Solving The Space Problem For America’s Solar Industry

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Interesting LCOE for different fuel sources

 

 

Ah, BS numbers put out by those making them... No one actually running said systems have LCOE numbers even close to this BS graph.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, BS numbers put out by those making them... No one actually running said systems have LCOE numbers even close to this BS graph.

Just another Green Activist propaganda group and more. Go figure.

https://twitter.com/guinnessgi?lang=en

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[notsonice + 1,063]

4 hours ago, NickW said:

Interesting LCOE for different fuel sources

 

 

great chart....

Mr Magoo do you need someone to tell you what it means????

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, BS numbers put out by those making them... No one actually running said systems have LCOE numbers even close to this BS graph.

I bet you do though. 

You are the sort of person who knows exactly what corporate America is doing wrong and knows exactly how to put things right. 

Simultaneously though you struggle to meet the repayments on a base model Ford. 😄

The  LCOE will be for installations commissioned on the date. So of course a wind farm commissioned in 2010 wont have the same LCOE as one commissioned in 2020. 

Edited May 17, 2023 by NickW

[NickW + 2,714]

3 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Ah, BS numbers put out by those making them... No one actually running said systems have LCOE numbers even close to this BS graph.

Just priced my domestic solar PV system I put in in 2022. Over a 25 year period (includes replacing the inverters* at some point and an allowance for panel decline) the cost per Kwh is about 11.5 cents (US) and thats in cloudy England. 

* The smaller inverters I have for my older small system are 16 years old and going fine. 

[notsonice + 1,063]

28 minutes ago, NickW said:

Just priced my domestic solar PV system I put in in 2022. Over a 25 year period (includes replacing the inverters* at some point and an allowance for panel decline) the cost per Kwh is about 11.5 cents (US) and thats in cloudy England. 

* The smaller inverters I have for my older small system are 16 years old and going fine. 

11.5 cents........

with all the add ons in the US you will be lucky to get Coal fired power delivered at a rate of less than 15 cents........ non peak and peak power.....30 cents

no sunshine and you still beat the price for Coal fired power in the US.....

wonder what  Foot in the Mouth pays??????

[turbguy + 1,391]

On 5/16/2023 at 11:21 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Mr Magoo...lmao your dating yourself. At your age you by now now well the dangers of obsessive behavior, for example below ends the entire green dream obsessions. Such a waste of assets and time.

Electricity Prices Plunge By 75% As Finland Opens New Nuclear Power Plant

 

https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Electricity-Prices-Plunge-By-75-As-Finland-Opens-New-Nuclear-Power-Plant.html

Gee, 1,600 Mw capacity for only €11 BILLION!

That's only about €6,875/Kw.

...or, about $7444/Kw.

Bargain?  WASTE OF ASSETS AND TIME??

For a comparison, on-shore Wind power is about $1500/Kw installed (2021).

Wind capacity factor, about 30%.

Nuc capacity factor, about 95%

I will leave the math to you.

At least it emits no CO2.  BUT, it requires a lot of water (to throw away 65% of the reactor's output), fuel, and a LOT more "heads per Mw".

Edited May 17, 2023 by turbguy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

15 hours ago, turbguy said:

Gee, 1,600 Mw capacity for only €11 BILLION!

That's only about €6,875/Kw.

...or, about $7444/Kw.

Bargain?  WASTE OF ASSETS AND TIME??

For a comparison, on-shore Wind power is about $1500/Kw installed (2021).

Wind capacity factor, about 30%.

Nuc capacity factor, about 95%

I will leave the math to you.

At least it emits no CO2.  BUT, it requires a lot of water (to throw away 65% of the reactor's output), fuel, and a LOT more "heads per Mw".

Gee....

No batteries required.

No need for a new grid

Brown outs don't happen

24/7 reliability 

Lower cost

Higher ROI

I'm a owner...save your pencils for artwork...I have a distinct feeling the core shift has occurred already...LMAO 

Edited May 18, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, notsonice said:

11.5 cents........

with all the add ons in the US you will be lucky to get Coal fired power delivered at a rate of less than 15 cents........ non peak and peak power.....30 cents

no sunshine and you still beat the price for Coal fired power in the US.....

wonder what  Foot in the Mouth pays??????

I only have to compete with retail rates which include VAT which is equivalent of about 42c / kwh.

Due to the situation with Russia when I installed I deliberately put in disconnects for I can directly charge batteries if need be in the event we had long duration winter power cuts. I have about 400 ah (12V) of batteries stored in the garage over winter. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, turbguy said:

Gee, 1,600 Mw capacity for only €11 BILLION!

That's only about €6,875/Kw.

...or, about $7444/Kw.

Bargain?  WASTE OF ASSETS AND TIME??

For a comparison, on-shore Wind power is about $1500/Kw installed (2021).

