Posted on 04/01/2016 8:04:15 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
fyi
Save for Later
But the Democrats say that spending over ten times as much for power will create jobs.
It would be useful to know the cost of the natural gas over the lifetime of the plant, among other things.
Hydroelectric pumped storage seems very inefficient. Aren’t they working on better ways to store electricity or convert it to hydrogen?
It is not inefficient at all. Two major aspects are free. Gravity, and water. In places like California the night time demand is much smaller. Excess electricity from high load constant sources like nuclear, power the pumps that move the water back up in to the reservoirs.
Electrolysis and storage of hydrogen is hugely inefficient and very expensive. Then again... That’s just what the government wants.
Solar Panels=Crispy Critters!!!!
Well of course it’s more expensive. That’s the idea isn’t it? To give other countries a better chance at beating America?
America is handicapped now, we are too good by all standards, and we must be crippled so the rest of the world can get their slice of the pie.
This is reparations to the world for having been successful.
This back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that a solar (PV) power plant that could deliver that same results as a gas-fired power plant would cost about 14 times the gas-fired option to build. It is worth noting that the solar option cost excludes any subsidies, investment tax credits, etc, that could narrow the range, but it is obvious from this little exercise that until solar technology improves dramatically, there is little chance that it will replace natural gas as the “go-to” option for new power plants.
This is a very interesting analysis.
I’m all for developing new sources of energy, but, would like to see a cost/ benefit analysis done, as you have done here.
Maybe someday solar will be competitive with other forms of energy generation. Maybe. But until such time as that happens, we should not rush to see our energy costs skyrocket, by abandoning fossil fuels, just to make a political statement.
Hillary said something along the lines of, we have to get rid of fossil fuels. But she doesn’t want to forget about the coal miners who will be out of work permanently if she can make this happen.
NatGas is cheap, and they're finding more of it all the time. It will be decades before a competing technology will under price it.
I doubt it. One of the more exotic forms of nook power will probably be ascendant.
Given that it's simpler, without a lake for night-time use or other high-tech parts--I'm sure a gas plant would have similarly low operating costs to its build costs.
Carbon-based fuel--such as oil or gas--is concentrated solar energy, and using it simply unlocks that energy. It is inevitably much more efficient, and less expensive, than any alternative energy.
Left out the environmental footprint as in how many acres each plant would occupy.
If you think this is rediculous, take a look at the Ivanpaugh Solar Plant in Southern California ( just across the state line from Las Vegas). It’s a huge looser that may have to be shut down because it’s not genrating the requisite power, and it’s a bird fryer.
The WUWT website ( Watts up With hat?) had an article on that.
There is a little truth here, though once the calculations get real, the case for solar is probably an order of magnitude lower, not to mention the risks and property costs for collecting 19,200 megawatts. There is no mention of tracking collectors nor of the efficiency of the photovoltaic cells. First, an optimistic analysis requires that the area of the solar field needs to be greater than 720 square miles. The configuration of the tracking collectors doesn’t matter, but imagine maintaining over 700 square miles of machinery in the desert, washing the surfaces of dust and sand, and where will you put the enormous storage reservoir? Large scale solar is made to order for swindlers and for the naïve. It is about energy flux density. Solar energy is very diffuse at the surface of the earth, and not much higher in space.
A rule of thumb for those who get tax incentives to put solar panels on their roofs is that in most of the U.S. where there isn’t fog half the time as in some West Coast cities, an average of 10 watts/square meter over 24 hours is a reasonable expectation. That is assuming 20% efficiency of the photodiodes, and tracking panels, which even Solar City doesn’t claim to provide. The only way that works is that government regulatory agencies can increase the cost of alternatives by killing coal, natural gas, and nuclear alternatives. That is what they’ve done, with much money in the pockets of politicians and lobbyists, from oil producing states. Islamic oil producers fund lobbyists and they get protected by the U.S. Military while taxpayers pay the resultant higher energy prices.
I’m guessing that the crude model assumes the illusory 20% collector efficiency. But pumped storage, since three quarters of the power must come from storage, is probably not better than 80% efficient. The collection surface needs to be increased.
Yes, I did these calculations when I was an idealist in college. You don’t want to depend upon utopian idealists when people’s lives are at stake.
For the solar plant it would be useful to know battery and panel replacement costs as well.
When the sun sets in the west then the solar power plant is of no use.
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.