Future for solar power not so sunny.

[brenthutch 444]

"The global solar power industry is in crisis. The industry blames widespread national subsidy cuts and over productivity; China, in particular, being widely vilified on the second count. However, the real cause of the solar industry’s malaise runs deeper, rooted, as it is, in the inescapable fact that, in terms of current technology, commercial scale solar energy remains a non-viable proposition."
"according to Klaus Dieter Maubach, Technology Chairman at the country’s power major EON, Germany’s solar industry is in a death spiral. "

"Once the massive infusion of government stimulus cash ran out and subsidies slowed in early 2011, U.S. solar companies had already begun filing for bankruptcy. And Solyndra wasn’t the only company desperate for more cash. One heavily-subsidized firm, First Solar, was even caught using the U.S. taxpayer loan guarantee to sell solar panels to itself.

"since 2010, the price of the key polysilicon wafers crucial to production has fallen by around 75 percent. In recent times, China’s big five firms have all reported disastrous trading losses. "

http://www.thegwpf.org/peter-glover-solar-eclipsed/

Just think how many children we could have helped with the billions of wasted dollars

[billvon 3,120]

Hmm. That's from the Global Warming Policy Foundarrion and it disagrees with pretty much every industry assesment for solar-PV. Who are these guys?

"The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

" . . . .the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." (Wikipedia article.)

So a denier organization claims that solar can't possibly work. What will they claim next - that wind is too noisy? That hydro is too damp? That only coal can provide cheap, limitless power for a growing, vibrant, healthy world?

[brenthutch 444]

I know that it hurts when the truth conflicts with your world view, but shooting the messenger will not bring back Solindra, or First Solar.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Hmm. That's from the Global Warming Policy Foundarrion and it disagrees with pretty much every industry assesment for solar-PV. Who are these guys?

"The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

" . . . .the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes lobbying newspaper editors and MPs, is well-funded by money from secret donors. Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners." (Wikipedia article.)

So a denier organization claims that solar can't possibly work. What will they claim next - that wind is too noisy? That hydro is too damp? That only coal can provide cheap, limitless power for a growing, vibrant, healthy world?

Wind is too costly, http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/wind-consequences-i/ Hydro is fine (if you don’t ask the Hippies) and yes coal, gas, and oil can provide cheap, power for a growing vibrant healthy world for many decades to come.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

.

"since 2010, the price of the key polysilicon wafers crucial to production has fallen by around 75 percent. In recent times, China’s big five firms have all reported disastrous trading losses. "

That particular item, unless I'm missing something (which I may be) should lower costs to the end-user and make solar more price-competitive with other sources.

Bad for producers but I'm sure the market will respond.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[billvon 3,120]

>I know that it hurts when the truth conflicts with your world view, but
>shooting the messenger will not bring back Solindra, or First Solar.

And all the attacks and threats on climate scientists in the world will not cool the planet down. And all the denial you can muster won't change the fact that the solar industry is growing at 30% a year.

>Wind is too costly

Costs for various power sources in $/megawatt-hour:

Advanced Coal 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired ACS 65.5
Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 120.2
Wind 96.8
Solar PV 156.9
Solar Thermal 251.0
Hydro 89.9

>coal, gas, and oil can provide cheap, power for a growing vibrant healthy
>world for many decades to come.

You should work for FOX News!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>I know that it hurts when the truth conflicts with your world view, but
>shooting the messenger will not bring back Solindra, or First Solar.

And all the attacks and threats on climate scientists in the world will not cool the planet down. And all the denial you can muster won't change the fact that the solar industry is growing at 30% a year.

>Wind is too costly

Costs for various power sources in $/megawatt-hour:

Advanced Coal 112.2
Advanced Coal with CCS 140.7
Natural Gas Fired ACS 65.5
Conventional Combustion Turbine 132.0
Advanced Combustion Turbine 105.3
Advanced Nuclear 112.7
Geothermal 99.6
Biomass 120.2
Wind 96.8
Solar PV 156.9
Solar Thermal 251.0
Hydro 89.9

>coal, gas, and oil can provide cheap, power for a growing vibrant healthy
>world for many decades to come.

You should work for FOX News!

And you need better info

This stuff is wrong

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

"Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012." US DOE, Energy Information Administration, 1/23/2012.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

[billvon 3,120]

From SolarFeeds:

==================

RIP: Florida Solar Subsidies (but that’s okay)

Solarbuzz

What was once true has become a myth. In years past, it didn’t make much sense to install solar panels (solar electric/photovoltaic modules) from a financial standpoint without generous subsidies, rebates, and incentives. The payback period was too long for most investors (see my article on the folly of the payback metric here). Except for those lucky enough to access a rebate, the numbers just didn’t make sense.

. . .

