[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).

[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.

[Boot Hill]

DB contends:   "You also show the plants capital expenses to build the plant but not the actual fuel costs over the life of the plant."

Incorrect, I covered that in the third paragraph of "Here is an example" and the interest costs of the very expensive solar power plants would exceed the actual fuel costs over the life of the plant. The interest costs of a 30 year, 10 billion dollar loan at 5.3% would be $9 billion dollars greater for a 1000 MW solar plant than for a conventional power plant. The cost of the natural gas for the conventional plant during that same 30 year period would be $8.9 billion dollars. This presumes $1/W for conventional and $10/W for solar. The real cost of a solar power plant would be greater than the $10/W figure I quoted and conventional plants are closer to $0.75/W.

--Boot Hill