Italy Eyes Concept of Selling Sun's Energy

[jpak]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5232294,00.html

ROME (AP) - Italy is blessed with some of Europe's most brilliant sun and cursed with some of its highest electricity rates, but the nation has long lagged behind its more inclement neighbors in harnessing energy from the sun's rays.

But the government, hoping to cash in on Italy's most abundant natural resource, is trying to change that. It approved incentives this summer that could see solar panels blooming on Italy's rooftops like bougainvillea on sun-kissed terraces.

<snip>

Italy rejected nuclear power in a referendum in 1987, a year after winds blew radiation from the Chernobyl, Ukraine, explosion across much of Europe.

The enthusiasm of the utility companies for solar power stems in part from the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gases in the battle against global warming.

<more>

[phantom power]

1. This will be a very interesting experiment.

I'm somewhat skeptical of solar on that scale, but there's no substitute actually trying to do something, to really see how well it works.

The effort of trying to imagine a government with that kind of vision makes my head explode. Our "president's" vision is apparently teaching intelligent design in our schools. And frequent exercise. And lots of vacation time. For him, not us.

[jpak]

2. According the article, Germany is installing ~400 MW of PV per year

That "scale" is already a reality...

:)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

6. Boo Fickin' Hoo

Italy dumps nukes and now is implementing a program to install 100 MW of PV capacity.

Too fucking bad.

Germany dumps nukes and is installing 400 MW of PV capacity each year.

Too fucking bad.

Japan is producing >500 MW of PV annually and expanding its production capacity by 45% each year. They expect to have 4820 MW in place by 2010.

Too fucking bad.

Mexico is producing 240 MW of PV each year and expanding its production by >15% a year.

Too fucking bad.

The US installed 51 MW of grid-connected PV capacity in 2004 - a 38% increase over the previous year.

Too fucking bad.

SMUD dumped its Rancho Sucko nuclear reactor in favor of conservation, PV and wind farms.

Too fucking bad.

California is poised to pass legislation that will install 3000 MW of PV capacity in the next few years.

Too fucking bad.

New York, Maine, Oregon, Arizona, and New Jersey have recently passed similar legislation.

Too fucking bad.

It's all a fucking crying shame - ain't it...

:rofl:

[dcfirefighter]

7. You two's debate styles leave something to be desired.

Try and be civil; this forum seems to be a bit more intellectual than the general debate - I enjoy that.

As for germany's solar power generation: 6% isn't insignificant.

As for PV/solar development around the world, great, but the incremental developments are nearly insignificant. Solar, as forecast, isn't going to be in a position to supplant fossil fuel for the bulk of power generation. To think so is to ignore reality, and ultimately fail. Solar can viably fill a niche, for remote generation and peak load 'smoothing'.

Even 'feel good' legislation is sometimes a step in the right direction.

[jpak]

8. I hard to be civil

when you have endured as much crap as I have over the last two years.

...and I can say with certainty that I did not start the race to the sewer on this forum.

...and why it has been tolerated for so long is beyond me.

Nuclear cannot possibly replace fossil-fuel power generation. There is not enough uranium out there to support a globally expanded nuclear power industry. Uranium, like fossil fuels, is a finite depletable resource.

Nuclear is completely unsustainable - period.

Breeders??? They don't work. They're good at producing sodium fires and squandering R&D money - but they they just don't work.

Renewables are the only sustainable energy technologies available to support human societies beyond the end of this century.

Period.

[dcfirefighter]

10. well, please try

admittedly the other poster can be abrasive, however he backs his claims up with links. As it stands, I don't see any reason that nuclear couldn't supply our needs, even considering externalities, for the foreseeable future, limited U235 notwithstanding.

I also concede that distributed solar (roofs, etc) has a strong place in day-time peak power generation and residential / commercial heating, and that current subsidies for solar merely level the playing field against fossil subsides and fossil ignored externalities.

I personally favor capturing the externalities of various generation methods, by means of emission auctions, fees, excise taxes, etc, and using that revenue to provide a universal energy credit to every US family. Such a scheme would raise the price of energy while giving people more money with which to purchase it - encouraging conservation and allowing alternative energy sources a level playing field, while leaving no one literally out in the cold.

