Why Solar Power is not practical

[Roger in Kensington]

The Peach Bottom nuclear power station near Philadelphia is comprised of two reactors capable of generating 2360 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The entire station sits on 640 acres, but the actual reactors occupy only a small part of that area.

What would it take to replace the Peach Bottom station with solar power?

For $640, BPSolar will sell you a solar panel that produces a maximum of 125 watts. At maximum solar intensity, a solar “farm” would require 19 million of these panels to equal the output of Peach Bottom. And it would not work on cloudy days. Or at night. Or when covered with snow. In short, it would produce no electricity a majority of the time.

Oh, and with the necessary maintenance support, it would occupy 9400 acres.

Still think solar is a practical alternative?

[Black97]

I wouldn't call it a practical alternative to the current base load power producers.

Wind mills, solar power and tidal plants have their place in the power industry. They can be used during the daytime when usually the peak demands are.

They will never replace base load power producer like nuclear, fossil and hydro.

[Wild Willy]

No single 'magic bullet' but they are all little steps that, taken together can help conserve our natural resources and protect the enviroment- Every kilowatt of hydro we generate is coal or oil that doesn't have to be burned- and is renewable. Wind is free, once you build the turbine-Nuclear is expensive to build, and makes the greenies crazy, but produces no carbon, uses no fossil fuel-

The more oil we don't burn for power and heat, the more we have for our cars! Whoo, Whoo! Hey, a guy has to have his priorities-

Frankly, I don't care if I am burning oil, hydrogen, ethanol- as long as it can set you back in the seat, and go fast, and go far at a reasonable cost- I like to take my vacations as car trips and see the world- explore at my own pace, and go off the beaten path when I want to-

[Joe 1320]

I think the whole idea should be that all forms of "free energy" ie; wave, wind, geological, solar are taken advantage of fully and only augmented by other forms until such a time that technology allows us to be 100% natural energy based. Right now, too much of the direction is motivated by capitalism.


So much geological energy could be used, the power is staggering.

[TraceZ]

I think there will come a day where it will be standard operating procedure to cover the rooves of newly built construction in a roofing material that produces electricity. It will be wide spread like asphault shingles or rubber rooves are today and we'll all be tied into the power grid.

[Injuneer]

The Peach Bottom nuclear power station near Philadelphia is comprised of two reactors capable of generating 2360 megawatts (MW) of electricity. The entire station sits on 640 acres, but the actual reactors occupy only a small part of that area.

What would it take to replace the Peach Bottom station with solar power?

For $640, BPSolar will sell you a solar panel that produces a maximum of 125 watts. At maximum solar intensity, a solar “farm” would require 19 million of these panels to equal the output of Peach Bottom. And it would not work on cloudy days. Or at night. Or when covered with snow. In short, it would produce no electricity a majority of the time.

Oh, and with the necessary maintenance support, it would occupy 9400 acres.

Still think solar is a practical alternative?

You better send a copy of your analysis to firms like Pacific Gas & Electric, Florida Power and Light, Chevron, Goldman-Sachs and numerous other firms. They appear to have missed the point.

They have filed applications with the US Bureau of Land Management for the right to use public desert land in southern California, previously deemed virtually worthless. There are now 104 applications (each requiring a healthy 6-figure application fee) for lands totallying almost 1,000,000 acres, capable of producing approximately 60 gigawatts of electricity using solar panels. That is almost twice the amount electricity currently consumed in California.

Privately owned desert land that once sold for $500/acre is now commanding upwards of $10,000/acre.

Ref: Fortune, July 21,2008

[Roger in Kensington]

You better send a copy of your analysis to firms like Pacific Gas & Electric, Florida Power and Light, Chevron, Goldman-Sachs and numerous other firms. They appear to have missed the point.

They have filed applications with the US Bureau of Land Management for the right to use public desert land in southern California, previously deemed virtually worthless. There are now 104 applications (each requiring a healthy 6-figure application fee) for lands totallying almost 1,000,000 acres, capable of producing approximately 60 gigawatts of electricity using solar panels. That is almost twice the amount electricity currently consumed in California.

Privately owned desert land that once sold for $500/acre is now commanding upwards of $10,000/acre.

Ref: Fortune, July 21,2008

Are they going to use their stockholders' money, or are they going to be subsidized by Uncle Sam?

My guess is that this will be like ethanol. Without subsidies, it isn't viable in the marketplace.

