Comment Re:Ahh, but who said anything about solar cells? (Score 1) 1615
Cost to build a solar thermal plant is currently $2 to $3 per watt, resulting in a cost of 9 to 12 cents per kWh delivered. Reference. That's in contrast to 2.5 to 5 cents per kWh for gas or coal plants. Expected advances (within the next few decades) should bring the solar cost down to 4 to 5 cents.
You said that system inefficiencies (batteries, inverters, etc.) are not applicable to solar thermal plants. How so? Thermal storage requires energy transfer, and converting heat to electricity isn't 100% efficient. You'll also need inverters and step-up transformers to get any generated electricity to the grid. The literature isn't terribly clear on whether "transmission line losses" include the losses you incur in converting your source's power stream into alternating current at whatever frequency and voltage the grid is expecting.
I didn't want to imply that solar plants (photovoltaic or solar thermal) should be dismissed out of hand. I was more laughing at the idea of covering the entire state of Arizona with solar cells. I'll will admit that I did get a little carried away.
I think solar can become an important part of our energy needs, but I doubt that it will become the major source or even a primary source in the near future.
It's unfortunate that I fucked up the math by a factor of 1,000 (the hazards of using a calculator rather than writing the stuff down). Fortunately I screwed up uniformly, so the cost numbers match the generation numbers.
The system we're talking about, using my wildly optimistic numbers and covering 5% of the state (340 million kWh) is roughly equivalent to a 15,000 Megawatt power plant. That's about four times as much power as is generated by the Palo Verde nuclear plant west of Phoenix.
In any event, even covering 5% of Arizona (that'd be 5,700 square miles, probably about the size of the military training ground there between Gila Bend and Yuma) would have some serious environmental effects.
I can see it now...
Protestor: "No Nukes!"
Advocate: "Would you rather build four nuclear plants, or permanently destroy 5,700 square miles of pristine desert by covering it with mirrors?"
You said that system inefficiencies (batteries, inverters, etc.) are not applicable to solar thermal plants. How so? Thermal storage requires energy transfer, and converting heat to electricity isn't 100% efficient. You'll also need inverters and step-up transformers to get any generated electricity to the grid. The literature isn't terribly clear on whether "transmission line losses" include the losses you incur in converting your source's power stream into alternating current at whatever frequency and voltage the grid is expecting.
I didn't want to imply that solar plants (photovoltaic or solar thermal) should be dismissed out of hand. I was more laughing at the idea of covering the entire state of Arizona with solar cells. I'll will admit that I did get a little carried away.
I think solar can become an important part of our energy needs, but I doubt that it will become the major source or even a primary source in the near future.
It's unfortunate that I fucked up the math by a factor of 1,000 (the hazards of using a calculator rather than writing the stuff down). Fortunately I screwed up uniformly, so the cost numbers match the generation numbers.
The system we're talking about, using my wildly optimistic numbers and covering 5% of the state (340 million kWh) is roughly equivalent to a 15,000 Megawatt power plant. That's about four times as much power as is generated by the Palo Verde nuclear plant west of Phoenix.
In any event, even covering 5% of Arizona (that'd be 5,700 square miles, probably about the size of the military training ground there between Gila Bend and Yuma) would have some serious environmental effects.
I can see it now...
Protestor: "No Nukes!"
Advocate: "Would you rather build four nuclear plants, or permanently destroy 5,700 square miles of pristine desert by covering it with mirrors?"