I cannot think of a politically acceptible way to promote this, other than saying "We want to help americans pay for rising energy costs, we're going to give ~$300 to each and every family.... that we're going to raise by taxing various forms of energy" It seems like a wash, but it's not - folks will conserve and spend the energy credit elsewhere - reducing energy demand and therefore cost.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[krkaufman]

9. Attitude aside, China is also implementing a pilot solar project

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-08/08/content_467072.htm

If the project becomes operational, 100,000 of the 6 million roofs in Shanghai, a city plagued by chronic power shortages, will be used to supply solar energy to local residents ...

All of the current 200-million-square-metres of rooftops could produce more than 28.6 billion kwhs of power, as each square metre is capable of giving out 143 kwhs every year.

A pilot project, but more than the US gov't is committing to.

[NickB79]

14. 400 MW at 20% efficiency

Is only 80 MW of actual power being produced. That is, if it can work at 20% efficiency, which appears to be a higher-end estimate (NNadir's calculations in a previous post showed an average of 12% efficiency).

[jpak]

15. PV cells are ~12-15% efficient in converting sunlight to electricity

This is no revelation.

Solar irradiance follows a bell-shape curve each day, and day length varies seasonally.

This is no revelation.

PV modules do not produce electricity at night.

This is no revelation (it's *ahem* SOLAR energy).

PV modules are rated at their peak output at solar noon - a 100 watt module will produce 100 watts under peak solar irradiance.

This is no revelation.

And the Germans don't know this?????

What's the point here?????

[phantom power]

16. I think the point is this...

If somebody builds, say, a 1000-megawatt natural-gas plant, we all know that plant can produce 1000-megawatts 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, in all weather conditions, etc. The same also holds true if that plant uses coal, oil, or nuclear.

If somebody builds a 1000-megawatt solar plant, it's a very different story. That plant only generates it's full 1000-megawatts for a few hours a day, and only when the weather is sunny, etc.

So, when somebody reports that they've installed 400 megawatts of solar power, that doesn't mean we are displacing 400 megawatts of coal-power. It means we're probably replacing about 15-20% of that capacity. The same kind of logic holds true for wind power, although the fraction is different (and I don't know it).

I am sure that you already know all this. But that is the point.

I think it's a good point to make. The implications are important. If we're using, say, about 4 terawatts of coal and nuclear power, it means we would have to deploy around 15-20 terawatts of solar to provide the equivalent capacity. Plus some amount of storage capacity to balance supply with demand, yada yada.

[jpak]

17. And people don't realize this????

Like it's some some of deep dark secret????

I find that very odd....

[dcfirefighter]

18. No, people don't

E&E regulars probably do, but i would bet most of DU, and most of the US, has no idea.

[jpak]

19. So it's a conspiracy - a plot to pull the wool over the public's eyes?

:evilgrin:

[phantom power]

20. It's explainable by good old fashioned ignorance.

How many articles about energy have we all seen that confuse "watts" with "watt-hours?" And those are the authors. Now imagine the level of ignorance in the audience... if you dare.

Take 100 people off the street, and I bet 95 of them don't know what a "watt" is, or even that it is a unit of energy/time, or what "energy" actually means, and on and on and on.

And I bet the ratio in our Congress isn't very different. Maybe it's worse.

So, do I think that most people understand the basic issues surrounding alternative energy? That would be an emphatic "no" :-)

[jpak]

21. The same is true for nuclear power

or what was REALLY in Chimpco's Energy Bill....

:)

[funflower]

22. Seems to me like something the middle eastern countries could do

after the oil runs out.

[glitch]

3. Excellent! Yet another to adore Italy. Not that I needed one, but wth. nt

[Dogmudgeon]

4. I know all about it

I heard about it years ago.

Italy is going to send a mission to the Sun.

Knowing that the Sun is so hot, they have planned for a safe mission using the latest scientific insights.

This technology is top-secret, so you'll have to select the next three lines with your cursor and let DU Magic reveal their method.

(Start)
They are going to go at night.
...............................................(Drag highlight to here)

--p!
Now, lemme tell ya about the Polish space program ...

