Solar - Green?

[widefat]

The tech behind solar power has grown by leaps over the last few years. The systems are more efficient, the panels are cheaper, and the energy produced is clean.
All is good right? Solar is the answer?

Central Va. has been invaded by companies wanting to drop solar plants on large tracts of undeveloped land. Here is one example -

Citizens group urges Culpeper board to reject Cricket Solar project | Business | starexponent.com

1300 acres of panels that will turn a beautiful area into a industrial nightmare.

Thoughts?

 

[shooterdon]

I feel the same about wind mills. Years ago saw a line of them polluting a mountain ridge...believe it was in KY or TN.

I am not convinced they offer cost savings or a decent ROI. I priced out a solar system three years ago and it was a very long time (over 10 years) to breakeven.

 

[widefat]

I feel the same about wind mills. Years ago saw a line of them polluting a mountain ridge...believe it was in KY or TN.

I am not convinced they offer cost savings or a decent ROI. I priced out a solar system three years ago and it was a very long time (over 10 years) to breakeven.

Absolutely - the environmental groups in my area push hard on solar for the home. What they don't tell you is the length of time to get ROI.
Also in my area - I am close enough to that crap-pot Northern Va area that these huge solar farms are an excellent commercial investment. NOVA is exploding with Data Centers; they have to get power from somewhere.

 

[KennyG]

This is going to continue to be a very contentious topic. One of the problems is that we really can't easily compare the costs of power generation. Almost all forms of electric generation are provided with subsidies that may or may not be obvious. These include support for production of equipment, direct price supports and favorable tax treatment.

In addition, there are policies and infrastructure support that are not easily identified as subsidies. Renewable energy often gets a "mandate to purchase" meaning a utility has to buy all the power whether it needs it or not and whether it is the cheapest option. New facilities of all types often locate near existing transmission lines to minimize their installation costs at the expense of existing plants. Because of the intermittent nature of solar and wind, they require gas or coal plants to be built and then underutilized, resulting in higher overall costs. Until some type of storage becomes feasible, this cost will exist, and even if we have storage, it will be a significant cost to be added to solar.

Finally, we don't have a good way to include external costs. Nuclear plants have a specific part of the electric rate that goes to decommissioning and waste disposal. Coal plants typically don't have clear funding for long term ash disposal. Fossil fuel plants, in general, don't address long term emission costs. As noted above, most renewable projects take large amounts of land and completely transform the natural landscape.

The recent advances in wind and solar area impressive, but the politicians and activists who see an all-renewable future are looking through rose colored glasses. My guess is we are nearing saturation in some areas with wind and solar.

 

[Egon]

If we could eliminate those unsightly urban conglomeration’s of asphalt, steel and concrete the number of unsightly electrical producing areas could be reduced.

Eliminate the requirement and the requirement services will be eliminated!

 

[LD48750]

How much "fossil fuel" was used to produce and install these solar & wind free energy sources?

 

[shooterdon]

If we could eliminate those unsightly urban conglomeration’s of asphalt, steel and concrete the number of unsightly electrical producing areas could be reduced.

Eliminate the requirement and the requirement services will be eliminated!

It would be more efficient to eliminate the populations of those "conglomerations". Neutron bombs perhaps???

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Don't forget; electrical companies are public utilities, and at least in this state, in return for intense regulation, are guaranteed a "reasonable" profit. I think solar power is best implemented through installation on each individual unit, bypassing the big generating stations, but then the utility has much less control. And yes, I think for the most part subsidies to wind power, etc. are mostly political scams; the R&D is essential, but it should be the job of the utilities to do this. It is deductible, you know.

 

[cqaigy2]

How much "fossil fuel" was used to produce and install these solar & wind free energy sources?

I was wondering the same thing when driving by a coal power plant in Wyoming. It was huge, with miles of train cars full of coal, going in and miles of empty cars going out. How much fossil fuel to create and maintain? Also thought how wonderful it would be to live next door to it.

 

[CobyRupert]

The tech behind solar power has grown by leaps over the last few years. The systems are more efficient, the panels are cheaper, and the energy produced is clean.
All is good right? Solar is the answer?

Central Va. has been invaded....

1300 acres of panels that will turn a beautiful area into a industrial nightmare.

Thoughts?

Industrial nightmare?

Compared to what?: Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima? Coal Plants? Acid rain-dead lakes (NY has many, partially due to Ohio coal plants). Fracking?

Seem to me I've heard a thing or two about West Virginia (Virginia?) having some mountain top removals for coal. The run-off. Streams contaminated. Slag. You may not like panels, and can argue the economics, their environmental impact (in their use (replacement of other sources) and their manufacturer), effect on grid stability, etc... but I wouldn't call them industrial nightmares. :2cents:

 

[EddieWalker]

From what I understand, every Green Energy type of system out there relies on Federal Funds to make it happen. They never make money, they never break even. When the tax payers stops supporting them, they go bankrupt or just stop operating. California has huge wind farms that are falling apart because it costs too much to keep them running without Federal Funds. I also believe that these Green Energy places are created from lobbyist that make money off of creating these things, which is why they are pushed for so hard.

The day that the technology actually works, the Federal Government wont have to pay for it. As long as the Federal Government pays for old technology that doesn't work, the people making it will continue to sell it.

Is there a single coal or oil based power plant that has been closed and replaced by Green Energy? or do we keep the coal and oil based power plants running because they are reliable and profitable while the Green Energy plants do their thing for awhile, and then close down?

I think that some people confuse home solar systems to the big Federally funded plants and think that they are similar.

The big solar plant in the Mojave Desert requires massive amounts of Natural Gas to warm up the solar cells every morning that costs more then the solar cells generate during the course of the day when they are working. It has never come close to breaking even, and the cost of building it is a total write off.

