serious problems with and why I posted this thread. Conservatives need the info at their finger tips to discredit the disciples of solar electric power.

--Boot Hill

[Saturnalia]

It's not going to be a base load, but it certainly can help.
We had a solar water heater for about 12 years, worked wondefully until it broke down.
With proper location (i.e. not Seattle) and usage of lenses (reduction in area of cells needed) one should be able to generate power economically at SOME point.
I'm sure a rooftop installation in Arizona will help with the AC costs, but as large scale power installations, not yet.

Of course I still want to loft solar satellites and beam the power back to earth, but that is even further away.

All grammar/spelling errors are solely the responsibility of my cat.

[visualops]

Even several years ago, there are self-cleaning systems to eliminate the dirt/dust issues.
It's interesting you ignored the case studies pages at one of the sites you are sourcing.
You seem to be picking and choosing your source info, and you make blanket statements that are not sourced, to support your desired conclusion, rather looking at how alternative energy sources can be viable in a number of situations.
http://www.oja-services.nl/iea-pvps/cases/index.htm
http://www.solarhouse.com

[The Red Zone]

I'd like to see a dollar for dollar amortized estimate for photovoltaic vs. the most expensive fossil fuel. It looks from your figures like it is probably a rip, but quantified how much of a rip? I would have no clue.

[Boot Hill]

Saturnalia says:   "...one should be able to generate [solar] power economically at SOME point."

It can't be done economically with solar. That's the whole point of the thread article. The example you cite of a solar water heater is a good case in point. Compare the real cost (absent any tax subsidies) of that installation over its limited (as you found out) lifetime and compare it to simply buying the electricity and you'll find that the latter is cheaper.

--Boot Hill

[djf]

I have only two words to say. Listen. Methyl Hydrate.

[The Red Zone]

and you make blanket statements that are not sourced

Footnotes, we don't need no steekin footnotes!

Doubtless Boot's main point is valid, that solar is way oversold (and too bad it won't work to cover Washington state with photocells, we have to pick on poor New Mexico), but as an engineer I hope to see something I can verify.

[wita]

Well at least from the power producer standpoint the truth is out on wind energy production, which I am certain has the same government subsidy as other forms of alternative energy. Wind can only be a backup or "alternative" due to its inefficiencies. It doesn't blow all the time. Seems to me it is 35 percent inefficient right out of the box at the point the wind blows, then throw in all the little stuff that the utopians want to overlook, and you have a horribly inefficient system that no one could would or should invest in if it wasn't being paid for by OPM. OPM is a myth, it is never just OPM it's everyones dollars, including the wealth and health of the government the people and the nation itself, and we let congress spend it like there is no tomorrow, and with precious little oversight, all at the whim of folks who think science is making stink bombs in high school.

[The Red Zone]

Compare the real cost (absent any tax subsidies) of that installation over its limited (as you found out) lifetime and compare it to simply buying the electricity and you'll find that the latter is cheaper.

Apples and oranges. Saturnalia is referring to solar thermal. It sounds like what happened is that the pipes simply clogged up. In a custom installation that would be a costly thing to fix. But if that could be mass produced efficiently that would be another story. I wouldn't necessarily mind having a solar assist to my home heating needs if it would cut my gas bill and didn't bankrupt me to fix. Gas is sky high.

[The Red Zone]

Methyl Hydrate.

CH3H, methane? At today's gas prices?

[Rodney King]

Great Post! The "Not yet" Crowd doesn't understand that the inherent economics mean "not ever", but they will continue to hold on to their irrational beleif that it is somehow good for the environement to waste our resources trying to make this happen.

[Boot Hill]

visualops says:   "It's interesting you ignored the case studies..."

Every case study I've ever read fell into one of two categories. Either they failed to present sufficient information to be able to make a rational analysis of the cost effectiveness or the else the information demonstrated clearly that the installation was not cost effective. The physics and economics have demonstrated repeatedly that solar power is simply not cost competitive with conventional power plants.

--Boot Hill

[marktwain]

Your facts are essentially correct, but you have so many unmentioned assumptions that they undercut your premise.

You do not mention, for example, that the cost of solar power is not constant, and in fact, has been dropping like a rock. Solar power has dropped from several hundred dollars an installed peak watt to just a few dollars an installed peak watt today.

In areas of the country where air conditioning is important (such as the Southwest) there is no need for a storage system when the power is hooked into the grid, because peak power usage occurs at about the same time as peak power consumption.

The area required by solar power to power the nation is irrelevant because solar cells on roofs don't take up additional land, and because no one is saying that all power has to come from solar cells.

Finally, this is a case where the market will decide for us. As solar power becomes cheaper, the practical applications will expand, and it will naturally take up whatever percentage of power production that makes sense.

[glock rocks]

ch3oh wood alcohol - methanol

?