[NNadir]

12. Italy imports of electricity from Switzerland and France.

"Italy experienced several extensive blackouts in 2003, raising concerns about the risk of further such failures in the future. Although there were no such incidents in 2004, the risk of a recurrence remains moderately high, given Italy's heavy reliance on electricity imports (about 16% of consumption) and past underinvestment in the sector. Although electricity consumption as a share of GDP (kwh/GDP at constant 1995 prices) is about 20% lower than the OECD average, it is rising and will continue to do so during the forecast period, whereas in most other developed economies it is expected to continue to fall. Italy has limited domestic energy resources and is heavily dependent on imported oil and gas, particularly from North Africa and Russia. Imports of electricity from several of its European neighbours will continue to make up the gap between electricity consumption and generation, which was estimated at 32bn kwh in 2002. Italy imports electricity mainly from France and Switzerland, which have surpluses, as well as from Greece, which also has a surplus, following the completion in 2001 of an underwater cable between the two countries. Household use of natural gas is expected to continue to increase as a result of the extensive development of Italy's natural gas distribution network in the past ten years, continuing to reduce the share of oil and coal in total consumption."

http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?doc_id=7291&layout=rich_story

Um France? 75% reliance on nuclear electricity.

Um Switzerland? With huge hydroelectric resources, at least until the glaciers are done melting, 36% nuclear.

As for Greece:

"In 1991 Greek hydroelectric stations produced slightly more than 10 percent of the power generated domestically, liquid-fuel- burning thermoelectric stations produced about 23 percent, and coal-burning thermoelectric stations produced about 66 percent. Greece has no nuclear power plants. Between 1980 and 1991, electricity production increased by 48 percent. Expansion of coalburning stations accounted for more than the net increase because production from the other two sources declined during that period. Thus, the use of domestically available coal for electricity production has been intensified over this period."

The vast majority of Greek electricity is from coal and oil, 89%, with 10% from hydroelectric.

And let's be clear what the anti-nuclear position really is, coal, coal, and more coal.

In sunny Greece, why isn't there 99% solar power?

The Italians, who are "selling" sunlight, clearly have nothing to sell. They may as well be selling the Brooklyn Bridge. Neither are they rejecting nuclear power. If France cut them off, they'd have to shut the lights in a huge percentage of their cities. This is just plain good old fashioned NIMBY and spin and yet more specious fraud.

[phantom power]

13. To be fair, it's a proposal, not a description of the present.

If they actually achieve what they propose, then it would be an example that I assume even you would have to take seriously :-)

On the other hand, if it turns out to be a lot of hot air, then it's one more example that backs up your opinions of solar power.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phantom power]

24. The way I see it...

Supplying the world's power with solar and/or wind does not outright defy any laws of physics. So, if people really, really want to do it badly enough, I can't think of any reason why it's impossible.

I think the cost of actually achieving that is higher than most people realize. And most people seem to treat the vast energy storage requirements of such a scheme as some kind of afterthought, when in fact that strikes me as a harder (and more expensive) problem than simply generating the energy.

So, if Italy, or jpak, wants to go pure wind/solar, I hold no special contempt for such a proposal. But I'm also not impressed until I see the delivery. (Well, I was impressed that Italy expressed a desire to do something about the problem, mostly by comparison with the low standard of our country, where we are still forced to debate whether or not a problem exists)

And if anybody's voting, my vote is for deploying lots of nuclear power.

[NNadir]

25. Well, it's certainly a rich person's game to play solar.

I personally think that when you're rich, it is ethical to buy solar power.

This is not my beef however. My beef is with people who claim that solar power is an alternative to nuclear power. This is like making the claim that a Mercedes is an alternative to a Geo Prism.

The ethics of claiming that everyone must drive a Mercedes or not drive at all is a pretty astoundingly Repuke claim.

The per capita income of Italy $21,500.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/4033.htm

This gives a measure of the fraction of Italians that will be able to invest $30,000 is a "feel good" solar system that has a capacity loading of 20%.

Italy is buying power from Greece, which the bulk of its electricity by burning coal, and especially dirty coal at that. Therefore if Italy does nothing but pass laws with no effect, every man woman and child on the planet will be effected.

This isn't a game. Italy will be impoverished when the Alpine glaciers are gone, and they may well be gone before we reach the middle of this century, when my children will still be in their 50's.

There are not 5 realistic solutions to global climate change. There are not three. There are not two. There is one, and time is running out even for that, if it is not too late:

That solution is nuclear power.

After 40 years of endless bullshit, which began just after the broad adoption of nuclear power, of which this claim about Italy is only the latest incantation, there is not one nation on the planet that produces 1% of its power from PV power.

Not one.

There are 19 nations that produce 20% or more of their power by nuclear means, and 8 nations that produce more than 40% by nuclear power.