Wind capacity factor, about 30%.

Nuc capacity factor, about 95%

I will leave the math to you.

At least it emits no CO2.  BUT, it requires a lot of water (to throw away 65% of the reactor's output), fuel, and a LOT more "heads per Mw".

To be fair Finland is a cold country with peak winter electricity demand so it needs baseload like that power station. 

The advantage is it no longer needs to import Russian coal or Gas and nuclear fuel is easier to store. The annual  fuel load for that station is about the size of a double decker bus in terms of volume so in theory you can stores years of fuel in advance. 

Its also a very big country geographically and can do lots of wind. It currently has about 5.6GW. It has moderate amounts of Hydro and is well interconnected with Sweden and therefore mainland Europe, Estonia and Norway. 

[NickW + 2,714]

10 hours ago, notsonice said:

11.5 cents........

with all the add ons in the US you will be lucky to get Coal fired power delivered at a rate of less than 15 cents........ non peak and peak power.....30 cents

no sunshine and you still beat the price for Coal fired power in the US.....

wonder what  Foot in the Mouth pays??????

Well last couple of weeks we have had cold sunny weather - the solar output has been through the roof. Currently any surplus is diverted to heat hot water. That will diminish significantly when the EV arrives in August. 

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

11 hours ago, notsonice said:

wonder what  Foot in the Mouth pays??????

Isn't foot and mouth a disease?

Certainly unpleasant anyway, I suggest he gets some treatment!

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

9 hours ago, turbguy said:

Gee, 1,600 Mw capacity for only €11 BILLION!

That's only about €6,875/Kw.

...or, about $7444/Kw.

Bargain?  WASTE OF ASSETS AND TIME??

For a comparison, on-shore Wind power is about $1500/Kw installed (2021).

Wind capacity factor, about 30%.

Nuc capacity factor, about 95%

I will leave the math to you.

At least it emits no CO2.  BUT, it requires a lot of water (to throw away 65% of the reactor's output), fuel, and a LOT more "heads per Mw".

Youre also forgetting the massive decommissioning costs involved with nuclear!

That being said I believe we currently need both forms of powergen

Edited May 18, 2023 by Rob Plant

[NickW + 2,714]

On 5/18/2023 at 10:09 AM, Rob Plant said:

Youre also forgetting the massive decommissioning costs involved with nuclear!

That being said I believe we currently need both forms of powergen

For cold northern industrial countries without the benefits of large amounts of Hydro / Geothermal you need baseload plant - thats either going to nuclear, coal or gas. 

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

For cold northern industrial countries without the benefits of large amounts of Hydro / Geothermal you need baseload plant - thats either going to nuclear, coal or gas. 

Agreed Nick but we were discussing releative costs not what is required and where geographically

[Ron Wagner + 642]

On 5/8/2023 at 11:15 AM, Meredith Poor said:

"Solar farms need huge tracts of land to operate at scale, and there is often fierce competition for those parcels, driving up prices for solar developers"....

Dividing the population of the US by 2.5 persons per household yields 133 million households in the US. Multiplying 133 million by 6000 square feet (the size of an average suburban plot of land) yields essentially 800 billion square feet occupied by a single family home 'primary residence'. This does not account for high-rise multifamily living or space used for streets, schools, businesses, etc. but it helps bring land use into perspective.

A square mile is 5280 x 5280 feet, or roughly 28 million square feet. Dividing 800,000,000,000 by 28,000,000 yields around 28,600 square miles. A 'standard' county is about 40 miles by 40 miles, or 1600 square miles, however most counties don't quite get that large. Dividing 28,600 by 1600 square miles yields slightly less than 18 counties. Taking the square root of 28,600 yields a distance of roughly 170 miles. Therefore a square 170 miles by 170 miles within the US would be enough to house everyone living in the country. The 'lower 48 states' is roughly 3000 miles east to west times 1500 miles north to south, or about 4,500,000 square miles. Texas alone is roughly 800 miles x 800 miles.

More than one million square miles of land in the United States is used for either cattle pasture or growing forage for livestock (soybeans, alfalfa, hay, etc.). The combination of 'lab grown meat' (meaning meat equivalent cultured in vats), 'milk' produced by microorganisms, and leather substitute cultured from bacteria puts livestock on the list of industries targeted for downsizing. All of this already exists - none of it is speculative.

If the typical home allocates 500 square feet per resident, then the 'average' home is 1250 square feet. Each resident needs about 30Kwh of electricity per day, which translates into 6000 watts of solar panels, or roughly 300 square feet (6000 watts x 5 hours = 30Kwh). Therefore, the home should have 750 square feet of panels. In the bigger picture, this means that the area used by panels is less than the area occupied by the resident within the home, not to mention the area of the housing lot.

