« Quote of the Day: Mitt Romney’s Perfunctory Campaign Launch
The Lost Poetry of Sikh Poet Nunihal Singh: Problems and Demands »
Cheap Solar Power
Those dirty green hippies at GE have some news: Solar Cheaper Than Fossil Power in Five Years.
Solar power may be cheaper than electricity generated by fossil fuels and nuclear reactors within three to five years because of innovations, said Mark M. Little, the global research director for General Electric Co.
Yes, this is the same GE that makes reactors. They know where the future is and it’s not nuclear or coal.
“If we can get solar at 15 cents a kilowatt-hour or lower, which I’m hopeful that we will do, you’re going to have a lot of people that are going to want to have solar at home,” Little said yesterday in an interview in Bloomberg’s Washington office. The 2009 average U.S. retail rate per kilowatt-hour for electricity ranges from 6.1 cents in Wyoming to 18.1 cents in Connecticut, according to Energy Information Administration data released in April.
GE, based in Fairfield, Connecticut, announced in April that it had boosted the efficiency of thin-film solar panels to a record 12.8 percent. Improving efficiency, or the amount of sunlight converted to electricity, would help reduce the costs without relying on subsidies.
The thin-film panels will be manufactured at a plant that GE intends to open in 2013. The company said in April that the factory will have about 400 employees and make enough panels each year to power about 80,000 homes.
If Fukishima didn’t kill nuclear power thin film solar will. GE knows there is no longer any money to be made in nuclear power plants so they are going where the money is there to be made – solar. Free enterprise at work. Nuclear power was never cheap and without massive government subsidies – direct and indirect – not a single nuclear power plant would have ever been built in the US.
Note:
I had a post predicting this 3 1/2 years ago.
16 Responses to “Cheap Solar Power”
Ron, the “solar dream” remains that, though maybe someday, yes, it will become truly practical and is the big rival to wind power.
(Not only does the solar conversion need to be more efficient, but notably less costly — AND as with wind, better storage devices are needed.)
You’re anti-nuclear, so consider, among other things, for a moment, which would be better not only in space but in remote areas as a source for power. (Think for a moment about this, on Earth, in particular.) We’re not the Russians, who have leaky old “nuclear batteries” in remote places, but if you want to gloat about solar, compare a future small solar remote-power source to the nuclear equivalent. (Not homes in metro areas, but at truly remote sites, such as Africa, or in the Canadian or Russian Arctic.)
Which is more complicated, which is safer, which is more costly to set up, which is more troublesome when abused or misused?
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/small-nukes-go-big-with-terrapower-toshiba-deal-whos-next/
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
Food for thought.
Meanwhile, this book, which discusses many, many subjects related to semiconductors, has a top chapter about solar power, too. Check it out sometime if you can and you wish.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/bookdescription.cws_home/719544/description#description
(Incidentally, it was while reading that section on solar power than I thought about remote areas, solar vs. nuclear, and you, as well as other anti-nuclear folks or solar-and-wind devotees. I thought of Greendreams more than you because he’s nastier, but he wasn’t the only one. [chuckle] P.S. I got it at a huge discount at a Borders store that was being closed and its inventory sold.)
I’ll add that I’m in Albuquerque, in the Southwest, where there is the most sunshine in the USA. And, don’t forget that much of the interior West, the arid land surrounding the higher, wetter “mountain islands,” is at substantial elevation. Albuquerque is roughly at 5,000 feet altitude (the same as Denver), though the metro area varies in altitude like the Front Range of the Rockies. (The Rockies end in New Mexico.) Now, you’ve likely encountered information about the thinner (less dense) air in Denver, that lowers the boiling point of water, or that people engage in threshold-of-performance-effect altitude training in Colorado Springs (as well as here in Albuquerque). If you’ve visited either site, perhaps you have thought about as well as noticed that the sunshine is stronger (more intense). In fact, it is significantly more intense, meaning so much of the Southwest (and perhaps someday the interior Northwest — don’t rush to believe it is coming soon west of the Cascades) offers not only more sunshine in terms of total hours, but more intensity as well. (It’s all lumped together in solar flux measurements used to determine solar resources.)