The 5 nations with the largest economies in the world, the United States, Japan, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all have huge nuclear capacity. In fact with the exception of Russia, which slightly exceeds German capacity, these are the same 5 nations with the largest nuclear generating capacity. Of the ten largest economies in the world there is only one, (Italy ironically) that has no nuclear plants.

In 50 years of nuclear operations there has been one, exactly one, nuclear power plant failure that has resulted in fatalities, and this in a type of reactor that is (for good reason) relatively rare.

In spite of these spectacular successes and indicators, some nations, in a time of global climate change nonetheless, where the lives of billions of people are at stake, have been convinced somehow that nuclear power is the devil. This is because lies go unchallenged.

Mysticism and religious fundamentalism on the rise worldwide. Americans are now (seriously, apparently) debating whether or not the origin of life is attributable to "intelligent" design. They are acting on the claim that God is ordering them to kill. (This used to be the province of people like David Berkowitz.) And they are claiming that nuclear power is the least safe form of energy. All of these claims are equivalent; all represent a serious threat to humanity; all are appeals to dogma.

I really don't give a rat's ass what self absorbed twits with trust funds do with their money. I won't argue that having them spend their money on solar PV systems is somehow worse than spending their money on dope, heroin, fast cars or trips to the liquor store. Clearly it is not.

However, if someone wants to claim that nuclear power is unnecessary because solar power is a success, I have no intention of letting that lie stand. Success is a measure of results, not promises, not hype.

What spoiled brats do with their money however has next to zero bearing on the question of what to do about the serious crisis the world faces.

In 2000, the illiterate governor of Texas, George W. Bush, , a promised a balanced budget, peace, moderate balance, a robust economy, compassion and a whole bunch of other crap too painful to recall. There will be hell to pay because people believed these spoiled brat's lies. However, what hell there is to pay for the consequences of these lies - which after all involve only the destruction of a prominent North American nation - will be dwarfed by the hell to pay if we adopt the illiterate fundamentalist religious proposition that there is any realistic alternative to nuclear energy.

There is not.

[phantom power]

26. So, you are saying that the world cannot afford a solar solution?

My assumption has always been that it is "affordable", if people are willing to sacrifice enough for it. (and that the sacrifice would be very large, probably more than people would be willing to make, if they knew the full extent of it)

But that is different than saying it's unaffordable, no matter how great the desire. Which seems to be your position.

[NNadir]

29. I am saying that there is only a subset of people who can afford it.

This subset is a tiny fraction of the world's population.

Again according to solar buzz, the European price for solar electricity without any storage devices being used is $0.2123 kilowatt-hour.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/eep_refrigerator.cfm

The per capita electricity consumption in Italy is 5058.25 kw-hr.

Thus the price is $1068 per capita for electricity alone if produced by solar means.

Now, if you are making $120,000/year, you may be able to afford to pay $4,300/year just for electricity, ignoring all other expenses. If you are making the Italian per capita income, $19,000, it is another matter entirely.

But let's get real. The solar buzz figure, while cute, is dependent on the existence of a grid that can operate as a battery. A grid, in spite of much hand-waving to the contrary, depends on a source of energy or a form of stored energy. Moreover, this capacity has a cost. You must have every element of cost accounted for including capital costs for the system that runs when the sun is not available. Therefore, you need not only invest in the cost of the solar plant, but you must also pay the full cost of building something to operate when it is not available. It is a game of pretend to claim otherwise.

Solar power is sexy.

Solar power is cool.

You can meet girls by getting drunk and shouting in a bar "I love solar power!"

It has nothing but positive (if completely inappropriate) press, something that has been true for 40 years.

So, if people could afford it, they would have done it long ago.

Something is rotten in Denmark, Denmark being a country that buys lots of electricity from France when the wind isn't blowing.

Now, I am probably wealthier than 90% of the people on the planet, but I have never felt that I could afford a solar system. I hope to soon be wealthier than 98% of the people on the planet, and then I might have fun with the solar game. But in the meanwhile, I have a mortgage, two kids to educate, to feed and clothe, to keep warm. I suppose I could ask my kids to wear sack-clothes to school, or move to a school district where they kill each other in the bathrooms - like the one my wife went to - but for what end?

There is cheaper and cleaner power available, nuclear power. I remind you that the external cost of PV power in Germany - the only country in the EC where there is enough solar PV capacity even to measure the external cost, environmental and health cost - is 3X larger than the external cost of nuclear power:

http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf

Therefore there is no economic and no environmental reason to prefer solar to nuclear.

