Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: nospam on 8 Aug 2010 12:45 Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >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. Show me a battery with a replacement cost which is less than the cost of the equivalent grid electricity it can discharge in its lifetime. Of course if grid electricity prices rocket (due to technically illiterate eco wankers and politicians refusing to build viable large scale generating capacity) anything can happen.
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Aug 2010 17:42 On Aug 8, 12:45 pm, nospam <nos...(a)please.invalid> wrote: > Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >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. > > Show me a battery with a replacement cost which is less than the cost of > the equivalent grid electricity it can discharge in its lifetime. > > Of course if grid electricity prices rocket (due to technically illiterate > eco wankers and politicians refusing to build viable large scale generating > capacity) anything can happen. The easiest way to make any one technology competitive is by kneecapping the others. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: Tom Del Rosso on 8 Aug 2010 18:49 John Larkin wrote: > On 07 Aug 2010 21:35:07 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: > > > > The French have more courage than we do. Ack! > > How humiliating. They do not have more courage. They're just less democratic. They might be more Democratic in fact, but they're less democratic. -- Reply in group, but if emailing add one more zero, and remove the last word.
From: dagmargoodboat on 8 Aug 2010 19:39 On Aug 8, 3:56 am, Paul Keinanen <keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 19:18:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > > > > >Sun has a bit more zip than that. About 1kW/m^2, peak, and about > >5kWHr/m^2 in a day in most of the US. Unless you meant electrical > >output--that should be about 0.13 * 5kWHr/m^2 = 650WHr a day /m^2. So > >that's what, six or seven cents' worth of juice? Yum. > > That assumes no clouds, with clouds it is even less. I think that's an annual US-ish average, but here's the definitive source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/ -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 8 Aug 2010 20:56
On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:22:59 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 08/08/2010 14:13, 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? > >As far as I'm aware, VAT applies to all solar PV systems in Europe Is the electricity taxed? |