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.

[farmfriend]

farmfriend... why do you attract these types? (grin)

Talent, pure talent.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Solar Program

Hmmm!

Sacramento Municipal Utilities District

I'll see what I can find!

[farmfriend]

swish swish of mutiple swords of Damocles

Phrase of the day award.

[null and void]

*blush* Thank you!

[newgeezer]

Paul K. Driessen of Fairfax, Virginia calculates that producing 50 megawatts of electricity ... with wind towers (100-200 feet high) would require some 4,000 acres. By comparison, less than half an acre would be required to produce 50 megawatts of electricity from oil, or 2 to 5 acres for natural gas.

So what? Is there a shortage of land in the great plains states? No. There's a glut, and 4000 acres -- 8 sq. miles -- is nothing. It's a few acres here and there, like the telephone pole takes up space in a yard. We can use the land we're currently paying people to not grow crops on, and nothing is lost. The land is not "used up" anymore than the ocean is used up by sailboats.

On the other hand, while wind power might require 4000 acres to produce 50 MW, it uses zero oil, zero natural gas, zero coal, zero uranium, and produces zero byproducts.

Next.

[biblewonk]

When I'm back in the work force (The 28th is my target start date on a consulting gig) I'd love to become a net producer, but the State of Grayout Davis forbids my making money at it, indeed, there is a scheme to TAX solar power...

So, how much power does your personal wind system generate?

I am a huge fan of large scale wind power which uses windmills from 600kw to 4.5MW and growing. They cost about 1 dollar per watt to build. IOW I don't own one, but wouldn't that be nifty!

[SierraWasp]

Come to think of it... I think I found that in the Sacto Business Journal myself and asked you to post it for discussion and it turned into a real corker of a thread. I would guess about 6 or 7 months ago, maybe.

[biblewonk]

I just read that natural gas prices are costing 5 cents per kwhr. That's just the cost of the fuel and it is the least stable of fuel prices. Wind power is being wholesaled at 5 cents per kwhr today and the price declines every month.

It is an error to think that 4000 acres are used up when windmills are placed on them. The land, usually farm land or plains, is still 90 percent as productive as before. For the farmer he is still growing corn and earning an extra 3-6000 dollars per year per turbine. Everyone wins.

[biblewonk]

ping. Didn't mean to leave you out.

[SierraWasp]

Just like I figured! Ol "hardcase" drops the Commonist Manifesto for a tagline and waxes poetic with the verbal diareaha about the desirability of cluttering the entire prarie with view screwing ugly whirly bird whackers, just to keep from using oil and gas!!!

It's amusing and amazing what lengths some people will go to, to justify their untennable positions. Then they wax all full of self-righteous certitude when nobody agrees with them, except some fellow deluded dreamer and fellow traveler! Wow!!!

[BOBTHENAILER]

So what? Is there a shortage of land in the great plains states? No. There's a glut, and 4000 acres -- 8 sq. miles -- is nothing. It's a few acres here and there, like the telephone pole takes up space in a yard. We can use the land we're currently paying people to not grow crops on, and nothing is lost. The land is not "used up" anymore than the ocean is used up by sailboats.

So I take it that ANWR, at approximately 1300 acres, which has the capacity to replace Saudi crude imports (1 million barrels per day) for the next 30 years, is YOUR PREFERENCE, particularly considering to get that amount of energy from your wind, which blows 24/7 right?, would take windmills covering the entire state you live in.

And when your whole state is covered in beautiful, aesthetic bird cuisinarts, you most assuredly won't mind at all NOT HAVING ANY electricity, when that pesky old wind refuses to blow.

Your wind prices are also dubious at best. Got a source for those?

[BOBTHENAILER]

just read that natural gas prices are costing 5 cents per kwhr. That's just the cost of the fuel and it is the least stable of fuel prices. Wind power is being wholesaled at 5 cents per kwhr today and the price declines every month.

Got a source for that bullhillary on wind prices. You're almost right on nat gas, those prices are between 3-5 cents per kwhr.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I am drawing a blank so far!

Hmm!

Calpowercrisis should have it, if it was after Nov of 2002!

Do you remember anything about the title ?

[biblewonk]

http://www.sustdev.org/energy/Industry%20News/06.01/26.01.shtml

[BOBTHENAILER]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/rea_issues/windart.html

Check out the above link on wind.

Be my guest if you want to pay more. Part of the article tells you how to sign for for "green" energy, of course there is an additional cost, but what the heck, the Sierra Club love you will receive is worth it.

[newgeezer]

ANWR, at approximately 1300 acres, which has the capacity to replace Saudi crude imports (1 million barrels per day) for the next 30 years, is YOUR PREFERENCE,

I'm all for developing ANWR. Contrary to what you might think, not everyone who likes windpower is a dyed-in-the-wool environmentalist whacko.

particularly considering to get that amount of energy from your wind, which blows 24/7 right?, would take windmills covering the entire state you live in.

At best, you're confused. At worst, you're pulling "data" from your a**. Do you often similarly confuse acceleration (MPH/hr) with speed (MPH)?

Be careful; you're starting to look like the other raving lunatic in this thread who doesn't give a hoot about the facts.

[BOBTHENAILER]

"There isn't a major institutional investor who wasn't burned by U.S. Windpower," said Jan Paulin, chief executive of Sea West, a private wind developer based in San Diego. Because wind development's cost reflects the time and money needed for making better equipment, scouting the windiest sties, and getting permits to build wind farms, the economics of the wind turbine business are highly sensitive to the interest rate banks charge developers, experts say.

From you own website. How can this be if it sells so cheaply? Ever driven from Palm Springs to San Diego? I've driven that route at least ten times and only twice were all those hideous windmills turning.

The bottom part of your website brags about Denmark producing 10% of its elec from wind. They will never get past that, because the grid can't stand the failure when the wind refuses to blow. I'll try and find the back-up for you on that. In the meantime, read both websites and see how they mention Europe as a leader in this. Then wait for my next post that gives average elec bills in London, Paris, Tokyo, etc., and be ready to explain the difference.

[biblewonk]

You asked for proof for the price of wind power as if I lied about it. I gave you the very first source with the price and it turned out that it meant nothing to you. Why do you think I would continue in what is turning into nothing but a pissing match. Good day.

[newgeezer]

Here's another one who thinks windpower means those antiquated toy turbines in California.

He might as well be looking at a Model 'T' while telling us cross-country travel by automobile is impractical.

[newgeezer]

FRetards will not allow the truth to get in the way of their most cherished opinions.