Stan, I agree with your assessment, but I was being VERY generous to magnify the folly of pursuing Solar (and Wind) with that particular value (1 kW/m²). Think of it as a best-case scenario offered Solar and Wind proponents in an attempt to illustrate the woeful short-comings of these technologies.
In other words, if Solar and Wind can't get the job done at 1 kW/m², it's definitely not going to get the job done at 0.2 kW/m². Again, I agree with you that Solar (and Wind) power density (W/m²) are abysmal. You'll get no argument from me. With the exception of two (2) niche applications: 1. It is *initially* cost prohibitive to pull in conventional T&D to a pre-industrialized community, where present-day approximate costs are $25,000/km for unobstructed, flat-land transmission line only, not inclusive of step-downs or miscellaneous distribution hardware. Granted, once that T&D hardware is in place, it doesn't go away barring a natural disaster or military conflict, but the same drawback applies to Solar and Wind. The only difference is that conventional T&D is available 24/7, with an initial cost outlay paid back more quickly. 2. The second niche application is where there is an immediate emergency need (*for short-term use only*) in a disaster-ravaged area (third-world or industrialized nation). Plop a set of solar panels down, but don't expect it to sustain the community - only provide some immediate relief...nothing more. Other than these circumstances, Solar and Wind will NEVER sustain humanity, and we're throwing money down a rat hole by pursuing these energy sources for baseload generation. I suppose it makes those of us in industrialized nations (piously) feel better about ourselves, but that's little comfort to those presently without electricity who will be denied access to modern infrastructure or those presently enjoying the benefits of abundant, inexpensive, and reliable electricity who will be forced to lower their standard of living by (unnecessarily) paying higher rates. I see government-mandated use of these technologies as involuntary wealth redistribution through a staunch and consistent refusal to look at the merits (and drawbacks) of ALL electrical generation technologies - nuclear (fission or fusion), coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, algae-derived biofuels, etc. As always, I appreciate the fact that this topic can be framed and presented in fully-consistent and easily-understood units made possible through SI. Regards, Edgar P.S. - Hey, Aaron!...*"BOAT RAMP"!!!* On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Stanislav Jakuba <[email protected]> wrote: > The 1 kW/m² is not the number to calculate the potential yield from > direct solar. As I wrote in my paper, the average, annual insolation is 200 > W/m², not thousand. The efficiency of its utilization (see the paragraph on > Portugal ) is some 3 % to 4 % (6.8 W/m² in the paper). > > This myth of 1000 W/m² is doing a lot of damage as it is the number the > greenees use for getting the (tax-payers) money for their pitiful "power > stations". > > Stan Jakuba > > > From: "Edgar Warf" <[email protected]> > To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 11:53:05 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: [USMA:46051] Re: Treatise on renewable energy > > Wind and Solar - they’re expensive. They’re unreliable. And most > importantly, their power output is pathetically low. > > Solar and Wind are a *“fool’s errand”* for anything *except niche > applications*. They’ll never suffice for base-load generation. Here is > what a mechanical engineer (in the wind power industry) had to say about > the matter: > > > > *I am a mechanical engineer and quite knowledgeable about wind power and > the reliability problems. They are many!* > > ** > > *Wind power has a longer history in the EU, but the experience has been > similar. Wind power has been subsidized in the EU for longer than it has > here in the states. The results have been similar. Power from wind > turbines is more expensive that the more traditional sources (coal, gas, > hydroelectric, nuclear and oil). The only way that it becomes viable is with > government subsidies.* > > ** > > *In the EU, turbines cannot be installed without monitoring system to > watch their health. This is due to the many failures that have occurred. > They cannot operate without insurance and the insurance is unavailable > without monitoring. Here in the states, very few turbines are installed with > monitoring.* > > ** > > *Why?** Simple. Turbines here are normally owned by investor groups that > exist primarily to market the tax credits. The total cost of the turbine > can be recouped in 3-5 years with these credits. The investor groups > contract with the turbine manufacturers to install and operate the turbines > for the 5 year warrantee period. By the time that the warrantee has > expired, the turbines are paid for and any further running time is pure > gravy. When they fail, shut them down and there is no loss. <<…to the > investor groups.>>* > > ** > > *Except, of course, to the tax payers that support this scam**.* > > The last sentence was the money quote. I would imagine this situation > (the proposed subsidization of Solar) will be very much the same as is it > for Wind when it (Solar) gets into full swing > > - Wind is $0.07/kWh, subsidized > - Wind is $0.12/kWh, unsubsidized (without the $0.05/kWh *Production > Tax Credit*) > > The numbers for Solar are deplorable – $0.22/kWh (unsubsidized). > > Keep in mind that* consumers (in the U.S.) are presently paying *between $0.10 > to $0.12 per kWh for residential electricity. Even utilizing the > "printing press" method of fabrication, with a 100% reduction in price, will > only get Solar down to $0.11/kWh - far too high from today's price point. > > What's worse is the energy density (or footprint) associated with solar - > that is, *kW per square meter*. Wind certainly has a higher energy > density (per square meter) than solar at approximately *0.63 kW per square > meter* (90 m diameter blade sweep and 4 MW turbine), but it's not getting > the job done, and never will. > > Now, imagine what a nightmare solar will be, if we attempt to supplant > Nuclear and Coal for base-load generation. > > By the way, I was being generous with those wind turbine numbers, as *4 MW > turbines are fourth generation, and are considered the maximum electrical > output available for land-based turbines*. > > Marine-based wind turbines aren't much better at 3 MW to 5 MW in size. For > your convenience, I've included a brochure (in PDF format) from Vestas (a > global > wind turbine supplier) whose largest offering is a 3 MW turbine, but like > I said, I was being generous giving Wind a whopping 0.63 kW per square > meter rating. Sarcasm can be really tough to convey in text. > > > So, a little more background information is needed: > > The Earth receives energy from the Sun, at the upper atmosphere, of > approximately 1.37 kW per square meter. The actual amount of solar > irradiance reaching *Earth's surface* (dependent upon weather conditions > and latitude) is approximately *1 kW per square meter* - an easy number to > remember. That's all there is - nothing more. > > *Even if we could convert all photonic energy into electrical energy,*we're > only going to get > *1 kW per square meter.* > > So, where do we stand today? That sound you hear is the sound of the > other shoe falling. > > *We can only convert 30% of this to electricity* (or *0.3 kW = 300 W per > square meter*). To reach that 30% mark, it's taken us almost 45 years, > and even if we doubled efficiency (an increase of 100%) over today's > commercially-available solar panels, we would only obtain 600 W per square > meter to electricity - a paltry return. > > The physics are undeniable. Solar is abysmal compared to Wind, and both > are horrid compared to *Nuclear or Coal* which have energy densitiesbetween > *3 kW to 11 kW per square meter* depending upon size and configuration of > plant. > > That's *10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar* can > provide, and *4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind*. > > Don't miss that. Nuclear and Coal provide: > > > - *10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar* > - *4.5 to 17 times more power per square meter than Wind* > > Nuclear and coal plants (nominally) have footprints that are 600 m x 600 > m (360,000 square meters) to 700 m x 700 m (490,000 square meters) - > inclusive of material handling AND switchyards (needed for power > distribution). > > Nuclear and coal have generation capacities ranging from 1 GW to 4 GW per > those areas, *and are available 24/7*. Now, that's reliable, efficient, > and inexpensive electrical generation. The numbers speak for themselves. > > ...and we're throwing it away in favor of wind and solar which are > unreliable, inefficient, and costly. > >
