Skip to main content

View Diary: NREL Study: Solar Power could provide 100 Times the Amount of Current U.S. Electricity Needs! (251 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  wow, you've just completely embarrassed yourself (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cordgrass, DocGonzo

    You've just overestimated PV by a factor of 13 and understimated nuclear by 2x so your lie factor is 26. Wow.

    Kiss my ass. This is a Holy Site...

    by jam on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 11:36:39 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Could you be more specific? (0+ / 0-)

      Because, if I've really overestimated PV by a factor of 13 and nuclear by 2x, then my position would be 26 times stronger than I posted.

      I'm intrigued that unlike myself, you never post links, just say things.

      •  cost (4+ / 0-)

        You have overestimated the cost of PV by a factor of 13. You have claimed that 1 GW of solar costs $26.7 billion. This study shows PV at $2.88/W (2010) with modules at $1.95/W. Modules are currently less than $1/W. Total installed costs are currently less than $2/W (I've seen quotes for $1.75).


        I'll go ahead and give you the 2X on the nuclear side.

        in essence, nuclear (in China) is almost exactly the same overnight cost as PV. Admittedly for the same nameplate capacity, not for energy.

        Please don't start throwing capacity factors around and trying to make unsupported claims about levelized costs of energy.

        Kiss my ass. This is a Holy Site...

        by jam on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 12:14:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not interested in "a study" (0+ / 0-)

          I'm interested in what it costs to actually come and install the panels on my house.

          Which apparently amplifies the cost by 13x or so - you know, because it costs $$s to have somebody skilled in the craft actually come out and get everything set up.

          You know, similar to what it takes to get a nuclear power plant up and running . .. .

          Seriously, if you can find somebody who'll install me a solar set up for $2,000 - I'm signing up for that instantaneously!!

          But no, in the real world it costs $35 to $40K.

          •  maybe if y'all actually read the report (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jam, Larsstephens, Sandino

            For residential, it says:

            The analysis results in a total installed price for a benchmark 2010 residential PV system of $5.71/ WP DC. Figure 2 shows the price breakdown by element. Modules contribute the most to the price (38%), followed by labor costs (22%, electrical and hardware labor plus installer O&P) and supply chain costs (17%).

          •  You're Not Interested in the Facts (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            You ignore "a study" and the direct experience (with dollar figures) from the poster who offered it, in favor of a 13 year old TLC TV article that's totally wrong, and you're not backing down.

            You're calling "faith based" other legitimate arguments against your bad logic and wrong facts.

            In the real world $35K would buy you something like 15-20KW after real subsidies, which is about 10x what you probably need.

            You're not interested in the facts. You just want to argue for nukes against solar. Why bother talking to you about it?

            "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

            by DocGonzo on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 06:11:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  to continue - your quoted numbers might be (0+ / 0-)

          correct - but you have to factor in a 16 to 20% utilization factor.

          Thus instead of 600 W in the link I provided - because my wife using a lot of electricity - I need about 1500 W.

          And the sun shines (on average) about 8 hours a day -you gotta multiple that by 3 - so we're up to 4500 W.

          Now, divide that by 0.16 (the utilization factor) - we're up to 27,000 W installed capacity.

          So at $1.75 per W - that's $47,250 - or MORE than I was quoted (I guess I was getting a bargain - YAY!! - but sadly still couldn't afford it).

          •  yeah, you have NO IDEA (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            what you are talking about.

            the utilization factor is the same thing as the sun shines only 8 hours a day.

            Kiss my ass. This is a Holy Site...

            by jam on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 12:30:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, maybe I don't have the terminology (0+ / 0-)

              down pat - but the point is that it's dark for 12 hours a day (on average over the year).

              Plus, where I live, it's sufficiently cloudy to reduce incident sunlight by 33% over time.

              Thus the 8 hours per day sunlight factor.

              Then - it's a well known fact that PV panels are NOT 100% efficient.  Perhaps 20% of that.

              So, my numbers are more or less correct.  Heck, why would the company give me a ridiculously high estimate that there's no way in hell that I could afford?

              But I'll grant you all your assinine talking points and cut everything by 3x.  Which means that I SHOULD be able to get a set-up for about $16K.

              Which leaves us right back at the starting point - i.e., the link that I provided above that used that figure for about 1/2 to 1/3 of the capacity that I require.

              Seriously, if you think that that can be supplied for 1/26th of that cost, well all that I can say is that you're seriously crazy.

              Which would be a shame, because deep down inside I suspect that we both want the same thing - a more sane energy policy for this country.  But again, I'm not sure how we'll ever get there if we can be honest about the costs involved.

              •  sigh (6+ / 0-)

                I'll take a step back. Note that I'm going to simplify things a bit here.

                Solar PV is currently being installed in the United States for approximately $2/W direct current peak. That means, at solar noon on a cloudless day a 100 W panel is producing 100 W of DC electricity. After conversion to grid style AC something like 85-90% of that is hitting the grid. Let's call it 85 W. It doesn't matter how efficient the panel is or where in the world you are - a 100 W panel produces 100 W.

                More "efficient" panels are just smaller in area than less efficient panels. A 20% efficient 200 W panel is 1 square meter (m^2). A 10% efficient 200 W panel is 2 m^2. However, when they are hit with the same amount of sun, they produce exactly the same amount of electricity.

                Location in the world tells you how much sun you get per year. The lower 48 states range from about 1000 kWh/kW to 3000 kWh/kW per year. So, if you install a 1 kW system in Boston, it will produce approximately 1,200 kWh per year. That same system in AZ would produce around 2,000 kWh per year.

                In 2010, that system on your house that you say cost $35,000 would have been about a 7 kW system. In Boston, that should produce around 8,400 kWh a year or about 700 kWh per month. At $0.15/kWh, that has an energy value of a little more than $100/month.

                That same system should cost about half of that today - maybe a little more. Call it $20K. Yes, the reduction in PV prices has been that dramatic.

                And that is as honest and simple and direct as I can explain the way PV works

                Kiss my ass. This is a Holy Site...

                by jam on Tue Jul 31, 2012 at 01:11:43 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the solar costs seem pretty much (0+ / 0-)

      spot on.

      About 18 months ago, I got an estimate for $35-40K to get set up for a roof top solar system, and my monthly electric bill is about $150.

      The example I gave, for $16K is based on using $67 of electricity a month (at 15 cents per kWh).  So, the two values match up pretty well.

      •  Get a quote from someone else (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DocGonzo, Sandino, Lawrence

        Either (a) the quote you got was from a company that prefers to work only on large projects and they quoted an inflated price to make you go away (common with some of the big names); or (b) you use an extraordinary amount of electricity and they quoted sufficient overcapacity to ensure you would have 100% of your highest use covered on the worst insolation days; or (c) they quoted a system that would feed back into the grid enough to make you a profit.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site