Food for thought.
Ron, I’ll add that I was saying that the Southwest, not places at 5,000 feet, have the most solar flux in the United States. If you have been thinking of the where as well as the what, the richest solar resource locations will be tops. One time I said to Steve K. that Yuma, Arizona, is in the lower Colorado Valley, that is generally agreed to be part of the lowest-precipitation (sunny!) as the hottest part of the United States.
Obviously some of what’s being sought would do best there!
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
Excellent post, Ron.
Our house in the mountains of Northeastern Pennsylvania went solar in January. That is not the most solar conducive region, but the combination of lower PV cell cost and incredible tax rebates from the feds and state made it a good investment and one that should pay for itself within a few years.
January was especially stormy, so we generated little power. But beginning in February our two-way meter started running the other way (electricity out) more than the usual way (electricity in) and in March and April the power company, as required by law, had to buy our surplus electricity so we had a minus electric bill for those months. That will remain the pattern, and it’s a beautiful thing.
Cheap, efficient solar power is just around the corner! This has been true since the 1960s, so I’m sure that it must still be true now!
Sorry Marco but you’re wrong… again.
Here’s a 250-megawatt (MW) concentrating solar power (CSP) plant that currently being built on a three square mile tract just west of Gila Bend, AZ:
I drive by it once a week and the progress they’re making is amazing.
Here’s a few links for more information:
I looked into solar power as a add-to-the-grid possibility, when we moved north of Austin.
Here, electricity is still only about 11 cents/kWh, so it’s pretty dirt cheap. If I attach to the grid, I don’t have a good way to sell it back to the grid, but I’ve heard that in places near here where the electric company buys it back, the payback is only about 10 cents on the dollar produced.
So, it’s really not economically feasible for us to put in the near $5,000 to $8,000 initial cost to re-coup it in the even distant future unless it becomes more lucrative to have it pay back from the grid, or unless there are huge tax incentives to put it in initially.
Marco — it’s years and years away, still, but progress is being made. As I also wrote, it’s like wind in that it’s intermittent (with solar, also periodic) in nature, and part of progress entails improving electrical energy storage (“batteries”). As we now rely on batteries for so much (including cell phones), with so many things, research into better storage is worth even government research and development (as long as the results cannot be used by private parties secure patents, as has happened with federal medical research).
Yes, solar has been a dream even bigger and longer than wind power, and took off in the 1960s. Has anyone else seen this in used book stores, for example?
http://www.amazon.com/Golden-Thread-Years-Architecture-Technology/dp/0442240058
As this author, below wrote decades ago (I have two of his books, including the text here; that book is now on-line), solar power is far from the panacea many believe it is. (I have linked to this before.)
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter14.html
Also see Orton’s book (that I linked to) for an excellent latter half of the chapter at the end of his book that discusses semiconductors in solar electricity generation (and the two basic approaches, pure photovoltaics and the collector-concentrator concept). (Note Elsevier is the publisher — a scientific publisher like Plenum, which published Cohen’s books)
http://www.elsevierdirect.com/ISBN/9780444532404/Semiconductors-and-the-Information-Revolution
Here’s an on-line version of an earlier book by Orton, if anyone questions him as a source on semiconductors.
http://4webs.net/ebooks/story%20of%20semiconductors.pdf
Sunpower is a favored source by a commercial-site vendor here in Albuquerque (the company makes panels for home use as well), and it claims more efficiency than its competitors’. (I’ve seen the graph on a brochure I picked up at the company’s office and showroom.)
Efficiency needs to be even higher and even more, the cost must come down a lot before panels like this become ubiquitous on the roofs of buildings or next to them, as well as powering beacons or LED-lit signs by roadways, etc. The companies are working on it, though (the market would be huge).
