Solar has hit grid parity...

[Bob Wallace]

From the article:

Solar materials prices are down, financing is more accessible and technology has extended solar system life. The result: The price of solar energy-generated electricity, calculated by a legitimate levelized cost of energy (LCOE) method, is now competitive in many regions with the price of electricity generated by conventional sources.

To be clear, this review of solar photovoltaic LCOE is not one of those “if coal and nuclear paid for the real harm they do” analyses. It is a hard look at the actual numbers.

“We have reached a tipping point,” he said. “Solar has gone past grid parity.”

Parity, according to the study, is “the lifetime generation cost of the electricity from PV being comparable with the electricity prices for conventional sources on the grid.”

That's parity based on a 30 year lifetime of panels. We can't yet prove that solar panels continue to work well past 30 years, to 40, 50 or more years, but there's no known "solar panel cliff" over which they will fall after reaching a 'certain age'.

A panel “has no moving parts; it’s all electronic and a solid-state device,” meaning that should last “a long, long time,” Pearce said. This means “we should be doing our economic analysis at least on a 30-year lifetime,” but there is not yet adequate data, he explained.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/New-Study-Solar-Grid-Parity-Is-Here-Today/

[Old and In the Way]

1. Has does one calculate the annual cost of maintaining access to ME oil?

How much of our Defense Budget goes to providing muscle to Big Oil to assure no disruptions of their product to market? $100BB/year? $200BB/year? What about the $1TT that was spent on the hostile take over of Iraqi National Oil? I think we ought to be adding these costs when comparing alternatives like solar/renewables. Not to mention the costs to national security, the future costs of oil, and the opportunity to create a new energy economy based on decentralized and labor intensive (jobs) energy on an intelligent distribution grid.

[DCKit]

2. A whole 'nother can of worms.

One I'm sure they don't want us to open.

Despite that, and damn excellent point.

[Bob Wallace]

4. Agreed...

Oil gets subsidies. We spend tremendous amounts of taxpayer money because we use so much oil. All that airline junk-fondling security stuff is another oil cost.

Coal causes significant health and environmental damage which we pay for with our tax dollars and through higher health insurance premiums. Coal is our most expensive way to generate electricity if we include its "hidden" costs.

But what is so significant about this study is that it shows that solar is now competitive on a "head to head" wholesale cost of electricity basis. For those people who run utility companies and don't give a rat's patoot about dead kids and soldiers it means that they will now be looking to solar as a way to keep their costs down and profits high.

Wind is already starting to push coal off the grid in some parts of the world. It's causing coal plants to be seasonally shut down in parts of the US.

It would be great if we could abandon fossil fuels for moral/environmental reasons. But if the reason we step away from fossil fuels is economical, I can live with that.

[Old and In the Way]

7. I concur...and welcome aboard!

For solar to be now approaching parity with other energy solutions is great news and should start to accelerate investment. The capital costs of building the next mega-generating plant is huge when you can start incrementally adding capacity by increasing solar energy inputs into the grid. It should be compelling for the energy industry who only cares about the bottom line on energy acquisition costs.

I just think Americans don't factor in other indirect costs that we pay for in taxes to subsidize our energy choices. If we had, we may have re-elected Carter and had an entirely different economy today...one that would have saved us trillions of dollars by allowing Big Oil to dictate US energy policy.

[txlibdem]

9. +1 Agreed

Just because the cost is hidden in some congressional budget approval or some other slimy trick to hide the true cost of oil... doesn't mean that it costs what it costs.

Don't believe the price at the pump. It LIES.

[formercia]

3. If you can't refuel an Aircraft Carrier with Solar, it won't fly.

but the Oil it saves will be used to power the Empire's War Machine.

[Bob Wallace]

5. If we can end the wars for oil...

Our aircraft carriers will rust with disuse.

The world is becoming a very much more peaceful place. New emerging democracies will speed us toward even more peace. A

But right now we need to be working hard to avoid resource wars. Getting everyone supplied with cleantech power is one part of the puzzle.

