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]

wita quips:   "...all at the whim of folks who think science is making stink bombs in high school."

LOL, well said.

--Boot Hill

[djf]

Interesting thing about bacteria. During their life cycle, and when they die and decompose, they give off methane. Bacteria living in the sediments on the ocean floor do it, but because of the cool temperatures and pressure, it binds with water and forms a crystalline compound called methyl hydrate. Looks like ice crystals. Bring it up to STP and it turns to methane.

Estimates are there is over a thousand times more energy in methyl hydrate on the ocean floor than all the oil ever discovered, or ever will be discovered.

[Boot Hill]

Thanks, RK.

--Boot Hill

[The Red Zone]

Just where did you say this stuff existed? Buried deep below the ocean? Where are you finding natural temperatures on earth cold enough to crystallize methane? (Germ farts LOL)

[Boot Hill]

marktwain says:   "Solar power has dropped from several hundred dollars an installed peak watt to just a few dollars an installed peak watt today."

Not so, it only appears that way because of very heavy tax subsidies. Please review "Here is an example:" from the article, then click on the last link near the end of the article.

--Boot Hill

[raybbr]

Uhhh....Clive Cussler's book Fire Ice was fiction.

[The Red Zone]

Is photovoltaic even the best way to do air conditioning from solar? Why not thermal driven refrigeration cycles?

[Saturnalia]

This happens to tie into a theory on disappearing ships/airplanes.
As the theory goes, a large quantity of gas rises from the sea floor, reducing the density of the air/water, causing the vehicle in question to visit Davey Jones' locker.
Not as cool as Atlantis/mermen/aliens/rabid pineapples but slightly more plausible.

[bmwcyle]

Good work, you bring the facts to light.

[djf]

Check it out on Google. I saw it on Discovery channel, they brought up a bucket full of sediments from somewhere in the Caribbean, there were all these crystals in it, they put it into a flask with a glass tube, and as it heated up, they lit the flame. Pure methane. Something like two billion years worth.

[Saturnalia]

It is methane HYDRATE, not just methane.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/deepeast01/background/beneath/media/methylhydrate.html

http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~robodyne/stellar/new/methylhydrate.htm
A cool link, but not practical.

[Boot Hill]

Thanks, and it looks like just in time!

--Boot Hill

[E Rocc]

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.

There's one other place: space.

A belief in Earth-based solar power as an effective alternative for high density power generation is one of those things that distinguishes liberals from lefties.

"Liberals" only disbelieve in the laws of economics. "Lefties" disbelieve in in the laws of physics.

-Eric

[goldstategop]

Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around. But if its cloudy most of the time, its viability is extremely limited. Solar power is never going to replace conventional sources of power but it could offer clean energy supplies in certain areas where the benefits outweigh the costs.

[Boot Hill]

E Rocc says:   "There's one other place [where solar make sense]: space."

As long as you're in a "local" orbit, I agree. No atmosphere, no clouds, no night time, and most especially no locally available power grid!

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

goldstategop says:   "Solar power is feasible when its sunny practically all year around."

Nope, losses due to cloud cover are only a minor part of the total losses that make solar uneconomic. Please review the table in the article one more time.

--Boot Hill

[DB]

Well...

You’re assuming no change in technology. You also show the plants capital expenses to build the plant but not the actual fuel costs over the life of the plant. I have to believe those cost FAR exceed the initial cost.

All of California’s current electricity generating online capacity (52,600 MW as of 2001) could be achieved in a 10 x 10 mile area with the available sun in your tables (201 W/m^2) with 100% energy conversion efficiency. Fifty percent efficiency would increase that to a 14 x 14 mile area. Mind you that the current 52,600 MW is peak capacity not average.

Yes, even 50% is pie in the sky for efficiency. But maybe not 10 years from now, who knows…

I wonder how much commercial building roof area there is in the state of California? A distributed generation system would be far more reliable and more tolerant of clouds etc.

Solar power isn't currently cost effective I would agree. But as traditional energy generating sources become more expensive and with solar energy technology becoming less expensive that difference is slowly converging. If that $700 solar panel at its stated efficiency could be massed produced for $50 it would be a good deal (I’d do it for my own home as it would pay for itself in 10 years).

[DB]

I've also seen articles on this. The methane combines with other elements to form crystals (as a remember it anyway...).

[DB]

Okay “...mass produced...”…

[goldstategop]

I agree. The technology's bound to improve and the costs will go down. Granted it will never replace conventional energy sources but it has a role to play in providing additional energy needs. However the enviro wackos are wrong in asserting "alternative energy" sources will eliminate our dependence on oil, coal, and nuclear. That's like saying we should stop driving cars and get back on the bicycle for transportation.