Cheap Solar Energy

[pchang]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-thinsolar5-2009jan05,0,2265033.story

An analyst looking at the latest solar project from Sempra Generation estimates the cost to be 7.5 cents per kilowatt hour (current convention price is around 9 cents per kilowatt hour). Unfortunately, Sempra Generation and First Solar (the company that makes the solar cells) will not confirm this. They will only admit to achieving good reductions in the cost of producting solar energy. If this proves out, I expect solar to take off everywhere. Perhaps the Sahara will turn into a giant solar plant for Europe. Perhaps the Southwest will turn into a giant solar plant for the US.

[snoopy369]

Somehow I don't think that's nearly enough of a reduction in price, given oil just dropped what, 60%?? Maybe if oil stayed up in the $150+ bbl cost range, then this reduction will be good enough...

[SlowwHand]

Let's wait until it's forced upon us. That's always sound reasoning.

[Dinner]

As much as I cheer for alternative energy sources solar is just not a sensible alternative. Its Achilles heel is capacity utilization since the sun only shines about 50% of the time so they automatically can only work for 12 hours a day. Even when the plant is not generating any electricity there are still capital expenses and the loans borrowed to pay for the solar plant's construction still have to be paid. Compare that to a fossil fuel, nuclear, or hydro plant which runs 24/7/365. The next common trick is solar producers like to talk about costs and output during "peak power production" and then they come up with these stats about how dirt cheap solar is but the problem is peak output only occurs for 1 hour or so a day and the other hours are all less then peak all the way down to nothing.

[Chemical Ollie]

Solar energy caption should be thermal and combined with some kind of accumulation, either in thermal or battery form. Then it will work 24/7. I personally believe in the solar sterling engine by Kockums. It's just a generation or two from becoming the mainstream alternative.

But the old ways of captioning solar energy plainly suck. The best calculations I made for my private house had a pay-off time of 10 years, during the highest peak electricity price of the 2000's. That is a too expensive investment.

[Heresson]

lets not take the sun away from gekons and other desert fauna and flora!

[Dinner]

Habitat destruction is also another problem for solar no doubt about it. They need a lot of land and that means less land for everything else especially wild life. Give me one small, compact, high output nuclear plant any day over a sprawling solar farm.

[Theben]

Prosolar already has this knocked.

[DanS]

As far as I know, First Solar still costs a little over $1 a watt peak capacity to produce. It's unclear the installation costs, and interest rates would also need to be considered because it's basically all capital. But I guess I'm a little skeptical at the $0.075/kwh figure, whether this is the unsubsidized figure, etc. I would be interested in taking a look at the underlying report.

That said, they and others are making good progress. I have a little bit of money down on Applied Materials' approach, which as I understand is starting out a little under $1.50 per watt peak. But you never know if First Solar will maintain its lead or other companies like Oerlikon or Sharp will get bright ideas. In any event, it seems likely that the cost problem will be solved in the mid-term.

It's a game of scale and manufacturing technology now. The scale of Sharp's solar/flat screen LCD plant that's coming on line at the end of the year is rather impressive. They'll be making big ass solar panels -- almost 9 square meters (100 square feet) apiece.

[SlowwHand]

Not so, Oerdin. It's one of the means, not the sole means. We've discussed wind farms, too. Put them all together.

[Dinner]

It's a boutique fringe energy source who's true cost, no matter what these people say, is far more expensive then nuclear much less really cheap power sources like coal or hydro. It's one of those feel good things which really don't make economic sense and only exist because of massive subsidies. They've been subsidizing the hell out of solar since the early 70's and every year they claim to make THE break through which will finally make solar worth a damn. It just never pans out and after so many decades of being lied to I've stopped believing the hype.

It's kind of like that hippy you knew in high school who always read "High Times Magazine" who was convinced the trade deficit would go away if only we all grew weed, poverty would be a thing of the past if only we all wore clothing made of hemp, and the environment would be restored to primordial perfection if only every car ran on hemp oil.

[DanS]

The unsubsidized price of solar power has continued to come down dramatically over those 35 years. It's still overly expensive -- about 21 cents per kwh overall -- but the price is still falling, with the very recent introduction of these new thin film technologies.

Solar and nuclear aren't directly comparable, because solar does well satisfying peak demand and nuclear does well satisfying base-load demand. That said, don't forget the benefits of solar, such as the fact that you can add solar generating capacity piecemeal and quickly.

[SlowwHand]

I don't know why he went off on this hemp tangent.

[DanS]

Apparently, that $0.075 per kilowatt hour is just the panel price. It does not include mounting brackets, installation costs, and land costs. I don't know if it includes the inverter costs. At least the installation costs and inverter costs are substantial.

[TCO]

1. coal is what, 2.5 cents?

2. I've been hearing this solar "breakthrough crap" forever. Usually without technical details and real project cost estimates. Pchang, you just dropped a couple notches with me.