Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Sylvia Else on 8 Aug 2010 07:22 On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes >> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it >> will be a niche source. > > A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is > larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day > load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of > air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, > while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load > during night. > > If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak > production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the > arrays to the south. > > Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but > it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead > of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would > have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to > ride through the winter. > If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. Sylvia.
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 07:45 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:22:46 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin >> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes >>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it >>> will be a niche source. >> >> A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is >> larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day >> load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of >> air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, >> while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load >> during night. >> >> If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak >> production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the >> arrays to the south. >> >> Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but >> it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead >> of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would >> have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to >> ride through the winter. >> > >If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line >it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the >sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. The cost of an unused facility depends only on the interest rate. If some active solar energy storage is used, it will also have various operational costs, such as energy loss costs, personnel costs and replacement part costs.
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 07:52 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:25:44 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Since the costs of raw PV panels are heading for zero it could be very >cheap indeed. The cost of PV panels has been approaching zero for decades. Controlled fusion is expected to be commercialized in the next 20 years and this mantra has been heard for a few decades. I very much doubt that we will see dirt cheap PV sheets or commercial fusion in my life time.
From: Sylvia Else on 8 Aug 2010 08:19 On 8/08/2010 9:45 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:22:46 +1000, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: >>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin >>> <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>> >>>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes >>>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it >>>> will be a niche source. >>> >>> A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is >>> larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day >>> load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of >>> air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, >>> while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load >>> during night. >>> >>> If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak >>> production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the >>> arrays to the south. >>> >>> Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but >>> it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead >>> of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would >>> have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to >>> ride through the winter. >>> >> >> If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line >> it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the >> sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. > > The cost of an unused facility depends only on the interest rate. > > If some active solar energy storage is used, it will also have various > operational costs, such as energy loss costs, personnel costs and > replacement part costs. > The interest is not insignificant. There are personnel costs even when the plant is not running, because the people required to operate it are not available from a pool of people who are otherwise unemployed. They will have to be paid enough to make it worth their while to keep themselves available. These costs are not usually included by proponents of solar power. Instead the usual strategy is to allege that there is spare capacity in the system anyway. There is, but it's there for a reason which doesn't include being a free backup for solar. Sylvia.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 08:28
On 08/08/2010 12:52, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:25:44 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Since the costs of raw PV panels are heading for zero it could be very >> cheap indeed. > > The cost of PV panels has been approaching zero for decades. > > Controlled fusion is expected to be commercialized in the next 20 > years and this mantra has been heard for a few decades. > > I very much doubt that we will see dirt cheap PV sheets or commercial > fusion in my life time. > You really think the "natural" price of a PV panel should be equal to that of an LCD TV for the same area??? ie around $400 per sq m I would expect one of the thin film printing processes to drop that by a factor of ten over the next 15 years. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |