-
Website
http://venturebeat.com/ -
Original page
http://venturebeat.com/2007/04/27/secretive-silicon-valley-company-optisolar-builds-largest-solar-farm/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
In large volume? It is largely the cost of the glass, screenprints and the tco process is my guess.
No raw materials supply chain issues, and they get a long term guarantee of fixed peak rates billable for the power.
If you think there is no sun and no airconditioners running full blast in summer for your friendly Canadian neightbors (across the bridge from Detroit almost), then I am not certain what to say. I will be kind and polite.
Much nicer than to be a dismissive skeptic.
Same goes for heat during winter which in parts of Canada is often electric heat. May as well use this clean PV power during the day and save electric power plant burden when you can, some otherwise using fossil fuels.
I'd bet at 42 cents per KWH there is plenty money to be made even in Ontario esp if there are are no batteries in the equation...And even during some not so rare sunny winter days.
It seems likely to be designed as a very cost effective daytime peak supply system for sunny or overcast weather. And the fixed price long term contract is the right project closer.
I'd guess there will many more firms considering vertical business models and diving into Ontario if they have the capitalization to afford the upfront expenses, as the long term prospects are better than waiting around to make single family home sales as a business model.
Fundamentally one can observe that the real long term business model for much of cleantech is to act walk and talk like a utility with vertical integration...and possible sale of carbon credits if that ever comes around.
Not a typical VC business model but profitable btw.
Read the KOHLS deal with another supplier that will basically do the same (peak power supply) albeit far from the Ontario project.
There is considerably more merit to this than you care to admit, plus the scaling is risk and environmental burden free.
NO nuclear waste disposal, no acid rain and no CO2 emissions in the actual power generation over long term..
If only there were more projects like this and sooner than later...and fewer skeptics afraid of change....
Now if more in Calfornia used the justification of defraying offset of peak power rates for business users, the rooftops would be filled sooner at many commercial sites, but that is the conclusion KOHLS came to already...
I hope we will see the pace of large scale commercial rooftop installations pickup here and elsewhere in the US.
For one Google is doing it and more will follow with less skepticism than some might voice
Cheers....
It's not like it just stops producing electricity when something "more efficient" comes along. That argument is equivalent to those people who are always waiting for the "right time" to buy a computer, and never do because there is ALWAYS something better coming down the line. Eventually, you have to buy something, you just can't keep waiting for what the future will bring.
http://www.ebizmba.com
EVEN if you assume a 50% efficient solar cell that costs nothing, it still doesn't pay for itself, just because of hardware and maintenance costs.
Solar is a huge fricking joke. Lots of people are getting funding for this and will scam the public and make a lot of money. But in the end, 30 years from now, you may be guaranteed that solar power will still be exactly where it is now: nowhere.
Here are some points Tom (above) was missing ...
1. The electricity utilities already have paid or have sold power at rates greater than $.42 per kWh during peak demand. The reason? When local generators can't produce enough power to meet local demand they must buy at "market prices". Guess what, market prices at peak demand are astronomical! Here are some numbers you can look at for 2005. http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/pubs/marketReports/we...
Look closely at 2 things ...
- Hourly energy prices. For the weke of 2005-08-16 they were $.0917/kWh
- More importantly look at the settlement charges @ $.49/kWh
2. Peak demand for electricity matches nicely with peak output from solar power. When is peak demand? Summer time in the mid to late afternoon when those air-conditioners are blasting! If you remember the blackout a few years ago, that started around noon and the power started blinking off around 4 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_North_America...
3. When we pay for fossil fuel at the pump, is the environmental damage factored into our cost? I don't think so. Those costs are being pushed into the future. Another way to say this is, "we are subsidizing fossil fuel consumption". If you are thinking that $.42 kWh rate is a subsidy, then I guess we are leveling the playing field for solar power. That sounds fair.
4. Is solar power better in California? Yes, but we are only talking about 30% better than Ontario even though South Eastern California might get 2 to 3 times more sun. Check out this insolation map ... http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redb...
You can see clearly that SE Cali gets way more sun than Ontario but how come it doesn't translate into way more solar power production? Here is the problem ... as a PV panel heats up above 25 degress, for each degree above 25 the efficiency of the panel goes down .5%. At 40 degrees your panels are 7% less effective. That makes a big diff on a panel that is only 15% effective to begin with.
To get back to Ian's point about "40 Megawatts of solar (at peak sunshine) is equivalent to around 5 Megawatts of coal in places like Canada".
Ian, I don't know where you got this number from, but you need to check out this article http://solarfarms.org/2007/03/26/is_solar_power...
A rated 40MW solar plant at peak sunshine with a 2-axis tracking system, is about 97% efficient and will produce about 37.2MW at peak. More importantly though you need to look at yearly averages.
The first thing you need to know about coal, is that an average coal plant only operates at 33% efficiency. It's nice to think that a coal plant will operate 24 hours a day 7 days a week, but sorry bud, that's not the reality. The thermodynamic efficiency of coal plants is reduced by such things as heat loss, bacteria, and algae in the cooling water, mineral scaling, breakdowns, maintenance, and whatever other problems happen when burning coal.
