Good news for proponents of renewable energy right? Maybe not. The articles
count on innumeracy to keep us from realizing the rate implications (or is paid
by tax credits from all over the country? Who knows!).
Lets see what we can deduce. All facts from these three articles:
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/desoto.shtml
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j-H37s-PeWQeuUdRIFzO64K-lhuwD9BH1GH80
http://www.theledger.com/article/20091018/NEWS/910195023/1001?Title=North-America-s-Largest-Photovoltaic-Solar-Plant-Set-to-Open
The plant has a capacity of 25 MW, and will produce 42000 MWh per year. (So
that's an average power of 4.79 MW and 19.2% capacity factor).
It is built on an 180 acre site ( 72.8 ha; at the average power above, 6.6 W/m²)
The investment is $152M (third article, other two give $150M), and the facility
will pay additional $2M per year property taxes to the county. A 30 year life
is forecast.
(Amortizing the investment with 6% bonds over 30 years, and the extra property
tax will result in $13.035M costs per year exclusive of other operating costs.
I am sure there are a few salaries and other costs. The cost for electricity
is a minimum of $0.31/kWh. That is far more than I pay retail, and even
further above typical wholesale rates at which the utility buys for
distribution.)
Who is paying this outrageous rate? Will it be local customers, will it be
subsidized by Florida taxpayers or by all taxpayers in the US? Who knows.
It is such good news, Obama is coming to celebrate
http://www.news-press.com/article/20091024/NEWS01/910240362/1002
and FPL is planning to build at least 110 MW of capacity.
I recognize this is a little off the subject of metric advocacy. However,
these articles never "confess" the real costs in practical terms and count on
the innumeracy of the public to conceal it while fully disclosing it in terms
the public can't bring to a bottom line.
I certainly don't wish to pay $0.31/kWh + profit+ distribution for electricity.
