Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 09:40 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:28:06 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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 Sorry, I do not understand how the LCD TV panel came into this discussion. Do you imply that the cost of a PV panel area is dropping at the same rate as the LCD panel (/m�) ? >I would expect one of the thin film printing processes to drop that by a >factor of ten over the next 15 years. It would be interesting to see solar panel sheets made by the roll-to-roll process the same way as paper is made these days with over 10 m wide machines and paper speeds over 100 km/h :-) I very much doubt that this will be the case for solar power production during the next 15 years.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 10:07 On 08/08/2010 14:40, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 13:28:06 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 > > Sorry, I do not understand how the LCD TV panel came into this > discussion. Economies of scale, quantities of each manufactured > Do you imply that the cost of a PV panel area is dropping at the same > rate as the LCD panel (/m�) ? > >> I would expect one of the thin film printing processes to drop that by a >> factor of ten over the next 15 years. > > It would be interesting to see solar panel sheets made by the > roll-to-roll process the same way as paper is made these days with > over 10 m wide machines and paper speeds over 100 km/h :-) > > I very much doubt that this will be the case for solar power > production during the next 15 years. OTOH I'm pretty optimistic. I think it might happen considerably sooner -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 10:10 On 08/08/2010 14:32, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 8/08/2010 11:13 PM, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:06:47 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 08/08/2010 13:59, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: >>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:24:09 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 08/08/2010 03:11, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:12:58 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 07/08/2010 23:34, John Larkin wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:16:03 +0300, Paul Keinanen<keinanen(a)sci.fi> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:45:48 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>>>>>>> <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "Summary >>>>>>>>>> Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for >>>>>>>>>> decades. They >>>>>>>>>> are projected to fall even farther over the next 10 years. >>>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, >>>>>>>>>> projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen >>>>>>>>>> steadily over the last decade, and they continue to rise. In >>>>>>>>>> the past >>>>>>>>>> year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina. Electricity >>>>>>>>>> from new >>>>>>>>>> solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from >>>>>>>>>> proposed new >>>>>>>>>> nuclear plants." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The cost of recent (2000+) nuclear power plants is somewhere >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> 1-3 EUR/W based on actual deals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To be competitive, at the grid_interface_point at the equator in >>>>>>>>> cloudless conditions, the solar panel cost should be somewhere >>>>>>>>> between >>>>>>>>> 0.25 .. 0.75 EUR/W based on the geometry alone. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Moving away from the equator or allowing for some random >>>>>>>>> clouds, the >>>>>>>>> unit price should be even less to be competitive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For some reason, all bulk solar power producers, such as existing >>>>>>>>> power plants in Spain or the proposed DESERTEC project are using >>>>>>>>> concentrated solar thermal power, not photovoltaic cells :-). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-sun-setting-on-solar-power-in-spain >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, solar is so successful that subsidies are being cut back... >>>>>> >>>>>> That's one way to look at it. The other way is to imagine that Spain >>>>>> ran out of money to throw at subsidies. All sorts of people from all >>>>>> over the world were cashing in on it. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> How much govt money was pumped into nuclear before it could >>>>> "compete on >>>>> its own" (assuming it can, even now)? >>>>> As for niche, that could be a very big niche if it was used to supply >>>>> daytime heavy industry over a continental grid. >>>> >>>> You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. If you >>>> subsidize >>>> a failure (solar) you get more failure. If you tax nuclear you get >>>> less of it. >>>> Now you know why, as a country, we're failing. We don't like success. >>> >>> It seems to me that it's the nuclear industry that whining for >>> subsidies, and have been for decades. >> >> So what? Everyone whines for subsidies. The difference is that the >> government listens to some (chooses winners and losers). *That* is _bad_. >> >>> As for solar, that's starting to hit the steep slope of the exponential. >> >> So let it go. Do you favor subsidizing kids in their 20s? >> >>> Installed capacity has been doubling in less than 2 year intervals for >>> the past decade. 8 more doubling will match the conventional generating >>> capacity of the planet. Since a lot of the initial high cost is down to >>> lack of economies of scale, subsidies are justified at present. But as >>> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they are being scaled back as solar >>> becomes cost competitive with other power sources. >> >> No, they subsidies are being "scaled back" because there is no more >> money for >> this nonsense. >> >>> Given that nanosolar can produce panels at 70c per Watt I think we can >>> see that the price will fall by at least by factor of 3 quite rapidly >>> from its current $2.50 per Watt as capacity ramps up. >> >> So it's time to tax it? > > Not exactly, but the power grid cannot afford to be a supplier of last > resort. If real solar power costs, excluding backup costs, drop below > normal power tarifs, then people will install solar power and use the > grid as a backup, since it will be an economically rational thing to do > from the perspective of an individual customer. At that point, the way > people are charged for electricity will have to be changed so that the > grid can cover its costs. > > It probably should anyway. As things stand with typical charging > regimes, those who can afford to buy and run air conditioners are being > subsidised by those who cannot. The lack of social equity inherent in > that is obvious. > > Sylvia. I think that within a couple of decades most houses will have their own PV and battery set, and use the grid for (expensive) backup. Certainly in S Europe PV electricity, even without subsidy, is comparable to domestic mains costs right now. And PV will only get cheaper. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 10:27 On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry <pomerado(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 8, 1:18�am, Paul Keinanen <keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin >> >> <jjlar...(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. > >California ISO typically reports 2 types of electric power usage day - >those with a peak about 9 PM when it is cool, and those with a peak >about 2 PM when it is hot. > >http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html Thank you for the graph. It would appear that the daily variation is about 9 GW, so that is the maximum nominal solar power that it makes sense to build. Apparently some kind of daylight saving time is used, since the consumption is high after sunset, apparently due to air conditioning load. A similar curve for Finland (at Alaska latitudes) is available at http://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/load_and_generation/ with about 2 GW day/night variation during weekdays and 1 GW during weekends with early morning base loads of 7 GW. The base electric consumption is more than 12 GW during the winter night and about 14 GW during the winter day. Someone might think that putting up 2 GW of solar power would solve the problem. Unfortunately, at such high latitudes, the sun does not shine much in the winter. A solar panel would only produce a few watts. So in reality, the solar power array would be usable only during a few summer months.
From: Richard Henry on 8 Aug 2010 10:52
On Aug 8, 7:27 am, Paul Keinanen <keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry > > > > <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >On Aug 8, 1:18 am, Paul Keinanen <keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin > > >> <jjlar...(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. > > >California ISO typically reports 2 types of electric power usage day - > >those with a peak about 9 PM when it is cool, and those with a peak > >about 2 PM when it is hot. > > >http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html > > Thank you for the graph. > > It would appear that the daily variation is about 9 GW, so that is the > maximum nominal solar power that it makes sense to build. > > Apparently some kind of daylight saving time is used, since the > consumption is high after sunset, apparently due to air conditioning > load. > > A similar curve for Finland (at Alaska latitudes) is available athttp://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/load_and_g... > with about 2 GW day/night variation during weekdays and 1 GW during > weekends with early morning base loads of 7 GW. > > The base electric consumption is more than 12 GW during the winter > night and about 14 GW during the winter day. > > Someone might think that putting up 2 GW of solar power would solve > the problem. Unfortunately, at such high latitudes, the sun does not > shine much in the winter. A solar panel would only produce a few > watts. So in reality, the solar power array would be usable only > during a few summer months. The graph I provided is a daily output, and there is no easy way to see any other day's graph except the previous day in the renewables report page. I suggest looking again on a weekday. |