To E Mail me use this address     Donlutz29@comcast.net

Links to Pages                 

Home Page

Nuclear

  Nuclear Plant Reliability     

  Fast Breeders

  Commercial

  Fuel Cycles

  Spent nuclear Fuel    

 The Plutonium Fuel cycle

Hydrogen

  Fuel Cells

  I C Engines

Fossils

  Oil 

 Coal

  Natural Gas

Renewables

  Solar

  Google Renewables

  Wind

  Biomass

California's Folly

Global Warming

The Ethanol Debate

Religions

 Environmentalists

Jimmy Carter's Legacy 

Hydrogen Highway

Blood and oil

Energy Security

News Releases

About Me

                                                        Solar

In a general statement, the News Paper  Hartford Courant, of Connecticut, reports the following:

Technologies such as solar power are still expensive. At 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, producing electricity from solar power simply can't compete with natural gas, experts said.

Also an article in Energy Biz stated the following:

The price of a grid-connected residential solar system is roughly 25 cents per kWh compared to 2 cents per kWh in 1980.

My comment: These are  true statements that you will not see often.

The Massachusetts's Institute of Technology have received a substantial grant to improve solar energy systems from a cost and performance standpoint. Solar plants have capacity factors  of only 15% and the cost of energy from such systems is about 25 cents per kWh.

MIT is funded by an initial gift of $10 million by the Chesonis Family Foundation. And more funds will be forth coming from other sources to make solar power a viable, near-term energy source.

My comment: This is throwing good money after bad. But it at least it admits that solar is not yet viable from a cost and performance standpoint. I do not think it will ever be.

in 1975 many organizations tried solar systems in the California Mojave desert. Tower power flopped totally and the parabolic panel folks went bankrupt. Now we some new organizations trying it again. I don't know who will bankroll these organizations, but I feel for those who will pay for such shaky ventures. 

Try As I may I cannot find any performance data about solar and other renewable energy systems.  I think we need a President that requires the NREL and the DOE to post some real data and real results about solar PV and solar concentrating system and many other items we tax payers support. There is no information released about results the DOE and NREL get for the billions of dollars we pay these organizations.  I do not think the NREL's 800 or so personnel achieve anything.

My comments: Matt Nauman is a fine fellow, but as is true of most newspaper reporters, he knows nothing about energy. In the first place PG&E did not buy 900 megawatt of electricity because this is only the power rating of the 900 MWe facility,  it is not electrical energy. PG&E bought nothing, and has taken no financial liability.  PG&E will pay for the energy kWh produced by the BrightSource company's solar power plant, if there ever is any. And the rate PG&W will pay has not been determined.

PG&E must commit to buying energy from solar plants as required by the State of California. If the rate is too high the State must reimburse PG&E for part of the cost of energy. This means you the tax payer will chip in.

As for a 900 MWe power plant. it probably will never get built because it requires many financial backers for such a project. Are there that many suckers out there? I think not.

Moreover, 900 MWe plant capacity will only provide enough electric energy for 157,000 homes, not 540,000. And they will have to power wash the panels every 10 days or so.

Below is a solar map of the US. Notice that the deep red of the desert area is where the solar energy is the largest in  the US.  But the populated area east of the Mississippi river has no solar density. Even if the desert areas of the US could generate much solar electric energy, which ir cannot  do so economically, it would  not supply the most populated areas of the US.

Energy in the Desert

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO, maintains a collection of maps that show the monthly and annual solar radiation striking the United States for both flat-plate and tracking collectors. Scientists have used data they collected from 1961-1990 at the 239 sites of the National Solar Radiation Data Base to generate maps showing average values for all 30 years at each site as well as minimums and maximums for each location. Direct-beam radiation comes in a direct line from the sun and is measured with two-axis tracking concentrators whose view fields measure 5.7 degrees—just enough to see the sun's disk and a minor slice of the sky.

DOE Seeks to Invest up to $60 Million for Advanced Concentrating Solar Power Technologies

Apr 30, 2008 -- Energy Department Documents and Publications/ContentWorks U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Clarence "Bud" Albright today announced the issuance of the Solar Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $60 million in funding over five years (Fiscal Years 2008-2012), which includes $10 million in FY 2008 appropriations and $10 million in the FY 2009 Budget request, to support the development of low-cost Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology.

"Harnessing the natural and abundant power of the sun and more cost-effectively converting it into energy is an important component of our comprehensive strategy to commercialize and deploy advanced clean, alternative technologies that will allow us to become less reliant on foreign oil," Albright said. "The Administration's investment in solar technology will not only bolster innovation, but will help meet the President's goal of making solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity over the next seven years."