The biggest 'waste of space' in urban areas is parking lots. Other bits of urban real estate that might be attractive for covering with solar panels are drainage ditches and/or power line right of ways. In rainier areas land is set aside for retention ponds, which could also be covered. This is before any discussion of abandoned houses or 'second homes' used by snow birds, etc.

The US has plenty of room for panels. These panels could be situated entirely within urban areas and still be adequate to power the entire country. However, the 'best use' is, most likely, in conjunction with agriculture, since it has been demonstrated repeatedly that solar panels actually enhance agricultural productivity.

Flat roof warehouses, big box stores etc. are possibly the easiest way to go. Unfortunately Walmart and others have had fire problems with them for some reason. 

[TailingsPond + 461]

3 hours ago, Ron Wagner said:

Flat roof warehouses, big box stores etc. are possibly the easiest way to go. Unfortunately Walmart and others have had fire problems with them for some reason. 

Yeah, stick to fossil fuels which have never had fire problems...

[Paul-S + 8]

On 5/17/2023 at 1:30 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Just another Green Activist propaganda group and more. Go figure.

https://twitter.com/guinnessgi?lang=en

 

So show us your source of data that refutes this. Here, I have one... 

1. The source of solar energy—the sun—is nearly limitless and can be accessed anywhere on earth at one time or another. It would take around 10 million acres of land—or only 0.4% of the area of the United States—to allow enough space for solar photovoltaics (PV) to supply all of our nation’s electricity.   https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/top-reasons-solar-energy

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

5 hours ago, Paul-S said:

So show us your source of data that refutes this. Here, I have one... 

1. The source of solar energy—the sun—is nearly limitless and can be accessed anywhere on earth at one time or another. It would take around 10 million acres of land—or only 0.4% of the area of the United States—to allow enough space for solar photovoltaics (PV) to supply all of our nation’s electricity.   https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/top-reasons-solar-energy

I must say...a deep vein of brilliance runs quite deep in you. One green propaganda site after another and you ask for proof of concept. 

 

[turbguy + 1,391]

On 5/17/2023 at 8:29 PM, Eyes Wide Open said:

Gee....

No batteries required.

No need for a new grid

Brown outs don't happen

24/7 reliability 

Lower cost

Higher ROI

I'm a owner...save your pencils for artwork...I have a distinct feeling the core shift has occurred already...LMAO 

Unless they planned the transmission system for the additional output of that plant in advance of the other two units at the site, they had to upgrade the existing grid.

Nuclear plants do scram.  And that's a BIG unit for the system to handle the sudden loss of.

First cost is astronomical.

Now, O&M??

1. Wind Power O&M Costs: Wind turbines require periodic maintenance, including inspections, repairs, and component replacements. The O&M costs for wind power primarily involve routine maintenance, such as lubrication, cleaning, and monitoring. Wind farms typically have multiple turbines, and their O&M costs are distributed across the entire fleet, which can help reduce individual costs per turbine.

2. Nuclear Power O&M Costs: Nuclear power plants are highly complex and have extensive safety measures, which contribute to higher O&M costs. Nuclear plants require regular inspections, testing, and maintenance to ensure the safe operation of the reactors and related systems. Additionally, nuclear power plants produce hazardous waste that needs careful management and disposal, adding to the overall costs.

3. Staffing Requirements: Nuclear power plants require a substantial workforce (trained operators, technicians, and engineers) due to the complexity of nuclear operations and the need for stringent safety protocols. The higher number of personnel contributes to the higher O&M costs of nuclear power. Wind farms generally require fewer personnel to operate and maintain the turbines.

4. Technological Advancements: Wind power technology has been advancing rapidly, leading to improved turbine reliability, longer component lifespans, and reduced maintenance requirements. These advancements have lowered the O&M costs associated with wind power. The nuclear industry has seen fewer significant technological advancements in recent years, which makes it challenging to reduce O&M cost

ROI?  Lower?  Source??

Wind power projects typically have FAR lower initial capital costs compared to nuclear plants. The cost of wind technology has been continuously decreasing, making wind power more cost-effective. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, have complex designs, stringent safety measures, and long construction timelines (higher upfront costs).  Plus long term de-commissioning and waste management costs.

Wind power projects generally have a shorter payback period compared to nuclear power plants. Wind turbines can begin generating revenue relatively quickly after installation, while nuclear power plants have MUCH longer construction timelines, delaying revenue generation.

 

 

[specinho + 439]

On 5/20/2023 at 7:40 AM, Ron Wagner said:

Flat roof warehouses, big box stores etc. are possibly the easiest way to go. Unfortunately Walmart and others have had fire problems with them for some reason. 

Saw an image somewhere... The photo shows a potential installation of solar panels on each glass window of a high rise, in China. 

