Most of the population of the world lives within the tropics where Sun is
most abundant. Many people there don't have electricity or they have very
little of it which is very expensive. Thin flexible solar panels on roofs
of buildings can provide comparatively inexpensive energy to fuel (oil etc)
generated electricity and, they can be installed incrementally at lower cost
than large arrays for massive production envisioned for the US.
When flexible solar panels are printed like newspapers on printing presses,
the cost should drop considerably and should be competitive with electricity in
homes in the US.
Solar and wind power cannot provide sufficient power for manufacturing and
therefore nuclear power is needed for it and to provide continuity.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Edgar Warf
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:41 AM
Subject: [USMA:46111] USMA Treatise Response_2009-11-03
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
a.. Wind is $0.07/kWh, subsidized
b.. 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 densities between 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:
a.. 10 to 36 times more power per square meter than Solar
b.. 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.