[JoeyT]

14. Our carriers will see plenty of use even if we never need another drop of oil.

There are too many non-oil reasons for them. Some view them as holy wars, some support them because it funnels money to family and friends, some will support them because the magic TV machine or their favorite politician told them to. War won't be going away any time soon.

If nothing else we'll be having wars for the things we need to make the battery packs. Empires rarely buy what they need from the natives.

[Bob Wallace]

6. Let me add...

This study looks at lifetime cost based on a 30 year life for panels and other generation methods.

Normally a 20 year span is used to calculate price and capital expenses plus financing are spread over that 20 years.

But at the end of the first 20 years there is a huge disconnect between solar (as well as wind and hydro) and fuel based generation. Renewables have no fuel costs and very low maintenance costs while coal plants and gas turbines have to keep paying for fuel. And the cost of fuel will almost certainly continue to increase.

Those ~zero cost years for renewables bring down the average cost of power very quickly.

--

People talk about the number of years it will take to pay off the panels on their roof. But often they seem to lose track of the years of free electricity coming their way while non-installers are going to 'enjoy' higher and higher electricity prices.

[Old and In the Way]

8. And that probably assumes that solar technology remains static 30 years from now.

Who knows what materials and processes will be developed that could make solar even less costly to manufacturer with even greater energy conversion efficiencies in another 30 years?

[PamW]

10. The laws of Physics tell us some fundamental limits to solar

Who knows what materials and processes will be developed that could make solar even less costly to manufacturer with even greater energy conversion efficiencies in another 30 years?
=================================================

The laws of Physics tell us some fundamental limits to solar. Look up the "quantum efficiency" limit,
and "charge carrier recombination" limits. These are fundamental limits that the Laws of Physics impose
that we will NEVER get around.

It's like the limits that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics put on heat engines. We've had practical steam engines
for over 2 centuries now. James Watt the "inventor" of the practical steam engine lived 1736 - 1819:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watt

However, Nicolas Carnot (1796 - 1832 ) used to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to derive the "Carnot efficiency limit":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_L%C3%A9onard_Sadi_Carnot

We've known for almost 200 years what the ultimate efficiency of steam engines and turbines would be.
Carnot's limit has not been surpassed inspite of all our technology. It hasn't held a mere 30 years
like you proffer for solar; but has held almost 200 years.

That's because it is a basic Law of Physics; like the limits on solar.

So it doesn't matter what materials or processes we have in the future; the Laws of Physics won't
let us do better than a limiting efficiency.

PamW

[jpak]

12. and the the Laws 'o Physics limits the thermal efficiency of nuclear plants to ~30%

funny how that works

yup

[PamW]

18. WRONG!!!

Laws 'o Physics limits the thermal efficiency of nuclear plants to ~30%
=======================================================================

The Laws of Physics DO NOT limit the reactor. What the Laws of Physics
limit is the efficiency of the turbine. It's the Thermodynamic cycle
that gets limited, and your number of 30% is LOW. It's more like 40%.

However, the limit is temperature dependent and if you design the reactor
to use an alternate coolant like liquid sodium we used in a design that
I worked on at Argonne National Lab called the Integral Fast Reactor:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

you can do better than the 40% limit that fossil fuel plants and nuclear
plants are currently limited to.

However, even the limits imposed by the 2nd Law on Rankine steam cycles
in nuclear and fossil plants beat the limits on solar cells.

Those limits are one of the reasons the National Academy of Sciences
says that we can never go "all solar".

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

26. Only someone who wishes to distort the argument...

resorts to the "all solar" junk.

No one, absolutely no one, is suggesting an all-solar electricity supply.

That would be almost as dumb as building a large number of new nuclear plants.

Not quite as dumb, because solar with storage would likely still be cheaper than all-nuclear and it wouldn't bring the dangers of nuclear. But a wider renewable net makes far more sense.

[FBaggins]

27. Sorry... there's no way that solar with storage would be cheaper.

Not for some decades yet.

Short-term storage for purposes of "cleaning" the power supply and dispatch makes sense, but storage covering that period that we call "night" dramatically increases the price... and let's not even talk about storage covering days of overcast weather.

Best to stick with "nobody in their right mind is talking about 100% solar".

[Bob Wallace]

29. Give me some numbers...

What do you think new nuclear would cost per kWh? And give us some factual basis for that estimate.

How much do you think solar will cost in five more years? You can start with $0.10/kWh from large array fields now.

What is the cost of storing power? Use lead acid batteries if you want a starting point and we can work from there.

Let's see some numbers rather than declarations. And let's stay away from the "days of overcast weather". We all, except for the pro-nuke and pro-coal people, recognize that there is no need to store solar power for days.

Well, we know that they recognize it as well. But they pull that out when it's made clear in discussions that nuclear is priced off the table. It's the right-wind "Oh, Look! A bright, shiny object!!!" distraction attempt.

[diane in sf]

34. Just to add, solar panels generate power even on overcast days.

[Bob Wallace]

35. Got data?

I'm off the grid, have been for over 20 years. I have observed that my panels make power on overcast days, but not much.

I've even seen my charge light come on during a full moon with a clear sky. But not enough is generated to charge my batteries.

I've seen claims that thin film, or at least some thin film panels work better than silicon panels in cloudy/diffused light conditions, but I can't find data.

So - got any numbers to share?

[caraher]

38. Depends on what you mean by "work better"

My understanding is that some panels do have higher efficiency in diffuse light, mainly because under direct sunlight they heat up and efficiency decreases with increased temperature. But that doesn't mean you should prefer cloudy days - the overall power output is still much lower, just as you experience.

[Bob Wallace]

40. Could be...

I've never heard that before.

What I've heard, and cannot confirm, is that (some?) thin-film panels are able to use light hitting from greater angles which means that they can pull more power from dispersed light.

That's not to say that they perform better in dispersed light, just less bad than other panels.

[Kolesar]

41. Direct and diffuse light in a cloudy climate like Pittsburgh

http://homepower.com/view/?file=HP136_pg128_BackPageBasics

The Redbook lists Las Vegas, Nevada, as having an average
insolation of 6.5 kWh per square meter, per day (aka “sunhours”) and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, at 4.2 sun-hours, when
collectors or modules are tilted south at an angle equal to the
location’s latitude. At this tilt angle, without compensating for
ambient temperatures that can influence solar production, a
system in Pittsburgh would need about 55% more collection
surface than a system in Las Vegas to produce the same energy.
If you gamble on some reflected radiation in Pittsburgh, the
system might need only 50% more area—perhaps not a bad bet
for systems in the snowbelt.

[jpak]

45. WRONG!!!111 The thermal efficiency of commerical light water nuclear plants is ~30%

Combined -cycle gas firerd plants can achieve close to 40%

but not stupid nuclear

yup

[Bob Wallace]

15. The laws of physics, so far...

have not hung up a sign that we've hit bottom with the price of solar panels nor the top of panel efficiency.

Within the last month or so we've seen two new breakthrough furnaces for turning out wafers. They promise faster processing times, use less energy, and produce more efficient panels. The Optical Cavity Furnace developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Renewable Energy Laboratory can produce panels faster, cheaper and 20% efficient.

That's about a 20% increase in efficiency over current panels. And that leads to a significant decrease in balance of system costs for a cheaper panel.

Phosphorous-doped monocrystalline silicon promises a 30% increase in efficiency.

Then we've got some very interesting technology making its way through the labs. Nano structures on the surface of the panel are trapping light, letting them use close to 100% of the light that makes it through the protective glass. No energy loss from light reflecting back out.

We've got panel technology which looks like it will utilize a wider spectrum of wavelengths. That means that panels could continue to generate after the Sun sets by turning the heat from parking lots/buildings/desert floors into electricity.

We're learning how to slice wafers thinner which lowers cost. We're learning how to vapor deposit silicon on a substrate which is an even larger cost saver.

China is now selling panels in large quantity for less than $1/watt. Expectations are that we will see $0.50/watt in the next few years. There may be a limiting law of physics, but we haven't bumped up against it yet. Neither have we wrung out all the inefficiencies in our manufacturing processes.

[PamW]

19. WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Bob,

Even WITH all the advances you list; you will NEVER, NEVER, EVER
beat the limits that I listed.