My comments: We have had solar concentrating aluminum mirrors in the desert since 1980. I wonder what one can do to  parabolic  shaped concentrators that  seem to be the best.  Concentrating solar plants will never be economical because they have to shutdown daily. To provide enough solar concentrating reflectors and heat storage liquids to operate 24 hours a day would be too expansive. Also the reflectors must be power washed every 10 days in the desert. They will probably use enough water to cause the fuel less system to be equal to the cost of fuel. 

A futurist name Ray Kurzweil says   "The world energy crisis will be resolved within 20 years (2027) once cheap, high-efficiency solar panels can be synthesized by nanomachines and produced for mass use."

Yes! nanomachines will make every thing cheaper if we can figure out what a nanomachine is. And the solar panels will be more efficient and will not need to be spay washed every week. The dust will not blow in the desert then.

PG&E SOLAR PLANTS  IN THE DESERT

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is planning to build three large solar power plants in the  in  the Mojave Desert.

The three installations, together, will generate enough electricity for more than 375,000 homes. They'll be designed and built by Bright-Source Energy Inc. of Oak­land, with the first plant start­ing operation as early as 2011.

Under state law, all three of California's large, investor-owned utilities have until the end of 2010 to ensure that 20 percent of the power they deliver to their customers comes from such renewable resources as the sun and the wind.

BrightSource Energy, Inc., a utility scale solar thermal company, announced last week that it has filed an Application For Construction (AFC) with the California Energy Commission (CEC) for development of a 400 megawatt (MW) solar power plant site. This is the first AFC to be filed in California since 1989 for the construction of solar thermal power plants

My comments: Actually PG&E will not build the plants, Bright-Source Energy, Inc will. Some other organization will own the plants and PG&E will contract to take the energy. They state that the electrical energy to supply 375,000 homes annually is about  3,250, 000,000 kWh per year. At a capacity factor of 20% this would require three solar plants each of 715  MWe capacity.

This is never going to happen, but PG&E will get an A grade for effort to keep up with the 20% renewable farce in California.

The performance of solar Photovoltaic and other types of solar systems are very poor and the performance numbers are being hidden.

I have continuously searched for any and all performance data of existing solar systems,  There is none to be found, No one will state the performance of their solar  systems.  And why is this?  One would think that this data would fill the media.

The performance of solar systems is so poor that it is closely guarded. It is assumed by the promoters that performance is good and the systems are ready for deployment. The political people in  power are not technologically astute  enough to put together and analyze the performance numbers. They  just assume that the performance numbers are good or will get better as time goes on. 

The Sacramento  Municipal Utility District  (SMUD) did slip me some performance numbers.  PV systems produce about  1,400 KWh per year for each installed  one KWe Solar PV system. Thus the capacity factor of this solar PV system is only 15%. No system with capacity factors this low is a viable energy producing system.

The current price of each installed solar PV  KWe system is $10,000. The annual saving to the owner of the system where the price of energy to the owner is $0.08  per KWh. This results  in an annual saving of $0.08 x 1,400 KWh per year = $112  Will it ever be reasonable to spend $10,000 to save $112 per year?

There is no end to the accolades though. Lennar plans to build 1,254 solar homes. The Sacramento Bee says that the solar on these homes will supply 50% of the monthly electric bill. But don't ask  the suppliers for any guarantees that the panels will generate any electric energy. The owner will get no guarantees what so ever. See the financial data of these solar installation below. Ask the solar suppliers to provide such data. I will stand behind my estimates. Let's see theirs.

Photovoltaic Systems

California's governor wants  PV solar systems put on the roofs of one million homes.

The above caption appeared in the news recently. However, it appears that the million home solar venture is unacceptable so there is a new proposal on the table. An article appeared in the Dec 14, 2005  San Jose Mercury News entitled as follows

What is the California Solar Initiative (CSI)?

 As part of the Governor's Million Solar Roofs program, California has set a goal to create 3,000 megawatts of new, solar-produced electricity by 2017 - moving the state toward a cleaner energy future and helping lower the cost of solar systems for  consumers.

The California Public Utilities Commission, through its California Solar Initiative Program, provides more than $2 billion in incentives over the next decade for existing residential homes and existing and new commercial, industrial, and agricultural properties. The program is funded through revenues and collected from electric utility distribution rates. The program begins on January 1, 2007.