 

[JamesHW]

I thought I would tout a new promising technology that gets energy from the sun in a very different way from solar electric panels. M.O.S.T (Molecular Solar Thermal Energy Storage) combines a photochemical and thermochemical systems that when exposed to sunlight can acquire energy from the sun and store it for up to 18 years using no special technology. In working devices they have exposed the liquid containing the energized molecules to a catalyst and the isomer reverts to its prior state, releasing energy in the form of heat, currently an increase of 63 degrees Celsius (145 degrees Fahrenheit). So if the liquid containing the energized isomer is stored at 70 degrees Fahrenheit, then the resulting heated liquid will achieve 215 degrees. Currently the molecule reacts only to the blue and UV spectrum, though that is expected to widen to adjacent spectrum as the tech improves the scientists expect to see higher temperature output in the foreseeable future and commercial applications in less than 10 years.

My take is a liquid made from off the shelf technologies (no unobtanium involved) that can be easily stored until needed and can provide high heat on demand could be a game changer. A furnace using the liquid could be easily retrofitted to any house heated with hot water. Systems that use the heat to create steam can produce electricity, distill water, all sorts of uses. These days almost any industry that produces waste heat has a plant that captures that heat and generates electricity to power the plant or be sold to the grid.

Solar Storage System Saves Energy for Winter

Macroscopic heat release in a molecular solar thermal energy storage system - Energy & Environmental Science (RSC Publishing)

 

[MossRoad]

I'd rather see low to the ground solar installations VS wind farms. At least they don't look as bad. As I travel through the western part of northern Indiana, I can't help but think the wind farms look like cheesy science fiction movies from the 50's. Miles and miles and thousands of wind turbines. Never again will there be an uninterrupted view of the horizon.

 

[widefat]

Industrial nightmare?

Compared to what?: Three Mile Island/Chernobyl/Fukushima? Coal Plants? Acid rain-dead lakes (NY has many, partially due to Ohio coal plants). Fracking?

Seem to me I've heard a thing or two about West Virginia (Virginia?) having some mountain top removals for coal. The run-off. Streams contaminated. Slag. You may not like panels, and can argue the economics, their environmental impact (in their use (replacement of other sources) and their manufacturer), effect on grid stability, etc... but I wouldn't call them industrial nightmares. :2cents:

I'm not sure what your point is - Are you saying that since we screwed up in every way you listed, we should'nt worry about what we have left?

 

[LS Tractor Owner]

Quote---"Is there a single coal or oil based power plant that has been closed and replaced by Green Energy? or do we keep the coal and oil based power plants running because they are reliable and profitable while the Green Energy plants do their thing for awhile, and then close down?" -----

Yes there is... The coal fired electric generation plant in the four corners area of NM is being shut down, replaced by solar and wind generation by PNM (the major utility co.) who owns the plant. It will be an economic disaster for the locals.

 

[KennyG]

...

Is there a single coal or oil based power plant that has been closed and replaced by Green Energy? or do we keep the coal and oil based power plants running because they are reliable and profitable while the Green Energy plants do their thing for awhile, and then close down?

...

The big solar plant in the Mojave Desert requires massive amounts of Natural Gas to warm up the solar cells every morning that costs more then the solar cells generate during the course of the day when they are working. It has never come close to breaking even, and the cost of building it is a total write off.

The US has shut down a lot of coal plants over the last 10 to 15 years. They have been "kind of" replaced by wind. However, the real driver is a huge number of new natural gas plants because gas has become so cheap and they are more flexible to replace the wind plants when the wind doesn't blow.

If you are referring to the SEGS plants in California, they are solar thermal, not photoelectric, so they don't have "cells". The natural gas heats the working fluid (a heat transfer oil) when the solar reflectors don't provide enough heat. This was the original intent so the plant could operate 24 hours a day throughout the year. With the benefit of construction subsidies and low natural gas prices, this particular plant actually made money. However, it does generate a significant part of it's power from fossil fuel.

As an interesting sidelight, it was rushed into production to meet a deadline for "green energy" subsidies. When it started up it leaked the heat exchanger oil, started a fire and resulted in a minor ecological disaster from the oil spill and fire.

 

[CobyRupert]

I'm not sure what your point is - Are you saying that since we screwed up in every way you listed, we should'nt worry about what we have left?

My point was: On the "industrial nightmare" scale of energy sources, I wouldn't put solar on top of the list.

Don't worry, be happy.....

 

[widefat]

My point was: On the "industrial nightmare" scale of energy sources, I wouldn't put solar on top of the list.

Don't worry, be happy.....

Okay, I see. A mountaintop that's carved away is indeed a sad site.

Be happy? I'll try brother.

 

[Diggin It]

A few points:

Solar still needs maintenance and repair. People currently working in other industries can retrain and possibly make more money with less risk.

One solution to the solar covering green fields issue is to put the panels over other places. One plan includes covering large parking lots at shopping malls and businesses, panels overhead, parking underneath.

If the cost for home systems was reasonable, I'd go to it in a heartbeat to get away from the local utility and their frequent outages due to poor system grid maintenance.

 

[widefat]

A few points:

Solar still needs maintenance and repair. People currently working in other industries can retrain and possibly make more money with less risk.

One solution to the solar covering green fields issue is to put the panels over other places. One plan includes covering large parking lots at shopping malls and businesses, panels overhead, parking underneath.

If the cost for home systems was reasonable, I'd go to it in a heartbeat to get away from the local utility and their frequent outages due to poor system grid maintenance.

Good points! Did you ever consider going to work for your local utility? You should give it a go.