That's because Mother Nature herself obeys those limits. When we generate energy,
we use Mother Nature's laws and make her laws do our bidding. However, that means
we have to live with the limits that Mother Nature obeys.

You are also INCORRECT that we haven't bumped up against those laws. Some
present solar cells are bumping up against the limit.

Sure, we haven't wrung out manufacturing inefficiency - but those do not limit
the energy one can get from solar. They just affect cost and production rate.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

22. Pam, who give a flying (you know what)?

Yes, there are physical limits for how much efficiency we can get out of the technology we are now using.

But we are not close to those limits with the commercial panels we are now installing. We're still under 20% efficiency which means that we could roughly double efficiency before we hit physical limits. We do have cells approaching the theoretical limit but they are priced out of use for utility purposes.

We are increasing efficiency. We are lowering production costs. We are lowering balance of system (installation) costs.

The price of electricity from solar is rapidly dropping. We have reached grid parity. We are now installing solar for less than the cost of new nuclear.

Now, nuclear looses both during the day when the Sun is shining and during the night when the wind is blowing hard. When the Sun is not shining or the wind blowing then natural gas generation fills in the gap for far less per kWh than could new nuclear. Additionally, the price of storage is falling which will let wind and solar push natural gas into the background.

We are on route to get the vast majority of our electricity, in fact the vast majority of our energy, from renewables with wind and solar being the major contributors.

Now, your turn to spin and scream.

[txlibdem]

42. A whole lot of us just *can't* get on board your NATURAL GAS bandwagon

Fracking.

Fracking...

Fracking!

'Nuf said. 70% of Americans want Zero Carbon energy sources.

[Bob Wallace]

46. You so misread me...

Going to have to hire you a guide to Bob.

I've got no natural gas bandwagon, no matter how loud you shout.

I'm just observing what is happening in the real world and figuring out how we get from a grid heavily fed by fossil fuels to a grid based on renewable energy.

From a pure fuel stance, natural gas looks to be the route we are taking. NG releases less CO2 per unit electricity than does coal. NG plants are fully dispatchable, which coal is not. NG plants are relatively cheap to build which means that they, unlike new coal or nuclear, can be profitably operated without selling power 24/365.

Fracking is a problem for sourcing some natural gas. It is a significant problem which needs to be solved. And solving it will help the transition to renewables because it will make fuel more expensive, thus making storage a more attractive financial option.

70% of Americans want zero carbon (shouting removed) energy sources. But not to the extent that they have put enough pro-renewable officials into Congress to make it happen via legislation. We apparently will not get from a coal-dominated grid to a clean grid by wave of magic wand. That means that the route won't be as 'perfect' as most of us would like but haven't figured out how to implement.

[txlibdem]

52. "I've got no natural gas bandwagon" then write 4 paragraphs of pro-natural gas talking points

I must have misread you? If I have then I sincerely apologize.

PS, your "let's just elect pro-renewables officials into congress" concept of how our lobbyist-controlled government works is so quaint and naive I just can't criticize you for it.

[Bob Wallace]

53. Ah, I get it...

You don't understand that one can be an objective observer and not a supporter at the same time.

[txlibdem]

54. 4 paragraphs is an awful lot of "objectivity" pro natural gas in my opinion

Please write the 5 things you hate worst about the natural gas industry and give examples. Then maybe people will actually believe you are objective.

So far all you've done is spout pro-natural gas talking points, put up graphs that show natural gas on top of the energy heap, and argue that natural gas will be around forever (inferred from your previous posts on "energy reality").

[Bob Wallace]

55. OK...

Please take notes.

1. Fracking
2. Methane leaks
3. CO2 emission
4. Sucking up capital that could be spent on renewables
5. I don't have a number five.

I really don't think I have to give examples. If your knowledge base is too shallow to understand those four reasons let me know and I'll spend some time spelling things out for you.

Now I have "spouted" absolutely no pro-natural gas talking points.

I have put up exactly zero graphs showing natural gas at the top of the energy heap.

And I have not argued that natural gas will be around forever.