The California Energy Commission manages a 10-year, $400 million program to encourage solar in new home construction through its New Solar Homes Partnership

 (I called the California Energy Commission and was surprised  to hear that they do not give out any performance data about solar PV system performance. The homeowner must ask the suppliers for this information. There are no guarantees about performance. I have searched this value and found that a solar PV system generates about 15% of its ultimate  capacity over a years time.)

The Bush administration is trying to boost solar energy's future.

 It is awarding $168 million in grants to 13 projects. Companies such as Boeing, BP and Dow Chemical are among the recipients of the money. Each of those businesses, in turn, will provide at least 50 percent of the funding with respect to their own ideas.

 Solar costs about 25 cents a kilowatt hour. That's compared to about 9 cents a kilowatt hour for natural gas, 4 cents a kilowatt hour for modern coal-burning plants, and 3 cents per kWh for nuclear plants.  The hope is that the new market dynamics will bring down the price of such power to around 6 cents a kilowatt hour in the next decade. My comment: This will never happen because of the very low 15% capacity factor of solar. The government has been pushing this dead horse for 40 years. They never look at the real facts, but the capital cost has no come down significantly.

 Besides the current cost, the solar power industry is challenged by when, where and how often the sun shines. The sun only shines about 30 percent of the time even in the brightest locations That makes it difficult to cover the cost of paying off a capital-intensive technology.

 Households now receive tax credits that reduce overall solar installation costs by 30 percent through 2008, although those in the industry say that the recent one-year extension just granted is inadequate. Instead, the Solar Energy Industries Association is placing its bets on the Democratically-controlled 110th Congress to lengthen those breaks another eight years.

Regardless of what congress does, the sun will still go down every day.

Residential solar PV economics.

Let's look at the economics of putting a 2.3 kWe solar PV system on the roof of a home. With a big splash  roof top  solar PV homes are now being sold as of January 20, 2007 in Roseville California

 Nation's largest solar community to debut. The advertisement in the newspaper says the owner can sell the excess electricity back to the utility and also reap benefits of having their own electricity . After you read what I have written below you will see that the advertisements are completely false. There will be no excess.  But so what, there are no guarantees that the solar systems will generate anything.

The Table  below presents the lifetime financial duration of the PV system for 30 years of cost data. The state rebate is $2.50 per Watt. The loan term is 30 years. The system capital cost is $23,000 and the Federal tax credit of 30% is limited to a tax credit of $2,000. The state rebate is thus $2.50 per watt  times 2,300 watts = $5,750

.The total amount financed by the owner is:$23,000 - $5,750 - $2,000 = $12,250

The home owner can finance the $12,250 for 30 years at 6.2% or 4.10% effective mortgage rate after deduction for interest. This assumes the homeowner is in the 34% combined federal and state income tax bracket. The annual cost of the mortgage is $884, the annual amount of electrical energy generated is 3,022 kWh, the current cost of electrical energy to the homeowner is $0.080 and I assumes that it escalates  4% per year.  The saving in electrical energy payments the first year is thus 3,022  kWh x 0.080 per kWh = $241. But the first year's net cash flow to the home owner is minus $643. 

PG&E tells me that the annual usage of electrical energy varies, but 10,000 kWh is a good number for residential homes with a 2.3 kWe solar PV system on their roof top. Thus  the solar PV system would supply about 3,022 kWe/10,000 = 30% of the homeowners electric energy.

Financial data over 30 years of a  2.3 kWe capacity solar PV system installed on a residential home

Conclusions: Notice that for throughout the entire 30 years  the home owner has a negative cash flow. 

Also remember that the solar cells on the roof must be washed frequently to maintain performance. From the looks of the home in the picture, washing is not an easy job. It could well be hazardous to climb on the roofs to power wash the solar cells. Over a thirty year period there will be many accidents.

And you the tax payer paid over a third of the cost ($8,000) to try to jump start a system that has never been economical for 25 years. The capital cost will have to come down a factor of six to be economical.

Who does not benefit from the tax subsidies?

Many residents of the State of California live in apartments and some  in smaller homes and have  lower incomes so the tax breaks and reduced interest payments are not available to those in low tax brackets and do not itemize on the long form. To me the subsidies are not fair to many taxpayers in the state.

The entire cost analysis did not include any maintenance or repairs. Over the 30 years the roof may need to be replaced, the system must be removed and replaced. I talked to a supplier of solar systems and they told me they do not install PV systems on ceramic roof tops. In my townhouse association we have ceramic roofing and if a homeowner should choose solar PV's on their roofs the association would not be responsible to repair or replace the roofs when the lifetime of the roofs warrant replacement. 

