Germany is cutting solar-power subsidies because they are expensive and inefficient

I'm not asking for a date. I'm asking you to justify your position with an intellectual argument of some sort. Thus far, you have failed miserably.

 

Still following me around? No means no dude.

 

I can't find a manufacturer listed for the Cresent Dunes Solar Energy Project heliostat supplier. If it was supposed to be Stirling Energy, they filed bankruptcy.

Solar and wind lead to a costly, and basically unnecessary, dual power structure.

 

Solar energy makes far less sense in central Europe than it does in Cali. Western manufacturers have faced financial difficulties when subsidies have been withdrawn because technological advancements have reduced the price of solar and there are numerous allegations of dumping by China.

The United States should defend itself from predatory dumping by other countries.

 

If you're incapable of answering the question, just let me know and I'll stop asking you to answering it.

 

The cost per MW to build Solar is comparable with Nuclear, except Nuclear runs 24/7 regardless of climate or weather. As we build more of the the price will come down dramatically because of standardization. You can build the same reactor in Maine and Washington State that you build in Texas.

 

Well, professor, before I embark on a generating project I look at average cost per MW of GENERATED electricity. That's the bottom line. If that number doesn't make sense don't build. If it makes sense then build. I would much rather have a solar install that costs half as much per a generated MW than a nuke that costs twice as much per a generated MW but runs all day. I don't know why everyone is fixated on all these little things. Bottom line is your cost of each MW actually generated and used.

 

You don't know what your talking about do the math.

392 megawatts for solar power for $2.2 Billion dollars or 2200 megawatts of nuclear power for $14 billion.

Of course the Nuke doesn't need a dual system as back up either in case the weather doesn't cooperate.

 

How does that contradict ANYTHING I just said, Professor?

 

Let's see some proof chief.

 

What proof. You would rather pay twice as much per a MW because you get to generate twice the amount?!

That's like those internet companies that double their revenue but lose money on everything they sell.

 

I think part of the problem (and I am only trusting this to my sketchy memory, lol) is that China and the US are to biggest "sellers" of green tech to numerous countries, which may explain why Obama admin keep pitching it, despite some countries now finding out it is incredibly expensive and the projected green jobs are illusionary.

The target purchasers are catching on...but the salesmen aren't going to quicken anyone along to the truth of the matter.

 

Do the math, you are very wrong as usual.

Solar

$2,200,000,000 / 392 mWh production maximum = $5,612,244 cost per mWh production to build.

Nuclear

$14,000,000,000 / 2200 mWh production maximum = $6,363,636. cost per mWh production to build.

As everyone can clearly see it costs only marginally more to build 24/7 Nuclear power per mWh than to build part time novelty power that needs other production plants to back it up when the hunk of crap can't produce power due to climate.

 

I believe it's China (solar) and India (wind turbines).

 

Professor it has been demonstrated time and time again that you and your friends simply do not have a grasp of this subject matter.

When I did my rather extensive research on distributed networks I didn't care what my parents' local utility was using to generate their power. It was immaterial as far as cost. I just looked at a few electric bills spanning a few years to get an idea of how much they were paying for a KWh for peak and off peak. That is the ONLY number you need to figure out the cost of purchasing your electricity from your local utility. All your internet links are pointless. If you send me a copy of some of your utility bills I will tell you your cost.

When it comes to determining cost per KWh for your solar install you just figure out average number of sunny hours, partly sunny hours, and cloudy hours during the day. Then you use the efficiency data for the solar cells you are interested in to get an estimate of how much electricity you will generate. If where you live is like most a lot of states you will be generating a lot in the middle of the day when you are not home. This is actually good because you are selling back to the grid at peak prices. The first few hours when you come home in the evening you will be using a mix of solar and grid power. It will still be peak until maybe 8pm. Overnight when there is no sun and you are not generating you are drawing power at reduced off peak prices. Most of the time during the week when you are at home you are drawing power off peak at reduced prices. During the day you are generating and selling at peak prices. You actually don't need to generate 100% of your electric needs to end up with a big ZERO on your electric bill. That is what your amateurish analysis failed to take into consideration. And of course you add in tax credits and subsidies to get your final out of pocket cost.