Would you please cut the crap?

[txlibdem]

56. You forgot NOX pollution but that's still a good list

"Cleaner burning than other fossil fuels, the combustion of natural gas produces negligible amounts of sulfur, mercury, and particulates. Burning natural gas does produce nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are precursors to smog, but at lower levels than gasoline and diesel used for motor vehicles."
... source: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/technology_and_impacts/energy_technologies/how-natural-gas-works.html

[Bob Wallace]

57. Do you understand...

The advantages of natural gas over coal, that it is highly dispatchable and that it produces less CO2 per unit electricity generated?

Do you understand that utility companies are not willing to go 'cold turkey' and shut down coal plants, but are willing to move to natural gas? Sort of like getting off heroin by switching to methadone.

Do you understand that if utilities switch from coal to natural gas then they are going to shut off those gas plants when cheaper sources of power are available? That they don't readily shut off their coal plants because the start up times are too long?

When you review the list of horrors for natural gas do you also take into account mountain top removal, massive open pit mining, dead miners, coal trains traveling 24/365, ash heaps, sulfur dioxide, mercury, radiation, particulates, and all the stuff that coal brings to the table?

[txlibdem]

58. 2050

In other posts I've given the following timeline to end fossil fuel use:

2030: end the use of coal
2040: end the use of oil (except for chemical processes that cannot be replaced by bio-oils)
2050: end the use of natural gas

Of course I'd like to end all fossils today, but I know we have to be realistic about how fast we can move away from all deadly fossil fuels.

[Kolesar]

28. Fine. So I will put an extra set of PV panels on my garage to compliment the PVs on my house

At a price that will be cheaper than even old, amortized coal fired plants and precious, touchy nukes.

[caraher]

20. Money yes, efficiency no

As PamW points out, for photovoltaics there is a physics-based top efficiency (just as there exists the Carnot efficiency limit for heat engines) and advanced cells are close to it.

The short answer is http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c6/page_47.shtml">that simple panels max out at just over 30% conversion efficiency, adding concentrators can get you just over 40%, and multijunction cells can't get past 50%. We're already over 40% for advanced multijunction cells and even cheap cells are 10-15% efficient, so don't hold your breath for a tenfold improvement - it's mathematically impossible!

Now on the cost side, there's certainly room for Moore's Law-style improvements in price, and that's important because so long as you don't need a high energy density power source, you can in principle just start sticking panels almost everywhere if they get cheap enough.

[PamW]

21. Good summary

YES - good summary

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

23. Wha?

Who suggested a tenfold improvement?

Did you just make that up in order to have a straw horse to mount?

[caraher]

30. I was just putting a generous cap on the "golly gee, the sky's the limit" talk

Of course you didn't suggest a tenfold efficiency improvement - or for that matter, at the time I made my post, provide any quantitative estimate at all of how much better efficiency can get. Upthread someone else posted "who knows" where the technology might lead us in terms of both cost and efficiency. Well, we pretty much know where the ceiling lies for efficiency.

My point is and always was, we might get some huge drops in cost for solar photovoltaics, but the conceivable efficiency gains (still worth pursuing!) are modest by comparison.

[kristopher]

31. Do you remember "the sound barrier"?

That limit you wrote of is subject to revision; it keeps creeping up...

MEG + Tuning = High Efficiency
Quantum dots exhibit other strange behavior in addition to multiple exciton generation. For example, varying the size of QDs can “tune” them to different wavelengths of light to optimize their performance. In essence, QDs can be tailored to absorb or emit specific wavelengths of light simply by changing the size of the dot . Compared with bulk materials, which have larger crystals and more atoms than nanomaterials, the light spectra emitted or absorbed by QDs will shift to the blue, which represents greater energy or shorter wavelength. Thus, the smaller the dot, the greater the shift.
Taking advantage of both these effects—multiple exciton generation and energy tuning due to size of the nanocrystals—QDs can be incorporated into unique third- generation solar cells. These cells may produce both electricity and solar fuels with potentially very high efficiencies. Using detailed thermodynamic calculations, NREL has shown that QD solar cells operating under concentrated sunlight can have maxi- mum theoretical conversion efficiencies twice that achievable by conventional solar cells—up to 66%, exceeding the theoretical efficiency limits of about 31% of present- day first-generation (silicon) and second-generation (thin-film silicon, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium diselenide) solar cells....