Here in New Jersey we are privledged to have two nuclear plants, and when I have some time and money, sometimes I go to the shore and stare at them, swim near them and to think to myself how fortunate I am that my father's generation invested in building them. I already try my best to conserve electricity - because that is the right thing to do - but what I spend, I, and almost everyone else in New Jersey - can afford. I have a decent life and about the only health problem I face from the generation from electrical power comes from the coal plants that produce the other 50% of electricity I use. These plants rain Mercury and god knows what else on my family every damn day. It comforts me very little to know that the main reason this is true is mysticism.

[skids]

30. Oh, your from Jersey?

THAT explains it :P

[skids]

28. Ohoh, all fear the illiterate fundamentalist religious PV movement.

Seriously, you are doing some major lumping there.

Sure the solar sector has more than its fair share of snake-oil salesman. That's true of the entire renewable sector, and to a lesser extent business in general. Lack of serious implementation by serious businesses has allowed scam-artists to walk the halls of commerce.

But there are plenty of people who are not illiterate, not fundamentalist, not religious, and not snake-oil salesmen working on improving all renewables, including solar. And there are plenty of rational scientists who recognize that nuclear presents its own set of problems, just as any other plan.

That said, it's good to know that you realize that those that can afford the capital can make PV work. Personally, I think a wiser investment for the home or business owner, no matter how rich, is in this order in the U.S. is 1) conservation and efficiency and 2) solar heating and cooling systems (which could include stand-alone PV air-conditioning assist for peak use only, in hot climates, though heat pumps would be nicer if they were made available) only then to consider electricity generation after that is taken care of. The only reason to buy PV otherwise is out of an personal inclination to stimulate the market.

In truth, It is silly to talk of building nuclear power plants, or for that matter, solar arrays, when in reality every dollar spent on those would be better spent on more efficient appliances, more efficient vehicles, and building improvements. We could cut carbon load much faster and with greater economy if we stopped building new power facilities entirely and instead embarked on a massive conservation campaign.

That solution has been available to us for decades using technologies so old and well understood that our grandparents probably learned about them in high school.

So why are you so bent out of shape? It's all a farce on the part of society anyway. They say they care about global warming but what they really care about is not having to forego even the slightest luxury in the face of global warming. Building nukes so we don't have to face the fact that for all intents and purposes those SUVs need to be towed out of our driveways and down to an impound lot (though a ban on new sales plus market attrition would be somewhat less totalitarian.)

Is it that you have some stake in nuclear and don't want to see solar receive the scale-up capital that would finally make it competitive (like nuclear has over the past decades?) What's the rush to build new nukes? They can't save us either. The largest sector responsible for carbon emissions isn't electricity generation, it's transportation. The same "for the rich" argument applies to the extra cost associated with creating vehicles that can offload carbon by using electricity or other fuels. They aren't cheap. If and when the rich people decide to stop being assholes and buy an economic car, the poor folks will buy their used SUVs and keep pumping carbon.

No matter how fast you build them, or any other power source, people will still burn fossil fuels as long as they are cheap -- because the equipment is already there to do so, and the lower electricity costs get pushed by something other than fossil fuels, the cheaper fossil fuels will be. We will burn them until they are all gone whether or not the atmosphere can take it.

How much time do you spend promoting good-old efficiency and conservation compared to leaping into any fray you can find with a pro-nuke rant that goes to ridiculous extremes, like trying to tie anti-nuke people with religious fundamentalists? Is that moral?

[jpak]

27. Wrong

Programs similar to the "proposed" Italian PV program have been wildly successful.

Japan's 10,000 Roof program was expanded to a 70,000 Roof program and resulted in >160,000 rooftop PV installations.

It was so successful that the Japanese government reduced, then eliminated, all PV subsidies.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_print.htm

The result??? PV generated electricity in Japan now costs $0.11-$0.15 per kwh compared to ~$0.21 per kwh from the (nuclear powered) grid, and Japan has a thriving PV manufacturing industry.

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8225/8225solarenergy.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x29875

Germany's 100,000 roof program resulted in 400 MW of installed PV - 100 MW greater than anticipated.

The result? German PV installations are currently 400 MW per year and growing by double digits.

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/2004/indicator12_print.htm

In contrast, even with 80% taxpayer-funded construction cost guarantees, hundreds of millions of dollars in direct subsidies and millions more in production credits - no US utility is seriously considering building a new nuclear power plant.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x29835

Wrong again!

:)