For a full comparison between equivalent sized coal and solar plants read that article above and follow the math.
The best PV panels are already at 20% efficiency, so comparing that to 33% of a coal plant, right now, we aren't that far off! Also, in the lab we got solar panels working at 40%+ efficiency. So that means it's just a matter of time before solar power becomes a large component of our energy use.
Bottom line, will solar power completely replace other fuel sources? No, we still need energy at night, but solar power can become a large and economically viable portion of our electricity generation.
"People in the electric power distribution industry…those who actually know what’s going with the electrical grid…actually laugh out loud when anybody mentions solar."
The reason that most people in the electric power industry "laugh out loud" is that they do not have a clue about alternatives, and have livelihoods that are highly dependent on the status quo. This is a basic case of FUD being generated by the guys in power. I guess I would do the same thing if I were in your position...
Best,
Bud
Photovoltaic solar cells are far less costly to maintain than many other power generating means, as the repairs are very modest incremental costs and despite claims to the contrary, are easy to repair if needed.
Photovoltaics also have a rather simplified power circuitry and generating means, also making this less complex than other power systems. Simplicity makes it easy for smaller scale deployments and in no way detracts from advantages for large scale deployments. There is an advantage in easy incremental scaling.
Sorry it is less impressive than a coal fired power plant, a hydroelectric dam, or a nuclear plant, but solar PV power generation works and works well, it is just not absolute lowest apparent cost. (environmental burdens are hidden costs of many other sources of power)
Granted photovoltaics are not the cheapest means to generate power from sunlight, nor are they likely to become so just yet, as solar thermal / electric power generation seems to have a present lock in the ultimate in low cost solar generated electric power.
Yet there do not seem to be readily available small scale consumer / household solutions using solar thermal electric power generation, and this is largely due to a higher maintenance overhead compared to the non moving parts found in photovoltaics.
But in larger power installations, the mechanics(read maintenance issues) in solar thermal electric power generation are well justified - as in a size of scale for solar small to medium farms, or larger grid scale deployments. Quite attractive really.
As to solar power never being able to become cost competitive, I suspect solar thermal electric power generation is already there, or if not, is very close to cost of power of other grid scale generation, albeit that larger scale solar thermal electric deployments are rare so far.
In time, this is likely to change due to the attractive aspects of solar thermal electric power generation.
For further meaty explanations on solar thermal electric power technology, as a start please visit these 2 web sites :
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/
for some excellent information sources, albeit not restricted to electrical power generation alone.
Lastly there is the mother of all heliostat web pages
http://www.redrok.com/main.htm,
which covers all manner of information sources in solar collectors (not only for electrical power, but cogen and just thermal heating of even hot water) both small scale and large scale, with a bent towards the homebrewed small scale.
Solar photovoltaic power generation is practical now, albeit looming technology improvements of all kinds - cost reduction, and efficiency increases, will deepen photovoltaics market penetration, and solar thermal power will be heard of considerably more in the near future, due to its present large lead in cost effectiveness over photovoltaics.
Moreover, for simplicity in rooftop commercial peak rate abatement, both photovoltaics, and solar thermal electric power generation are practical now with PG&E's and other California Electric utility peak rates.
Even large scale batteries can arbitrage off peak to peak rates by nitetime charging for commercial buildings, albeit not best with lead acid batteries, and without advantages of going green...
Mr. Benson, as to implicitly hinting that nuclear is lowest cost, (or lowest maintenance costs) by your web site name, there are many hidden burdens that the taxpayer is hit with, that do not make your "inuclear" solution so appealing as you might seem to hint at.
Cleaner, less toxic and less risky technologies have their advantages which you are too quick to dismiss. Nuclear power electricity generation will and can improve, but so far the improvements are a tad far off relative to the ease of implementing solar power on modest but large scale.
Unless you happen to have the few $B in your back pocket, and a handy lead lined waste disposal location in your living room?
Before that I paid an average of $1,500-$2,000 per year for electricity. The system cost about $16,000 ($26,000 without rebates, etc). It will generate $45,000 to $60,000 of electricity over its 30 year warranteed life, and that's assuming rates don't increase at all over 30 years.
I am in the process of upgrading to solar heating which I expect will eliminate most of my gas bill as well.
The technology required to generate your own power is available, and it works great. I recommend solar electric to anybody who lives in a sunny climate. As unit costs decrease and installation becomes more plug and play, roofing contractors will get into this business, and adding electricity to your roof will become a no-brainer.
The cost of PV power today can't be expected to compete with decades-old polluting power sources. But its advantages in scalability (down to homes and cars), emissions (zero), reliability (no moving parts), distribution (Sun shines everywhere at no cost) and availability (billions of years from solar fusion) will trounce any other energy source. In time there will be economies of scale and new research (e.g. quantum dots) leading to a mature, competitive, worldwide PV industry.