Daily Performance of a typical solar PV system.

Summer Time

The date is August 3, 2005

A sunny day, very little cloud cover.

The amount of energy generated is 12 kWh. More than twice the winter amount of generated energy. At 7.98 cents per kWh of avoided energy this would save the home owner is:

 0.0798 cents per kWh x 12 kWh = 96 cents

During July the generated energy from this system was about 18 kWh. One can see the difference that the daytimes of the year makes. Still the total energy generated is quite small for the capacity and cost of the installation. It is apparent that solar PV systems will not be significant players in the energy picture. Before State subsidies the cost of the system is about $60,000.

Under  Love & money, in the Wall Street Journal, Jeff D. Opdyke wrote an article entitled  "The (Too High) Price of Being Green."  in it he said:

•  Laura, a friend in Baltimore, says her husband has long been fixated on solar  energy. But no matter where they have lived, the economics have never worked out.

• Concerning hybrid cars, it's hard to justify $25,000 for a Prius when you can buy a Honda Civic for $15,000 that gets similar gas mileage.

Here are two news excerpts of solar PV projects soon to be constructed. See my comments below.

.Largest U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Begins Construction at Nellis Air Force Base

Construction on the largest solar photovoltaic system ever to be built in North America began today at Nellis Air Force Base.

. The Nellis solar energy system will generate in excess of 25 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity annually and supply more than 25 percent of the power used at the base. Occupying 140 acres of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted solar system will employ an advanced tracking system, designed and deployed by PowerLight, to follow the sun.

Approximately 70,000 solar panels and the patented PowerLight PowerTracker(R) will capture up to 30 percent more energy than an equivalent ground-mounted fixed-tilt system. Rated at approximately 15 megawatts (MW), the array will generate the power of a rooftop solar system with a rating of approximately 18 MWe

MMA Renewable Ventures will finance, own and operate the landmark system and sell the power to Nellis under the terms of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

An 82-acre tract in south central Colorado will be the site for one of the largest photovoltaic power plants in the United States. Dignitaries including Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and executives from SunEdison and Xcel Energy spoke at today's groundbreaking ceremony for the 8.22-megawatt Alamosa Photovoltaic Solar Plant. The solar plant is financed and will be built and maintained by SunEdison, North America's leading solar energy services provider. Xcel Energy will buy the solar power generated by the Alamosa plant, which is scheduled for completion by early 2008.

The Alamosa Photovoltaic Solar Plant is an 8.22-megawatt (MW) facility that covers roughly 80 acres of land in Alamosa and San Luis Valley in Colorado. When completed, the facility will generate 17,000 MW hours annually,.

My comments:

They did not quote the capital cost of either project.  The companies building the systems are financing each project and have sales agreements  for the cost of energy delivered by each system.  This is a bold move considering each supplier must deliver the energy for a predetermined cost per kWh.

Table of Data

It is not possible to rely on data from a news paper, but the capacity factors do not make sense. If Nellis is a tracking system and the other is not, one would expect to see a much greater capacity factor for Nellis. This is not the cases for the data shown. But the number of acres per MWe are the same so it must be true that both systems have tracking panels. This is very expensive as well as requiring considerable maintenance.

At any rate it is obvious that the capacity factors are typical for solar PV systems, and are too low to provide economical electric energy.

 A NEWS RELEASE

A Hunterdon home goes hydrogen. House is first to be all solar powered

Oct 21 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Leonard N. Fleming The Philadelphia Inquirer

Some thought he was crazy and would blow himself up in failure. But Michael Stritzki was determined to someday operate his home in rural Hunterdon County on hydrogen created by the sun.

Yesterday, in a rain-soaked moment of triumph with nearly 100 supporters on his multi-acre property, Stritzki made history when his two-story home became the first in the nation to be powered solely by solar and hydrogen energy.

The intricate, $500,000 Hopewell Project  was almost five years in the making.

My Comment: Mr. Strizki is likely to get a surprise when he see how little energy he gets through the winter months. But everyone should have a $500,000 home energy system. How would you like an annual  $36,000 bill over 30 years to pay for it? And that does not include maintenance. 

Here is an eternal waste of money

Agency proposes a boost for solar

Nov 17 - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Leslie Berkman The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif. In a move toward reaching Gov. Schwarzenegger's goal of a million solar rooftops within a decade, a state agency Tuesday released a proposal to add $300 million in rebates next year for businesses that install solar electric systems.