Quantum Dots Promise to Significantly Boost Photovoltaic Efficiencies
http://www.nrel.gov/innovation/pdfs/47571.pdf
2010

[PamW]

33. The sound "barrier" was only an engineering barrier

Do you remember "the sound barrier"?
==============================================================

There was NEVER any physical law that said that you can't go faster than sound.
Oh, there's the old wives tales about how bumblebees can't fly by the laws of aerodynamics,
which is FALSE.

Einstein's Special Relativity tells us that the speed of light in a vacuum IS a true physical barrier.
However, at no time, did the laws of Physic say that transonic speeds were impossible.

No, Kris; the "sound barrier" was an "engineering" barrier. We already knew that objects could go faster than the
speed of sound. The "crack" of a whip is actually caused by a part of the whip going transonic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipcracking

We knew it was possible for objects to go faster than sound. The problem that made it a barrier was "control".
Whenever, jets approached the speed of sound, the pilot lost the ability to control the aircraft. That's because
the shockwaves produced by the transonic flight played havoc with the controls. For example, the Space Shuttle
had to be a "fly by wire" craft because depending on what the aerodynamic conditions are, the controls work "backward".
The computer takes the pilot's input and figures out how to move the control surfaces given the current aerodynamic
conditions.

It was only the issue of control that provided a "barrier".

Again, we already knew that objects could go faster than sound; there was NEVER an absolute prohibition against
transonic speeds as there is with transluminal ( faster than light ) speeds.

Again, you show that you don't know what the limits are; because quantum dots don't exceed the limits.

Nice try; but you failed your science test again!

PamW

[kristopher]

36. The only "fail" is your reading comprehension, Pam.

I was responding to this:
"The short answer is that simple panels max out at just over 30% conversion efficiency, adding concentrators can get you just over 40%, and multijunction cells can't get past 50%. We're already over 40% for advanced multijunction cells and even cheap cells are 10-15% efficient, so don't hold your breath for a tenfold improvement - it's mathematically impossible!"

I was, in fact, making the specific point that the maximums caraher was referring to were engineering barriers.

[caraher]

37. That's pretty cool

The limits I cited were certainly tied to particular technologies, in the same way that the physics limits on heat engine efficiency assume you're extracting work from the energy flow between two temperature baths.

I'm still pretty sure, however, that we're not going to get past 100% efficiency in photovoltaic conversion...

[Old and In the Way]

24. I can't argue on the sceince of technology efficiency improvements.

But there's no doubt in my mind that the economics of manufacturing scale should continue to drive down costs and make the price per watt even more attractive as demand increases. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Compared with environmental risk of nuclear, the pollution + geopolitical/supply problems of hydrocarbon energy, and national security advantages to a decentralized energy grid when coupled with the labor intensive opportunities inherent in large scale deployment (manufacturing/installing/servicing), there are some compelling reasons for governments to promote alternative energy solutions (solar, wind, and geo-thermal) as the world's best bet for energy development.

[jpak]

11. WRONG - solar is is too expensive to compete with too-cheap-to-meter nuclear power

so say the paid bloggers of the NEI

yup

[txlibdem]

13. Nice! Grid parity for huge solar farms means that residential can't be too far behind

When solar panels get cheap enough to buy and get installed that they compete with today's electricity prices then we'll see an absolute explosion of solar demand in this country.

[Bob Wallace]

16. Already there...

At least in LA. There's a community purchasing/installation organization which is doing group purchasing and contracting which has brought the price of installed solar to $4.40/watt.

After the 30% federal subsidy the LCOE is $0.128/kWh. There are also state and local subsidies which take the price even lower.

Even without any subsidy the cost of electricity is $0.175/kWh.

Electricity in LA, October 2011 was $0.199/kWh.