In Florida there is no state rebate available. Other states have eliminated subsidies or only offer very nominal incentives. Florida utilities have very limited rebate programs that are either inconsequential in the grand scheme of the price of a system or are so limited in funding that your chance of obtaining the rebate is slim-to-none. But that’s OK! . .Solar is now financially attractive without rebates, incentives, and subsidies.

A big area of discussion at Solar Power International 2012 in Orlando this month was the disappearing subsidies, and how the solar industry needs to move away from requiring handouts. Indeed, the solar industry has grown substantially in the past few years despite disappearing subsidies. The plummeting price of the product we offer is the obvious key.

==================

[rehmwa 2]

that article sounds great - this means that solar might just make it. continued need for subsidies would clearly indicate a death knell

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In Florida there is no state rebate available. Other states have eliminated subsidies or only offer very nominal incentives. Florida utilities have very limited rebate programs that are either inconsequential in the grand scheme of the price of a system or are so limited in funding that your chance of obtaining the rebate is slim-to-none. But that’s OK! . .Solar is now financially attractive without rebates, incentives, and subsidies.

how does the payoff period factor in the potential for a hurricane to rip it to pieces periodically?

[billvon 3,120]

>how does the payoff period factor in the potential for a hurricane to rip it
>to pieces periodically?

Well, if your roof is getting ripped to pieces periodically you probably have bigger problems than your solar power system . . . . on the other hand, in less severe storms it's nice to have power when the rest of your neighborhood is blacked out for two weeks.

In general the dangers storms pose to solar power systems are:

1) Hail. Generally if the hail is bad enough to destroy cars it will destroy panels.

2) Wind. Racking systems are rated between 100 and 120mph depending on locale so you're generally pretty safe there. (In other words, the reason you'll lose the array to wind is that the roof departs the house with the array on it.)

3) Debris. If you have telephone polls, trees, boulders etc landing on your roof you'll generally lose the array.

Attached is a picture of a damaged array. Seven panels were damaged; they were still producing power but could be expected to fail quickly as water entered the panels. Eight survived. He managed to save his roof, though; the hail was bad enough that it destroyed a few of his neighbor's roofs (fortunately covered under their insurance.)

In areas where this is a big issue, you can use amorphous panels. They are indestructible but take more space on the roof.

[jgoose71 0]

And once again, you are going off on a tangent Bill,

Solar energy will be used here in America, but the "Green" Industry and jobs will never take off. Why?

Because all companies that we start here will be undercut by cheap Chinese Manufacturers. We've seen it in both the wind and solar industries.

No one will be able to afford these until we get jobs. I'm thinking I'm going to move to china or brazil. Maybe then ford will hire me.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 3,120]

>Solar energy will be used here in America

Agreed.

>but the "Green" Industry and jobs will never take off. Because all
>companies that we start here will be undercut by cheap Chinese
>Manufacturers. We've seen it in both the wind and solar industries.

I agree, that will happen eventually as lower cost labor out-competes labor in the US. Fortunately we are still net exporters of solar equipment; we probably have 5-10 years before China, India etc take the lead in that.

On the plus side Chinese labor will never be able to replace the US contractors that install the systems here.

>No one will be able to afford these until we get jobs. I'm thinking I'm
>going to move to china or brazil. Maybe then ford will hire me.

Or move to New Smyrna, Tennessee and have Toyota hire you for their new plant there. It's an odd world we live in.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

"Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012." US DOE, Energy Information Administration, 1/23/2012.

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm

They do not tell the whole story

I do not care where they from

We debated this in a different thread

Those costs are misleading at best

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ManagingPrime 0]

Solar is still very viable. A lot of govt incentive money went into peoples pockets more than into r&d which would have put the industry in a much beter position, but even without them the numbers work.

[billeisele 130]

those figures don't jive with what we see on the East Coast

solar is, at best, a poor payback, and let's not forget that the investment the utility must make does not decrease

when the sun doesn't shine the customer still expects the grid to give them power, of course they don't want to pay for that stand-by capability but that is another topic

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billvon 3,120]

>those figures don't jive with what we see on the East Coast

Solar doesn't work everywhere. It works great in Tampa or Phoenix or LA; not so well in Seattle or Maine. In some of those places wind works better, in some places hydro is the way to go. And in some places the only thing that makes sense is to run a powerline to a utility and have them do all the work.

>when the sun doesn't shine the customer still expects the grid to give
>them power.

Generally, yes. Which, fortunately, is the time that the grid has excess capacity.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

when the sun doesn't shine the customer still expects the grid to give them power, of course they don't want to pay for that stand-by capability but that is another topic

Peak demand is in the afternoon, where these solar cells can contribute directly and most efficiently to peak need. In the winter when solar draw is less and the day shorter, so is the usage of air conditioning, one of the biggest contributors to peak usage.

[billeisele 130]

Quote

>those figures don't jive with what we see on the East Coast

Solar doesn't work everywhere. It works great in Tampa or Phoenix or LA; not so well in Seattle or Maine. In some of those places wind works better, in some places hydro is the way to go. And in some places the only thing that makes sense is to run a powerline to a utility and have them do all the work.