If the California Public Utilities Commission gives final approval of the plan, there will be a $342 million rebates pot for new commercial solar installations next year, compared to about $80 million spent in 2005, to make the technology more cost-effective. (My comment: I don't see how throwing more money at it will make it more cost effective.)

PUC spokeswoman Susan Carothers said Wednesday that the agency was still trying to determine what impact enlargement of the rebate program will have on electric rates. (I can tell her the answer is absolutely none. The amount of electric  energy they will get from $342 million subsidies is nil.)

The commission also said it intends soon to adopt "a separate and more -- elaborate program," calling for California Solar Initiative to provide broader incentives for the development of solar technology in the state. It said the staffs of the PUC and California Energy Commission will develop a proposal and present it to the PUC board.

While increasing the fund of rebate money, the PUC proposes to reduce the size of each rebate. Each application of more than 30 kilowatts would be reduced to $2.80 a watt from the current $3.50 a watt. (As they reduce the rebates they will find a greatly reduced commitment to solar PV systems. As it is now configured for commercial solar PV systems, the subsides  and income tax reductions essentially pay the total cost of the systems. But not all is lost. The subsidized  systems will show just how badly the PV  systems perform. See the next write-up about commercial PV systems.)

Commercial Solar photovoltaic Systems

Commercial PV systems receive greater financial advantages over residential system. The systems on a commercial building are subject a depreciation write-off on the capital cost Let's examine the financial of such a system.

A commercial enterprise bought a  solar Photovoltaic (PV) electric system. It was designed for their 20,000 square feet flat roof building in San Jose. This system included 532 flat roof PV tiles and two 30kW commercial inverters. A total of 68.256 kilowatts (kWe) of peak power generating capability is provided (based on manufacturer output ratings).

This system actually provides about  100,000 kWh (e) per year --

Commercial PV System Investment Summary

The capacity factor of this system is:100,000 kWh / 68.256kWe x 8760 hours per year x 100  = 16.7%. This means that the system only generates about 17% of its  ultimate capacity in a given year. Expensive renewable systems will never be economical with these low capacity factors no matter how much the government subsidizes them.  And the sun will never shine any brighter no matter how much government research is done on PV cells. Nuclear power plants have average capacity factors of about 90%, which means that they produce five times the energy output compared to renewable solar PV systems. This is a huge nuclear power plant economic advantage over renewable energy systems.

As a tax payer how do you like paying 51% of the capital cost for the renewable system? And they still do not provide economical electric energy. The only reason that the State and Federal government can pay such subsidies is because not many solar systems are sold. And it is unlikely that any would be sold if the subsidies are discontinued. Would not it be better to spend such money on more important places such as schools?

Moreover. I believe that these commercial companies can write off the remaining cost over 5 years so these deductions pay even more for cost of the system.

Moreover, the manufacturer probably did not tell the buyer that they will have to frequently climb up on the roof and wash the surface of the panels. Solar photons do not go through dirt.

The description of Dirt and Dust situation below was taken from the California Energy Commission's Web Site:

Dirt and dust can accumulate on the solar module surface, blocking some of the sunlight and reducing output. Much of California has a rainy season and a dry season. Although typical dirt and dust is cleaned off during every rainy season, it is more realistic to estimate system output taking into account the reduction due to dust buildup in the dry season. A typical annual dust reduction factor to use is 93% or 0.93. So the "100-watt module," operating with some accumulated dust may operate on average at about 79 Watts

      (85 Watts x 0.93 = 79 Watts).

I think the CEC is underestimating the degradation of performance if the panels are not washed. My deck and hot tub cover must be power washed frequently or the dirt forms a total thick covering of about 1/32 of an inch. This dirt will not wash off in normal rain. The surface area of the example system is about the size of 1/2 of a football field. And it is not advisable to step on the panels.  Being on the roof can be hazardous as well as incurring some expense. and a lot of water will be needed over the lifetime of the PV systems.

As it now stands the actual cost per kWh from a PV system that is not subsidized by the government is about 45 cents per kWh. A little higher than the 14 cents we now pay for electrical energy delivered to our home meters. And we do not have to climb on the roof and wash panels frequently.

Solar PV's in Pittsburgh. PA

INDIANOLA, Pa., Aug 17, 2005 /PRNewswire

PA DEP Secretary Inaugurates Energy Harvest Project in Pittsburgh; Renewable Energy Project Reduces Energy Costs, Cuts Pollution Emissions

On behalf of PA Governor Edward G. Rendell, Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty today flipped the ceremonial switch to power up a five-kilowatt solar facility at