Note the tabs near the top of the page leading to other pages.
http://us.sunpowercorp.com/about/newsroom/press-releases/?relID=482133
This has been true since the 1960s, so I’m sure that it must still be true now!
Still using that turntable for all your music and giant box tv with the 10″ square screen, eh? Yeah, nothing’s changed at all since the 60s. Good call. My abicus and mechanical typewriter still work GREAT!
“If Fukishima didn’t kill nuclear power thin film solar will.”
Fukushima almost certainly gave nuclear power a big blow. (It didn’t kill it, as some countries are too committed to nuclear power to abandon it).
It is ironic that most cheering this are advocates of the need to address global warming, while it is inevitable that attempting to abandon nuclear power will have a negative impact on this. The rationale I hear is that it will replace with wind and solar, expect of course that every Megawatt of power from these sources that used to replace nuclear power doesn’t go to replacing fossil fuels. It will be interesting, however, to see if this effect is subtle enough (it is easy to miss progress that isn’t being made) that it even gets addressed.
The anti-nuclear movement is almost 100% pathology as well as misconduct. And yes, banning nukes will result in greater emissions, since the alternatives for base-load power plants are coal, or gas if some emissions reduction along with other differences between coal and gas are desired.
Germany’s nuke-removal goal is simply silly. As for wanting to switch ultimate to solar and wind power, it’s not going to happen, and even if it were possible (with battery advances we can’t conceive of in reality yet), it would be much more expensive. (Fuel cells for off-grid use still promise at this time to make more sense for homes and other buildings and other stationary uses, and for vehicles, which solar and wind can’t do practically.)
A typical no-nukes insistence means more coal and gas, and of course in Germany’s “stellar” case, importing much nuclear power from France — hypocritical NIMBY-parasitism! (HA) Oh, and those new state-of-the-art transmission facilities that leftists already are set to oppose (HA, again). (What about visual blight arguments, which lefties and righties alike make about wind power, and might someday against large-facility-sized solar power? [City-sized solar power facilities probably remain a dream])
This has been true since the 1960s, so I’m sure that it must still be true now!
“Still using that turntable for all your music and giant box tv with the 10? square screen, eh? Yeah, nothing’s changed at all since the 60s. Good call. My abicus and mechanical typewriter still work GREAT!”
Nice Strawman, Roro. I never claimed that there has been no technological progress of any sort in the last 40+ years,or even that solar power technology is not better now than it was in the 1960s. The fact that I’m using the Internet here obviously flies in the face of your sad, dishonest comments. The idea that GEs cheap and highly efficient solar power is our imminent salvation is something that those of us inclined to critical thinking may question. You have a free pass in this regard however.
SteveK:
How cost-effective is your plant? Does it exist only because of large government subsidies? Who owns the thing? I’m not inclined to believe everything a PR site tells me.
Well Marco, One site linked was to the developer / owner of the project, the other is to APS, the Arizona Utility that is buying, and reselling, all the electricity produced.
Your Eeyorian ‘gift’ of predicting the worst outcome no matter what the topic is your TMV M.O. but please… don’t stop.
Your arguments are both entertaining and reassuring confirmation for those of us that see your ‘side’ as a bunch of clueless pessimists.
Anyone really wanting to find the answer to your questions need only Google “start-up costs” for coal / natural gas / nuclear power / solar electrical generating facilities…
Then Google “Operating Expenses.” for coal / natural gas / nuclear power / solar electrical generating facilities.
Let me provide notes I took when I visited, yes, a solar installation firm yesterday. It was fun — they sell various cells, prefer the highest-power for residential applications, and a long-known German firm for the bigger, commercial or government (schools are one example of projects here — ABQ — as well as the airport; there is a huge installation at a private academy here, too).