Same with windmills. Our Metro system has posters asking people to call Congress to pass legislation to fund windmills. If windmills are such a good idea, why should the taxpayer pay for them? If T. Boone Pickens wants to spend his own money to build windmills (and reap any profits from them), that's fine with me. But if he wants to get you and me to pay for them (and he reaps the profits from them anyway), that's not okay with me.

Let the market work without subsidies and we'll see what thing -- or combination of things -- works best.

[Injuneer]

Your original post had to do with the technical practicality of large-scale solar power generation. I was simply pointing out that to some people, its not as impractical as you might believe. Now you are adding another argument regarding how the projects are funded, and all that does is obfuscate your original argument.

[Roger in Kensington]

Your original post had to do with the technical practicality of large-scale solar power generation. I was simply pointing out that to some people, its not as impractical as you might believe. Now you are adding another argument regarding how the projects are funded, and all that does is obfuscate your original argument.

Well, okay, I guess then it comes down to how "practical" is defined. Substitute the word "economical" for "practical" and you may be able to see my point.

Yes, solar energy works, but at what cost? Like wind power, it must be backed up by a reliable source for times when there is no sunlight (on average, at least half the time) unless you are willing to tolerate intermittent power outages. One of the other major problems with solar and wind is that there is no practical (that word again) way to store the generated energy for later use.

For this reason, the kilowatt-hour cost of solar (and wind) has proved to be considerably more expensive than other sources that don't have the "intermittency" problem. You pay for the complete solar generating system, then pay again for the reliable back-up system. Add one, pay for two. This has been Europe's experience with wind power as I mentioned on a previous thread.

Faced with a doubling or tripling of the cost, most people would not consider that to be practical. If the true cost is masked by a subsidy (as with ethanol) that has to be paid through other, unrelated taxes (such as an income tax), what have you gained?

Sunlight may be free, but solar-generated electricity is not. Be prepared to pay more per kilowatt-hour . . . and don't be surprised when you do. I'm not opposed to solar power, just pointing out the realities.

[The situation is similar to people who buy, say, a Civic hybrid instead of a conventional Civic. The former may give you a warm-and-fuzzy feeling, but be prepared to drive that car a long time before you recover the difference in cost through better fuel economy.]

[Steel2686]

You know what they say... If you want economy, you'll have to pay for it!

[Black97]

As I stated in my previous reply, solar and wind power will never be a base load power producer. There's no need to have a backup for it.

They can be used during peak demands which is usually during the day and early evening.

Most peak demand power produced isn't cheap either. They are usually natural gas or oil powered gas turbines that have a quick availability. So if you can eliminate some of those plants with solar and wind power you already have a winner.

[Roger in Kensington]

As I stated in my previous reply, solar and wind power will never be a base load power producer. There's no need to have a backup for it.

They can be used during peak demands which is usually during the day and early evening.

Most peak demand power produced isn't cheap either. They are usually natural gas or oil powered gas turbines that have a quick availability. So if you can eliminate some of those plants with solar and wind power you already have a winner.

Perhaps not: http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

[Wild Willy]

Yes, nuclear seems to be a proven technology- we have had plants running successfully for decades- we should have building them hand over fist during the first 'energy crisis' in the 70's- we would be talking about this now, and would be selling cheap power to the Canadians, instead of buying hydro electricity from them. At least the enviromentalists have allowed them to build a few more dams, something we aren't being allowed to do in this country any more- fact is, we are taking dams down, to 'save the snail darters'.

I don't know what the enviromentalists want- for us to live and caves and read by candle light? Heat our houses with firewood? Do they have any idea what kind of pollution that would cause? Take a look at the air quality in, say, London, in the 1880 or 1890's- not to mention the 'pollution' from all the horse drwn vehicles of the day. Eh, it is easy to criticize others, a lot harder to come up with good solutions-

[Joe 1320]

it looks like geothermal is an answer. Stop burning things ourselves and tap into the heat source already in place, the big rock we sit on.

[Black97]

Yes, nuclear seems to be a proven technology- we have had plants running successfully for decades- we should have building them hand over fist during the first 'energy crisis' in the 70's-

They were building them like crazy until Three Mile Island happened and put a damper on the nuclear industry.

Our company sold about 10 steam turbine units with 1400 MW each in the US. By the time the incident happened in Harrisburg, only two were pretty much built in Alabama. The other projects were stopped while under construction or before they even started building. None of them were ever picked up again afterwards and were sold as scrap.

Only the two in Alabama are being talked about again to have them modernized and eventually started.