In other words, besides commonly used roof top of houses and flat top, four sides of glass windowed high rises are being considered. 

Germany is testing on using solar curtains on a high rise. 

 

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

10 hours ago, turbguy said:

Unless they planned the transmission system for the additional output of that plant in advance of the other two units at the site, they had to upgrade the existing grid.

Nuclear plants do scram.  And that's a BIG unit for the system to handle the sudden loss of.

First cost is astronomical.

Now, O&M??

1. Wind Power O&M Costs: Wind turbines require periodic maintenance, including inspections, repairs, and component replacements. The O&M costs for wind power primarily involve routine maintenance, such as lubrication, cleaning, and monitoring. Wind farms typically have multiple turbines, and their O&M costs are distributed across the entire fleet, which can help reduce individual costs per turbine.

2. Nuclear Power O&M Costs: Nuclear power plants are highly complex and have extensive safety measures, which contribute to higher O&M costs. Nuclear plants require regular inspections, testing, and maintenance to ensure the safe operation of the reactors and related systems. Additionally, nuclear power plants produce hazardous waste that needs careful management and disposal, adding to the overall costs.

3. Staffing Requirements: Nuclear power plants require a substantial workforce (trained operators, technicians, and engineers) due to the complexity of nuclear operations and the need for stringent safety protocols. The higher number of personnel contributes to the higher O&M costs of nuclear power. Wind farms generally require fewer personnel to operate and maintain the turbines.

4. Technological Advancements: Wind power technology has been advancing rapidly, leading to improved turbine reliability, longer component lifespans, and reduced maintenance requirements. These advancements have lowered the O&M costs associated with wind power. The nuclear industry has seen fewer significant technological advancements in recent years, which makes it challenging to reduce O&M cost

ROI?  Lower?  Source??

Wind power projects typically have FAR lower initial capital costs compared to nuclear plants. The cost of wind technology has been continuously decreasing, making wind power more cost-effective. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, have complex designs, stringent safety measures, and long construction timelines (higher upfront costs).  Plus long term de-commissioning and waste management costs.

Wind power projects generally have a shorter payback period compared to nuclear power plants. Wind turbines can begin generating revenue relatively quickly after installation, while nuclear power plants have MUCH longer construction timelines, delaying revenue generation.

 

 

A bit of actual history...

 France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

The new approach stands a good chance of bearing fruit, Kirkegaard concluded: “Building smaller reactors makes a lot of sense because they’re a lot quicker and easier to build”, he said. “So you’re much less likely to have building delays, and as well as that it’s much easier to find suitable locations for them because they’re a lot smaller – and that means they’re advantageous for France and especially well-suited for export to more densely populated countries like the UK.”

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need

Edited May 21, 2023 by Eyes Wide Open

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, specinho said:

Saw an image somewhere... The photo shows a potential installation of solar panels on each glass window of a high rise, in China. 

In other words, besides commonly used roof top of houses and flat top, four sides of glass windowed high rises are being considered. 

Germany is testing on using solar curtains on a high rise. 

 

As the cost of panels has fallen dramatically it becomes feasible to mount them vertically. This can be good in winter as vertical mounts are more orientated towards the position of the sun in the sky. 

An add on benefit is the panels could also help reduce air con costs by shielding the building from sunlight. 

[turbguy + 1,391]

1 hour ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A bit of actual history...

 France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

The new approach stands a good chance of bearing fruit, Kirkegaard concluded: “Building smaller reactors makes a lot of sense because they’re a lot quicker and easier to build”, he said. “So you’re much less likely to have building delays, and as well as that it’s much easier to find suitable locations for them because they’re a lot smaller – and that means they’re advantageous for France and especially well-suited for export to more densely populated countries like the UK.”

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need

A "new approach" is history??

[Rob Plant + 2,605]

18 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

A bit of actual history...

 France’s prized nuclear sector stalled in Europe’s hour of need

The new approach stands a good chance of bearing fruit, Kirkegaard concluded: “Building smaller reactors makes a lot of sense because they’re a lot quicker and easier to build”, he said. “So you’re much less likely to have building delays, and as well as that it’s much easier to find suitable locations for them because they’re a lot smaller – and that means they’re advantageous for France and especially well-suited for export to more densely populated countries like the UK.”

 

https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need

There are a number of companies designing and building small modular reactors (SMR's) however these are still very expensive circa $1.2b - $2.5b depending on which manufacturers sales pitch you believe. However because theyre modular they can be scaled up to whatever is required in that area so that makes them attractive to potential buyers.

Also there are a number of companies looking into using SMR's to power large container ships

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002954931930192X#:~:text=The mission of this system is sequenced as,mother ship%2C including the propulsion of the ship.

https://energycentral.com/c/ec/south-korean-team-develop-smr-powered-ships