The sales floor is in front and to the side of the entrance, and has displays of the various panels and brochures from the high-power US manufacturer. To the rear across from the entrance is a large conference, meeting, or presentation room. And of course that is where many sales pitches and show-off stuff can be found. The salesperson took me into it and I sat next to her while she brought up the display. Top and principal is a real-time display of the current characteristics of each of the panels they sell — there is an array of these panels outside the sales office and the display shows how the panels are operating, with wattage superimposed over the rectangles depicting the panels. Other graphics can be found beneath the main display portion.
(On the table in that room was the beautiful Picture Book of a number of projects that they have completed already.)
I began taking notes while she provided information, answered questions, etc.
[scrambling to my truck to get the notes I took] From SOME notes:
—————–
The company’s installations feature one of four panels. The least powerful is cheapest, some Chinese company whose name I didn’t write down and she said “You needn’t bother.” It is a poor performer, only merit is it’s cheap. Next most powerful is Nicor, but they’re not used in typical installations here (ABQ). Then we viewed SunPower, the most powerful panel they use and which they recommend for residential use (most power for a given area, least area for a given power). Last was Schott, which is their commercial panel. Both SunPower and Schott have expected lifetimes of 20+ years. (They advertise as such.) Schott USA panels used by this company are assembled here in New Mexico and typically use a Unirac mounting system, “so it’s almost all local.”
At 3 PM the two panels of note (tilted 10 degrees or more, could be tilted to angle 55, complement of latitude 35, but I doubt it, didn’t look that steep) had their power displays showing the SunPower output 1,280 Wh (units indicated), Schott 1,120 Wh.
Sunpower panels are 3×5 (feet). Schott panels are 4×6.
Sunpower is at the top of performance currently at 21% efficiency. At 29% overheating occurs with current-design solar panels (photovoltaic panels in the field, the real-world environment, commercially marketed).
Currently there is a research prototype in south Wales (at a university?) that is at 43%. (!) Not a commercial unit for sale!
What’s the cost and how well does it work?
Typical home, 2000 sq ft, no pool, no A/C (base case!), and no electric car.
(Yes, many solar installation owners here are planning for electric cars. I’ve thought that I’d want a high-power, not ordinary home circuit, vehicle charger, particularly so as to recharge it quickly.)
2.0 KW system => 2000 W
12 panels, 230 Sunpower (not the highest power model, cheaper)
2.7 KW
~18000(? scribble is illegible) KWh/year
Cost of system?
$18,000
BUT — Federal 30% tax credit, State 10% tax credit.
$10,000
Commercial? Decisions involve utility bills, peak vs. off-peak mix
Smart or Net metering being introduced. New Jersey at forefront of much of this stuff. Here PNM (our utility) pays 9 cents/KWh when it takes your power. Normal rate (in) 13 cents. + Credit, result 11.5 cents. When it’s taking power from you, it’s nice or fun to see your meter turn or spin backward.
Payoff for the system (assuming tax credits and such) can be in ten years, so she says.
—————–
Here’s the installer. Scrolling down you’ll see sections showing big commercial stuff, including the monster Academy project.
Note also utility (PNM) and its rate hike and solar access fee request.
http://www.gocstsolar.com/
Nice Strawman, Roro. I never claimed that there has been no technological progress of any sort in the last 40+ years,or even that solar power technology is not better now than it was in the 1960s. The fact that I’m using the Internet here obviously flies in the face of your sad, dishonest comments. The idea that GEs cheap and highly efficient solar power is our imminent salvation is something that those of us inclined to critical thinking may question. You have a free pass in this regard however.
Um, I used no strawman — might want to look up that term. You do seem pretty well acquainted with the idea, as nobody said that GE’s cheap solar power is our imminent salvation. That’s a strawman. My point was clear, you are acting silly, and I’m really bored of you.
Good for you DLS… You’re more than welcome to join ‘right’ (left?) side of this discussion.
Logic should (could?), once again, become your strong point.