John, Spot on!!! You nailed it!
This discussion about electrical generation become incredibly magnified when using a common (and fully consistent) measuring system, as is the case with SI...metric. The rate-payer is going to get raped with this one. $0.31/kWh is even higher than the $0.22/kWh figure I quoted earlier. This is going to be a disaster, and is the very thing I have spoken against. The numbers speak for themselves. - Natural Gas – $0.0162/kWh ($4.75/MMBtu avg., $3.08/MMBtu to $6.42/MMBtu, EIA, 6/25/09) - Nuclear – $0.02/kWh - Coal – $0.05/kWh - Wind (subsidized) – $0.07/kWh - U.S. Residential Electricity Costs – $0.10 to $0.12/kWh (depending upon utility, region of country, and seasonal variations) - Wind (unsubsidized) – $0.12/kWh - Solar (unsubsidized) – $0.22/kWh *Notes:* 1 W = 1 J/s 1 kW = 1000 J/s 1 kWh = 1000 J/s x 3600 s = 3.6 MJ ≈ 3412 BTU Monthly, Single-Family Residence, Energy Consumption ≈ 550 kWh to 1200 kWh (depending upon demand and seasonal variations) To pursue Solar and Wind for base-load generation is complete nonsense. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The physics will never favor Solar and Wind for anything other than limited applications, even if the economics (of manufacturing) improve. Solar and Wind are incapable of sustaining our society. Lastly, you pointed out something I failed to mention earlier beyond the deplorable power density of Solar - the *capacity factor* for Solar. If you're lucky, you *might* get five (5) hours of solar irradiance...on a sunny day, and the amount of land used is nuts (*72.8 ha* for a piddly *25 MW*)!!! If they manage to expand the program to a whopping *110 MW* (that's my attempt at sarcasm), then a simple straight-line approximation puts the planned system at *320 ha*. WOW!!! For the same area of land used, you could put *6 to 8 conventional (1 GW to 4 GW) coal, gas, or nuclear power plants* (each using approximately *42 ha* ). The FL rate-payer and the U.S. taxpayer gets screwed once again! On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 9:30 AM, John M. Steele <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. >
