Skip to comments.
Here is what the acolytes of solar power don't want you to know...
self
| July 15, 2003
| Boot Hill
Posted on 07/15/2003 3:16:56 AM PDT by 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.
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; Technical; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: alternativepower; electricpower; energy; environmentalism; fresnellens; photovoltaiccells; photovoltaics; renewablepower; solar; solarcells; solarpower
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-287 next last
To: newgeezer
It sure reminds me of trying to tell people about Jesus, which is what I should probably be doing anyway.
241
posted on
07/16/2003 1:49:36 PM PDT
by
biblewonk
(Spose to be a Chrisssssstian)
To: BOBTHENAILER; farmfriend; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie
242
posted on
07/16/2003 1:51:34 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(The Endangered Species Act had not saved one specie, but has ruined thousands of American Dreams!!!)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Forget it. Thanks anyway. I don't need it now.
These two nuts just pulled their own covers!!! They'll soon move on to some other site full of actual suckerfish!!!
243
posted on
07/16/2003 1:57:41 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(The Endangered Species Act had not saved one specie, but has ruined thousands of American Dreams!!!)
To: BOBTHENAILER; SierraWasp
Referring to the link posted by biblewonk at #234.
Who ever heard of a NEWS item with no date!
Did I miss it?
244
posted on
07/16/2003 2:14:39 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
To: SierraWasp
Sorry I couldn't find it!
245
posted on
07/16/2003 2:15:48 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Recall Gray Davis and then start on the other Democrats)
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; SierraWasp; biblewonk; newgeezer
I give. My suggestion to the solar and wind advocates that they invest their entire life savings and all future free cash in solar and wind companies in order to become incredibly wealthy, thereby enabling them to fund FreeRepublic on their own.
I further suggest that they fill their cars up with wind and solar fuel, so as to drive to the bank and collect all that money they will be rolling in.
When they choose to fly off to some exotic island to enjoy their well earned vacation, I hear that the latest solar and wind powered planes are most comfortable.
If either live in a state which gets a little cold in the winter, or one in which the sun doesn't shine 24 hrs a day, or the wind doesn't blow 24 hrs a day, well then, I'm certain they won't mind the inconvenience of freezing, or conversely, if living in a hot climate, won't mind sweating all day.
I also shudder to think of all the fossil fuel used to create electricity to power their computers to chat about a utopian future which will never come to pass.
246
posted on
07/16/2003 2:37:12 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Rats are showing all the symptoms of severe radiation poisoning)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Another classic SLAAAAAAAM......... DUNK!!!
I'm headin for the showroom floor to buy another S... U... V!!! Woooooooooo Hoooooooooooo!!!
If somebody doesn't like that, dial 1-800-bite-me!
247
posted on
07/16/2003 2:45:45 PM PDT
by
SierraWasp
(The Endangered Species Act had not saved one specie, but has ruined thousands of American Dreams!!!)
To: BOBTHENAILER
Sure, that's right. Windpower advocates think wind will one day replace all other power sources.
Thanks so much for your thoughtful (if intellectually dishonest) strawman.
248
posted on
07/16/2003 2:52:01 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: SierraWasp; BOBTHENAILER; Ernest_at_the_Beach
I don't have the patience to deal with ... deliberate attempts to disrupt with pure unadulterated bull splat(Since you seem to be hanging around) Your #205 is the best example of that kind of cr*p I've seen in a long time. When it comes to "deliberate attempts to disrupt with pure unadulterated bull splat," Chicken Little could take lessons from you. (I really enjoyed watching all the big guns answer your call, too. ;O)
Bye.
Apparently, "Bye" doesn't mean you're going away. In your case, it means you're shifting to talking about FReepers instead of to them. Then, your comments don't appear on their My Comments page. That's a truly effeminate and cowardly way to function around here.
I, too, used to think windpower was utterly stupid. But, the more I learned about it, the more I liked it. You seem to dislike it simply because you're afraid someone might mistake you for a "greenie" or going "soft" if you so much as show any interest. Me? I couldn't care less what anyone thinks (much less those who are willfully ignorant). I'll form my own opinion, and it's always subject to newer and better data.
But, if insecurity is your enemy, ignorance is your best friend. You don't know sh*t about windpower, and you refuse to learn. You're not the least bit interested in facts. Have a blast in your own little Flat Earth Society.
249
posted on
07/16/2003 2:53:31 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: null and void
250
posted on
07/16/2003 3:07:58 PM PDT
by
newgeezer
(A conservative who conserves -- a true capitalist!)
To: SierraWasp
I already have mine, I think I need to go out and cruise down the beach aways!
I am missing some things in my Fridge!
251
posted on
07/16/2003 3:24:51 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(Where is Saddam? and his Weapons of Mass Destruction?)
To: SierraWasp; biblewonk; newgeezer; BOBTHENAILER; Grampa Dave; Carry_Okie
You two should know better than to push that UN crap here. Talk about spitting into the wind.
Why don't you guys read something really worth reading and learn what that UN sustainable socialism is doing to our environment. If you are truely serious about what you believe, you will take the time to learn about the better way.
Natural Process.net</a
252
posted on
07/16/2003 3:27:06 PM PDT
by
farmfriend
( Isaiah 55:10,11)
To: SierraWasp; MeeknMing
253
posted on
07/16/2003 3:44:33 PM PDT
by
autoresponder
(. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
To: null and void; DB
I'll grant you that, despite having relatively high levels of THD, the inverter models you both referenced are in the 90% efficiency range and are qualified to be connected to the utility grid as synchronous inverters. However, that changes this thread premise and conclusions by "mouse nuts".
--Boot Hill
To: kezekiel
kezekiel claims: "
Well, there's where you said it."
That's crazy! The phrase you are referring to is addressing the overall, real-world, cost per watt (which is $25/watt for the example cited) and not the results of some contrived laboratory test where they use artificially high levels of solar intensity and artificially cooled PV cells. Get real!
kezekiel claims: "I find it odd that I am being asked to do your own research for you.."
You made the claim that large PV arrays had been built for under $6/watt, you document it. What's so odd about that?
--Boot Hill
To: BOBTHENAILER
256
posted on
07/16/2003 4:10:47 PM PDT
by
autoresponder
(. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
To: newgeezer; farmfriend; SierraWasp
Thanks so much for your thoughtful (if intellectually dishonest) strawman.You're quite welcome. I'm always handy with a "breezy" reply.
257
posted on
07/16/2003 4:11:39 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Rats are showing all the symptoms of severe radiation poisoning)
To: Boot Hill
NEWSFLASH:
Today the Clintons and the Gores have invested all of their assets in solar and wind power.
They advise everyone in the world to follow their example immediately
Investment opportunities are now available at:
Susan McDougall Perpetual Motion Machine Corp.
Little Crock, Arkansas
258
posted on
07/16/2003 4:19:41 PM PDT
by
autoresponder
(. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
To: autoresponder
Great tune.
259
posted on
07/16/2003 4:20:00 PM PDT
by
BOBTHENAILER
(Rats are showing all the symptoms of severe radiation poisoning)
To: logic
I was wondering about biodiesel and the costs. A diesel will burn straight vegetable oil. BTDT. Based on a study done at MIT in the 40's vegetable oils have a higher btu content than diesel.
Before you run out and trade for a Ford F-350 dually though, check the price of a gallon of vegetable oil.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240, 241-260, 261-280, 281-287 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson