Solar power costs 14 times more than a natural gas power plant

[BULLDOG]

The major drawback for the solar plant is over night storage. That isn't a surprise to anyone. Night time demand has never been the same as daytime demand. The real savings is in the amount it costs to produce each kilowatt hour of power. There is no reason why we shouldn't take advantage of that savings while we can and rely on gas fired power for the rest.

Peak power usage is just after the rush hour when everyone gets home and eats dinner. That is normally well after it gets dark. Also, heating needs are greater at night than during the day, for obvious reasons. When the capital costs of solar are 14 times greater than for natural gas, the chances that you can make it up on the fuel are zero.

The eco-freaks want to totally eliminate the use of fossil fuels. What this analysis shows is that their goal is a pipe dream.

Nobody wants to eliminate fossil fuels immediately. Everybody knows the transition will take time, but only idiots pretend that isn't the case.

You can't ever replace them 100% with solar. That's what the analysis shows. The time required for the transition is eternity. Solar will never be anything more than a boutique source of power.

You could never replace horses with cars until technology was developed to make that possible. Do you think there will never be any advances in technology?

 

[Lakhota]

Anyone who thinks solar power will ever compete economically with fossil fuels should read this article. Those who know better should also read it.

A Solar Power Plant vs. A Natural Gas Power Plant: Capital Cost – Apples to Apples

Conclusion

This back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that a solar (PV) power plant that could deliver that same results as a gas-fired power plant would cost about 14 times the gas-fired option to build. It is worth noting that the solar option cost excludes any subsidies, investment tax credits, etc, that could narrow the range, but it is obvious from this little exercise that until solar technology improves dramatically, there is little chance that it will replace natural gas as the “go-to” option for new power plants.​

Funny. Natural gas is dirt cheap right now - but fossil fuels are killing the planet. Fracking is ruining many communities and water sources - not to mention the earthquakes.

Horseshit.

Yes, your thread is horseshit...

• Dangers of Fracking
  What Goes In & Out of Hydraulic Fracking - 27k - similar pages
  Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release natural ...
• Fracking: The Dangers | Clean Water Action
  Fracking: The Dangers | Clean Water Action - 45k - similar pages
  Frackinguses a toxic chemical cocktail known as fracking fluid. Companies using fracking fluid have resisted disclosing the contents of fracking fluid, claiming ...
• Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the ...
  Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana - 104k -similar pages
  Montana fracking is still in the early stages of development compared to other states and has been described by a Texas oil ... Risks and Concerns of Fracking.
• How to Tackle Fracking in Your Community | NRDC
  How to Tackle Fracking in Your Community - 51k - similar pages
  Jan 27, 2016 ... Take fracking—a process that helps extract oil and natural gas from ... Fracking is also not immune to mishaps like dangerous and climate ...
• Fracking Controversy - Top 10 Myths About Natural Gas Drilling
  http://www.popularmechanics.com / science / energy / g161 / top-10-myths-about-natur / - 295k - similar pages
  Less than a decade ago, industry analysts and government officials fretted that the United States was in danger of running out of gas. No more. Over the past ...
• 8 Dangerous Side Effects of Fracking That the Industry Doesn't Want ...
  http://www.alternet.org / environment / 8-dangerous-side-effects... - 155k - similar pages
  Apr 28, 2015 ... With the recent confirmation by the U.S. government that the frackingprocess causes earthquakes, the list of fracking's deadly byproducts is ...
• Fracking | Food & Water Watch
  Fracking - 98k - similar pages
  Methane, a potent greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change, leaks from fracking industry sites. If Fracking Is Dangerous, Why Are We Doing It?
• Hydraulic Fracturing: How Great Is the Risk to Health? | fracking ...
  http://www.psr.org / environment-and-health / environmental-health-pol / hydraulic-fracking.html - 48k - similar pages
  Today, a fracking boom is underway in the Marcellus Shale formation that runs from New York State to ... Natural Gas: The Newest Danger for Global Warming
• Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States ...
  https://en.wikipedia.org / wiki / Environmental_impact_of_... - 393k - similar pages
  This indicates the methane emissions should not be attributed to fracking but ...... to review the potential human and environmental risks of hydraulic fracturing.
• Fracking dangers: 7 ugly reasons why wilderness lovers should be ...
  http://wilderness.org / blog / fracking-dangers-7-ugly-... - 169k - similar pages
  Feb 25, 2013... Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a technique used by the oil and gas industry to extract natural gas from rock thousands of feet underground.

More horseshit. The oil and gas industry has been doing fracking for over 50 years. It's only when it showed the prospect of defeating the schemes of the AGW cult was it claimed it was an environmental problem.

Really? What did I post that isn't true?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

And back in the old days, a "state-of-the-art" digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

True... my first TI cost well over $100.

But then again, the gov't was issuing tax credits and billions into calculator technology. The market place took care of that as semiconductor technology exploded.

 

[westwall]

Its great for off grid!

Indeed it is. However scaling it up for commercial use is where it fails.

 

[bripat9643]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

 

[amrchaos]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

You are arguing outside the main reason why fossil fuel is the cheaper energy supply!

Even with an inefficient engine--even under 40% efficiency!-- using fossil fuels is much cheaper!

 

[westwall]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

What I find amazing is the current iteration of Formula 1 race engines have attained 50% thermal efficiency. That's better than any hybrid passenger car out there by a country mile.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Now build it in the North.......how much bigger does it have to be to do the same thing.......yeah lets pave the planet in solar panels,,,,great idea

You know what the North has lots of? Wind. Amazing what you can do with that stuff.

You know what coastal areas have? Waves. There's this amazing thing called the ocean, and it produces not only onshore waves, but deep-water tidal power.

Then there's thermal. Ever been to a hot spring? Good stuff.

Only idiots think you can only employ one kind of alternative energy source in a region.

This forum is apparently replete with idiots. I wonder if all the hot air you people generate could be harvested somehow? Bet y'all generate almost as much methane as a city dump. Methane from garbage can be used as fuel.

And why is this in Politics? Is it because the idiot gasbags are ignorant, or because they need to make this a political issue? How long before Rustic posts that photo of his idol for the 4,700th time?

An equal waste of cash.....and space

 

[BULLDOG]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

Capacity and efficiency are two different things

 

[amrchaos]

And electric cars provides no bonuses either. All you done is concentrate the source of pollutants while wasting more fuel. There is inefficiency in the power plant, storage and transfer to the recharge station, and in the car itself.

You need better and cheaper tech to outperform fossil fuel.

Why not go retro and look at steam engines? They were cleaner burning and HD comparable efficiencies to diesel engines.

Hey,why not biodiesel engines? Good for recycling biowaste!

But we are not there with the clean stuff...

 

[amrchaos]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

Capacity and efficiency are two different things

Don't forget the cost of mantenence , storage and transference.

Also, hydroelectric dams are highly localized---great idea but we can't build as many as we want. Let alone get the blessings from the nature freaks!

 

[Agit8r]

Ohhhh, to build

 

[bripat9643]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

Capacity and efficiency are two different things

You're talking about the efficiency of various power sources. I'm talking about the efficiency of an electric generator. It doesn't produce power. It only converts mechanical power into electrical power.

That's what is used to convert the water stored in the reservoir back into electricity.

Learn a few things about power production and storage before you bloviate again and demonstrate how ignorant you are.

 

[bripat9643]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

You are arguing outside the main reason why fossil fuel is the cheaper energy supply!

Even with an inefficient engine--even under 40% efficiency!-- using fossil fuels is much cheaper!

You vote for Democrats, so why do you argue against the green energy schemes of the left?

 

[bripat9643]

And back in the old days, a digital calculator was the size of a suitcase and cost hundreds of dollars.

Once the efficiency reaches 100%, you can't make a solar panel any smaller for a given power output. You also can't reduce the cost of building storage like the kind envisaged in the article, and that's probably the cheapest form of storage there is. Generators are already at almost 100% efficiency.

Gas powered generators are less than 40% efficient. They might run at near or at times more than 100% of their rated capacity,but that is a totally unrelated measurement.

The heat engine is 40% efficient. The generator is close to 100% efficient. No generator can ever run at more than 100% efficiency.

What I find amazing is the current iteration of Formula 1 race engines have attained 50% thermal efficiency. That's better than any hybrid passenger car out there by a country mile.

Do you have some documentation on that?

I learned in thermodynamics that the maximum thermal efficiency of the internal combustion engine is about 40%.

 

[Mr Natural]

Only idiots think you can totally replace fossil fuels with solar or wind. Both require 100% backup with fossil fuel power because they can both go totally to zero.

So what you're saying is that forever more we're going to have to rely on fossil fuel to supply the bulk of our energy needs?

That in 1,000 years we're still going to be drilling for gas and oil?

 

[bripat9643]

Only idiots think you can totally replace fossil fuels with solar or wind. Both require 100% backup with fossil fuel power because they can both go totally to zero.

So what you're saying is that forever more we're going to have to rely on fossil fuel to supply the bulk of our energy needs?

That in 1,000 years we're still going to be drilling for gas and oil?

No, Nuclear fission and fusion can replace fossil fuels. They are 100% available. Solar and wind will never be adequate to run an industrial economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone who thinks solar power will ever compete economically with fossil fuels should read this article. Those who know better should also read it.

A Solar Power Plant vs. A Natural Gas Power Plant: Capital Cost – Apples to Apples

Conclusion

This back-of-the-envelope analysis suggests that a solar (PV) power plant that could deliver that same results as a gas-fired power plant would cost about 14 times the gas-fired option to build. It is worth noting that the solar option cost excludes any subsidies, investment tax credits, etc, that could narrow the range, but it is obvious from this little exercise that until solar technology improves dramatically, there is little chance that it will replace natural gas as the “go-to” option for new power plants.​

Okay, so maybe solar sticks to what solar does well. Why are you so keen to kill solar?

 

[Arianrhod]

Now build it in the North.......how much bigger does it have to be to do the same thing.......yeah lets pave the planet in solar panels,,,,great idea

You know what the North has lots of? Wind. Amazing what you can do with that stuff.

You know what coastal areas have? Waves. There's this amazing thing called the ocean, and it produces not only onshore waves, but deep-water tidal power.

Then there's thermal. Ever been to a hot spring? Good stuff.

Only idiots think you can only employ one kind of alternative energy source in a region.

This forum is apparently replete with idiots. I wonder if all the hot air you people generate could be harvested somehow? Bet y'all generate almost as much methane as a city dump. Methane from garbage can be used as fuel.

And why is this in Politics? Is it because the idiot gasbags are ignorant, or because they need to make this a political issue? How long before Rustic posts that photo of his idol for the 4,700th time?

Only idiots think you can totally replace fossil fuels with solar or wind. Both require 100% backup with fossil fuel power because they can both go totally to zero.

With today's technology, yeah.

And of course nothing's ever, ever going to improve.

Must take you an awfully long time to scratch out your posts in longhand.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The answer, already in the works, is the gas/solar hybrid plant.