Stan Jakuba:
According your comment, solar isolation at the north pole is about the same
as in the tropics. Not so for two reasons. 1) Solar insolation at the north
pole is less intense than in the subtropics during summertime due to the
atmosphere and tilt of the Earth; 2) During the winter, there is no sun at the
north pole so there is no insolation. Check it out with NOAA archives. The
Sun oscillates between the Tropic of Cancer and the Topic of Capricorn due to
Earth's tilt and rotation.
"Darn cell just won't do it." What does that mean? There is no intention
to mean that solar energy in the near term is sufficient to produce enough
power for manufacturing purposes, only nuclear power can provide this
economically: however, solar is sufficient to reduce peak demand in the tropics
and subtropics where the cost of electricity is very expensive outside the U.S.
Anyone who has been in or near the Sahara desert knows this from experience.
I have.
You are correct that unit price of electricity is key to pricing, cost and
ROI. In the Sahara and sub-Sahara desert, electricity is very expensive.
Temperature has nothing to do with insolation except as a by-product.
Michigan State U. has developed flexible solar shingles. They and others
are working on using printing press technology (similar to newspaper printing
technology) to produce solar cells in large long sheets. This process will
reduce the cost of solar energy collection and installation even though they
won't be as efficient as traditional inflexible silicon solar cells.
Technology continues to march on despite luddites.
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Stanislav Jakuba
To: [email protected]
Cc: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 9:34 AM
Subject: Re: [USMA:46157] Re: USMA Treatise Response_2009-11-03
The cost of PV "should drop considerably" - that "should" statement has been
broadcasted for decades. Darn cells, they just won't do it. I have been
wondering what's wrong with them cells since my university years 50 years ago.
The "drop soon" expectations are misguided as that sun "within the tropics"
is more abundant than anywhere else. Average temperature is not the same as
average insolation. And most population do not live within high deserts where
the insolation is a couple of percent higher.
Incremental installations are cheaper than arrays for massive production?
Anything more obvious? Perhaps we shoud use the terminology cost per unit of
electricity (both capital and operational) to understand the real cost. Economy
of scale is at work even with green energy. See my paper - 1.4 $/W large nuke,
150 $/W "incremental" roof top in Austin TX.
My full agreement on nukes, though.
Stan Jakuba
.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:15 PM, STANLEY DOORE <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