By the way my cartoonish nuke vs solar example was to illustrate a point which was obviously completely lost on you, Professor. Ability to run 24/7 does not automatically equally more profitable.

 

Gotcha! If you have to keep a back up system up and ready at all times the cost is almost double my friend.

I eliminated all your unattributed crapola because you refuse to back up your assertions with any links, what you say is taken as meaningless drivel.

 

The grid is you "back up system." You obviously don't understand the concept of a peaker plant. Plenty of people choose to run peakers because for them it is more profitable than running their plant 24/7. Some technologies are not peaker compatible. Their start up and shut down times are too long and/or complicated. And some experience wear and tear with each start/stop cycle. Sufficed to say every grid needs some kind of "peaking" capacity. No moron would build a system where 100% of the generators run 100% of the time. Where do you get these ideas?

Professor, it's a complicated subject. If you don't want to give it the appropriate amount of mental energy that's fine. Just stop barking at those of us who are interested in having an intelligent discussion.

 

Linky.

Questions?

 

From the heat stored in the molten salt tanks obviously

Why is storing heat inefficient?

It doesn't involve the inefficiencies inherent extrating and processing coal, transporting coal, managing waste and rehabilitation of minesites and the generally uncosted externalities involved in coal fired emissions

No - solar thermal plants with heat storage operate at night

Look at how solar thermal with storage actually operates and you wouldn't have to ask these silly questions.


Solar thermal provides baseload power 24/7. And it can provide on-demand power to meet peak demands. Something that coal and nuclear cannot do.

All commercial large-scale solar thermal plants currently heat oil, molten salt or water to generate steam. The steam powers a turbine, which in turn spins an electric generator to create AC (alternative current) power. From the point at which the steam is generated, a CST plant is identical to a coal, gas or nuclear plant in its operating principal. CST solar plants are distinguished by how that steam is generated in the first place.

The latest generation CST plants use molten salt energy storage and can maintain full turbine output for between 7.5 and 15 h straight, without any sunlight at all. While the use of molten salt storage as a ‘battery’ is not an entirely new concept, it is the demonstration at scale that is of interest. It overcomes variable electricity supply, a key barrier facing other renewable energy technologies.
http://www.ecosmagazine.com/paper/EC10095.htm

 

Building a mirror isn't particularly hi-tech

Making stuff up is really not an effective way to argue

 

Solar thermal with storage runs 24/7 - with an ability to meet on-demand peak loads that nuclear cannot do


Solar thermal power, or concentrated solar power, can utilize systems of efficient thermal energy storage. It is possible to design these systems to be dispatchable on roughly equivalent timeframes to natural gas turbines.

On the slower end we have things like most biomass, nuclear, or coal plants, which can take hours to change their energy output significantly.
http://www.visionofearth.org/indust...ewables-deliver-dispatchable-power-on-demand/

As we build more solar thermal with storage plants the the price will come down dramatically because of standardisation.

But without ongoing fuels costs, waste disposal issues, decommissioning issues, mine tailings management issues and the need for gross over-engineering of facilities due to inherent risks.

 

Solar thermal with storage does not need other production plants to back it up when it can't produce power due to climate (i think you mean "weather").

Please stop trying to discuss something until you actually understand what it is

 

A back-up fuel source to ensure salt remains at production temperatures does not double costs.

Please stop making things up.


Making water hot to turn a turbine is not rocket science. Coal and nuclear are not the only ways to do it. In fact - they are very poor ways of doing it since they are inefficient and produce excessive waste

 

Great comments, Professor Peabody.

Thanks for sharing!

You can always spot blowhards in this group. They never provide reliable sources to back up their made-up assertions!

 

My god James. You are an incredibly blind partisan hack if what you posted is what you actually believe. PP has been thoroughly owned in this thread. Science owns RW talking points every time.