>when the sun doesn't shine the customer still expects the grid to give
>them power.

Generally, yes. Which, fortunately, is the time that the grid has excess capacity.

Uhhhh, NO. At 4 PM in the middle of the summer when clouds form we are at peak generating periods. We still have to have 100% of the needed capacity and 100% of the transmission and distribution infrastructure.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billeisele 130]

Quote

Quote

when the sun doesn't shine the customer still expects the grid to give them power, of course they don't want to pay for that stand-by capability but that is another topic

Peak demand is in the afternoon, where these solar cells can contribute directly and most efficiently to peak need. In the winter when solar draw is less and the day shorter, so is the usage of air conditioning, one of the biggest contributors to peak usage.

Again, a big NO. I'm in the industry and deal with this daily. Please stop reading all the solar trade magazines and fluff articles. They conveniently ignore certain issues.

As one example read the previous post, here is another. What do you think happens in January, coldest month, on a Monday morning from 5-8 AM. Perfectly clear morning but no sun/solar output. Office buildings that were in set-back all weekend start up, 5-day operation factories start up, houses start up, hot showers, TV, heat pumps running, cooking breakfast - the electric system peaks. We then need 100% of the generation, transmission, substation and distribution assets.

The solar folks don't want to pay for this. The push for "net metering" shifts that cost to all customers.

Stop the BS and cost shifting.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[rushmc 23]

I think this is much closer

It still does not account for the fact that base power requirments need to be coal, nuc, hydro or gas/fuel oils when considering solar and wind

Those two type of generation need to be 100% backed up therfore increasing the cost of those generation types

What do you think of the the info in this link?

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/04/02/comparing-energy-costs-of-nuclear-coal-gas-wind-and-solar/

And this one is interesting but, I notice how this study add CO2 as a production cost

Take that out in some of the graphs and I can buy that

http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/326027/2011-05-a-comparative-analysis-of-the-future-cost-of-electricity-generation-in-OECD-and-non-OECD-countries.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billeisele 130]

the data in the study is a couple years old, one challenge in the energy business is making a decision based on current information and trying to predict the future, a decsion about generation is a 20-50 year decision

looking at the cost graph in the first link:
Nuclear: cost competitive in the market depending on the deal that is negotiated
Coal: we think coal costs will (soon) be higher - hard to predict what regulations will do but we beleive that the carbon tax is coming, will push the cost well above 5 cents - could easily be 7 cents
Natural gas: prices are down from 2010 and expected to stay there for a couple more years, that puts current production costs below 5 cents for an existing plant, we are running our gas plants as base load, experience is proving to us that this is not sustainable, they were not desgned to run 24/7
Solar: prices have come down some, mainly due to the glut of Chinese panels that were overproduced and the downturn in demand, that bubble will disappear and prices will go back up, this market is dynamic due to advances in technology, we own one of the largest roof-top installations, we know all the real cost numbers, the production, availability, etc., we also monitor the other solar installations and know how poorly they perform
Wind: the numbers are very site specific, all we have is offshore wind so the price is off the graph
Hydro: good number for existing, almost no new available

Based on this we bet on nuclear, installing 2 AP1000's, we have a great contract and a great partner, people told us we were too small and couldn't do it, well we are on schedule and under budget with no issues, didn't take the government financing, decommissioning 3 coal plants

The part I just love is the tree huggers can't figure out how to hate us. They don't like nuclear but don't want to pay the price of renewables.They look like clowns when they intervene at the Commission. By 2018 we'll have ~60% of generation from non-emitting sources, below where we were 30 years ago.

Wall Street and investors love our plan, have had no problem getting the financing and our stock is soaring.

Give one city to the thugs so they can all live together. I vote for Chicago where they have strict gun laws.

[billvon 3,120]

>Uhhhh, NO. At 4 PM in the middle of the summer when clouds form we
>are at peak generating periods.

When it's partly cloudy we're still generating a significant amount via solar.

When it's overcast then solar generation goes way down - and air conditioning loads go down as well.

Works out pretty well in practice.

[billvon 3,120]

>Nuclear: cost competitive in the market depending on the deal that is negotiated

And provided the government pays for their insurance. Without free government insurance nuclear would not be possible at all.

>Solar: prices have come down some, mainly due to the glut of Chinese
>panels that were overproduced and the downturn in demand, that bubble
>will disappear . . .

So will the natural gas bubble, as new plants use up the (over)supply. The nice thing about solar is that once solar prices rise, all the installed capacity will still be generating power. Once natural gas prices rise the show's over.

>Based on this we bet on nuclear, installing 2 AP1000's, we have a great
>contract and a great partner

Those are good designs. Let's hope for your sake the government keeps the nuclear subsidies flowing.