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.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Cool (pun intended ;-) do they require ground water or does typical soil 15 feet down or so work well?"

I don't think you actually need ground water, although I think if you DO have ground-water, the heat exchange efficiency is a little better. Also, as I recall, you don't need to get that deep, I think 2-3 feet is sufficient. There are two styles---straight down (i.e. drill a well and drop a loop of pipe down and fill in), or dig a serpentine trench 2-3 feet deep and of a length to hold the suggested loop size. Obviously, the one you choose will depend on your sub-soil conditions.

I'm sure you have found out that there is LOTS of info available on the subject.

[DB]

This site has lots of information including software design tools:

http://www.geokiss.com/

[null and void]

Thanks for the info on NiFe batteries.

[null and void]

What are you trying to say? Are you saying you are tied to the public utility grid with an AEI GC-1000?

Yes

When your PV array is making more power than you can use, is your excess (and only your excess) put out onto the utility power grid for other to use?

Yes

When you use more power than the PV array can supply, does the utility makes up the difference (and only the difference)?

Yes

If your answer is no to any of these then you need to re-think your last reply.

Not this time. The 2 M² was just a bonehead mistake, something I surmise you've never done.

[null and void]

Are you sure you're not confusing switching between PV array power and utility grid power and the synchronous transfer of power between PV array and utility grid?

Yes

[null and void]

I know a start up company that will be producing thin film, flexible solar cells that cost less than 2% of the current panels.

Anywhere near Silicon Valley???

Are they HIRING???

[DB]

A better large-scale "battery" is to pump water up into a reservoir when excess power generation is available and then have the water flow back down and generate power when demand exceeds the available power. This is done in California I believe.

[DB]

Read #173.

[Jeff Gordon]

Anywhere near Silicon Valley???

Yes. Are they HIRING?

Yes. Do you have PhD in Chemistry?

[null and void]

No Ph.D., 30 years industry experience, ~ 6 in photodiodes...

[Jeff Gordon]

I will get in contact with my friend who is interviewing with them. If there is anything I can tell you, I will Freep mail you.

[null and void]

Thanks!

[SierraWasp]

great post!"

Why thank you, autoresponder, but Boot Hill deserves all the credit! He's done a fine job of hosting this thread. I just wish I had more time to participate by kabitzing from the sidelines.

This whole subject reminds me of that funny ol liberal tune that Frank Sinatra made famous about the fact that an ant can't move a rubbertree plant. It also talks about a ram can't butt down a dam. It includes a phrase that says "he keeps buttin that dam!"

Like all dreamy liberals, (including the author of the song - I think it was Sammy somebody) it ends up with the phrase (believing in the impossible as usual) "Oops, there goes another billion kilowatt dam!" (incredible, as usual)

Anyway, what got me started on all this was farmfriend pingin me to a thread where biblewonk jumped in with some farfetched claims about tilting at windmills, like Don Quiote, that was clear off the subject and I objected to the whole "I wanna believe the damnest stuff" non-science non-sense that keeps preaching to the "true believers" that flat goes completely against the laws of physics, economics and even nature!!!

It's hard to believe this crappola is creeping into FR like the incursion of GANG-GREEN into our society in general, but it is, sadly. It's all based on liberalism's other concept of "plausible lies" which goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden, so I understand it's part of human nature to wanna believe, wanna be and wanna live in delusion. Oh well... enjoy the argument, for the sake of argument. (grin) (groan) (grimace)

[SierraWasp]

I wanted to ping you to the above, too!

[SierraWasp]

Oh! And I forgot you, eldoradude!

[SierraWasp]

And how could I have forgotten snopercod? You need to review the above thread of replies and add your superior wisdom to the discussion, ol friend.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Easy on New Mexico, it is a beautiful state!

Try central Nevada and western Utah for a nowhere place!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Anyway, what got me started on all this was farmfriend pingin me to a thread where biblewonk jumped in with some farfetched claims about tilting at windmills, like Don Quiote, that was clear off the subject and I objected to the whole "I wanna believe the damnest stuff" non-science non-sense that keeps preaching to the "true believers" that flat goes completely against the laws of physics, economics and even nature!!!

ROFL!!

Boot Hill -- Excellent reading!

[BOBTHENAILER]

Thanks a million for this PING. I'm adding this to my favorites because I know the RAT candidate for 04 will be a STRONG proponent of renewables and we can use this to shove it down their throats.

[biblewonk]

Wind powered generators to power the USA would require a full 25% of the total acreage of America.

Also constant and high winds

This is nonsense. Do the math.