[txlibdem]

17. I wish the Federal subsidy would kick in more than that, TX has no state or local subsidies

But then I'm paying 11.9 to 10.9/kWh (the more electricity I use the lower my rate goes... insanity?). But then again, with months of 100+ degree weather, air conditioning is not a luxury, it's a necessity. We get people who die from the heat here every summer. It's sad.

[Bob Wallace]

25. Texas...

They've been made believers by wind.

Panhandle wind just isn't there for the hottest days, unfortunately. Now Texas is looking to offshore wind and might be the first US offshore users.

I suspect they're about to discover solar. Once they crank the numbers for solar based on today's prices economics are going to kick hippie-resistance to the curb.

[Bob Wallace]

39. Something you might rather not hear...

“Several Texas power plants that rely on cooling ponds are in a tough spot because their reservoirs aren’t being replenished, and that lack of cooling water means electricity production has to be ramped down exactly when record-breaking heat is causing soaring electricity demand. Regulators are worried that if the drought continues into next spring – and at least one climatologist says Texas is looking at nine more years of drought – several power plants would have to shut down.”

http://theenergycollective.com/jcwinnie/71672/water-woes

I'd think that Texas would be well-advised to start installing panels Texas-scale.

[txlibdem]

43. It's a good thing that solar doesn't use much water

http://www.solarthermalmagazine.com/2010/07/12/dry-cooling-project-for-genesis-solar-solar-thermal-energy-plant-in-california/

Although wet-cooled solar thermal projects use substantially less water than an equally sized agricultural operation, by switching to the dry-cooling alternative, the project will reduce its groundwater use by a factor of eight, from 1,600 acre-feet to 200 acre-feet annually. Genesis Solar believes that this will allow the CEC to deem the project to be in compliance with state water policies, and the remaining water use will have less than significant impacts on biology and water resources.

Dry cooling is an important part of the power generation process whereby fans blow air over a closed radiator system, condensing steam inside of the radiator back into water that is then recirculated back into the power generation process.

[Bob Wallace]

47. Dry cooling...

It works, but it is not as efficient which means a higher price of power. It uses a really big cooling tower which makes it harder to site and it's a lot noisier (NIMBY issues).

If Texas is now becoming part of the Great American Desert that climate change may create then it looks like existing plants might have to change to air cooling or shut down. Just another cost brought to us by our use of fossil fuels.

[One_Life_To_Give]

32. 30 years is a long time for Semi-conductors

They can be made to quality levels that are more likely to give that type of service. Typically we only spend the extra money for NASA satellites, space probes and certain military hardware. Although if it was my company and I owned lots of stock options I might have similar things to say as Mr. Pearce. IMO the concentrating solar plants being built in Europe have a better likelihood of being economically viable. PV's Niche still isn't at larger scale.

[Kolesar]

44. WRONG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sdVx5gQz6w

[Bob Wallace]

48. Something is "WRONG" on UToob...

That's what I so love to do.

Open a link that someone thinks is meaningful to the conversation but apparently not important enough for them to actually write a comment.

[Kolesar]

49. It's Saturday Night Live

starring Dana Carvey
Nora Dunn
Phil Hartmann!

[kristopher]

50. OK that got me to watch it...

Not sure it's such a good reply to the OP but it definitely has it's place in the EE circus...

[OKIsItJustMe]

51. Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds

http://www.queensu.ca/news/articles/solar-power-much-cheaper-produce-most-analysts-realize-study-finds

Solar power much cheaper to produce than most analysts realize, study finds

2011-12-07

The public is being kept in the dark about the viability of solar photovoltaic energy, according to a study conducted at Queen’s University.

“Many analysts project a higher cost for solar photovoltaic energy because they don’t consider recent technological advancements and price reductions,” says Joshua Pearce, Adjunct Professor, Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering. “Older models for determining solar photovoltaic energy costs are too conservative.”

Dr. Pearce believes solar photovoltaic systems are near the “tipping point” where they can produce energy for about the same price other traditional sources of energy.

Analysts look at many variables to determine the cost of solar photovoltaic systems for consumers, including installation and maintenance costs, finance charges, the system’s life expectancy, and the amount of electricity it generates.

…