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

[Arianrhod]

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.​

Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Solar farms simply doesn't have the adequate output to meet with current demand. The largest solar farm resides southwest of Las Vegas at a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, while one nuclear reactor has an output of at least 1000 Megawatts of electricity. For the amount of acreage a solar farm must take up, it's still far from being competitive to be seriously considered as a major supplier of our nation's power.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the one in California has surpassed the one in Nevada:

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

If energy production can be improved at the same rate as information technology, then why isn't a gasoline engine 10 million times more efficient than it was 100 years ago?

better question is why are we still using gas engines?....after 100 years you would think we would be using something much better than gas engines.....the first real rotating electric motor that actually developed remarkable mechanical output power was created in 1834....why was this not improved upon in the ensuing 182 years?...

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Tout ca, c'est du sport!" "L'avion, c'est zero!"

that was the French General Foch, in 1910, mocking the idea of using the airplane to advantage in the military.

How does solar produce power when the sun isn't shining? How does wind produce power when the wind isn't blowing? Those issues aren't subject to technical advance. They are insurmountable limits.

There are these amazing things called storage batteries. You should look into them.

How much do you think the solar panels and storage batteries would cost to provide a home with 100% power 24 hours a day?

 

[bripat9643]

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

If energy production can be improved at the same rate as information technology, then why isn't a gasoline engine 10 million times more efficient than it was 100 years ago?

better question is why are we still using gas engines?....after 100 years you would think we would be using something much better than gas engines.....the first real rotating electric motor that actually developed remarkable mechanical output power was created in 1834....why was this not improved upon in the ensuing 182 years?...

The answer is that you cannot beat fossil fuels for compact storage of energy.

 

[bripat9643]

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.​

Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Solar farms simply doesn't have the adequate output to meet with current demand. The largest solar farm resides southwest of Las Vegas at a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, while one nuclear reactor has an output of at least 1000 Megawatts of electricity. For the amount of acreage a solar farm must take up, it's still far from being competitive to be seriously considered as a major supplier of our nation's power.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the one in California has surpassed the one in Nevada:

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean the one that's about to declare bankruptcy?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

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.​

Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Solar farms simply doesn't have the adequate output to meet with current demand. The largest solar farm resides southwest of Las Vegas at a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, while one nuclear reactor has an output of at least 1000 Megawatts of electricity. For the amount of acreage a solar farm must take up, it's still far from being competitive to be seriously considered as a major supplier of our nation's power.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the one in California has surpassed the one in Nevada:

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanka for the information. Unfortunately unless they create a solar panel with a lot more capacity to generate electricity, I just don't see solar being capable of surpassing our nation's current forms of power generation in my lifetime. The land / power ratio is just not enough to recoup the initial cost and profit it tries to create.

 

[bripat9643]

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.​

Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Solar farms simply doesn't have the adequate output to meet with current demand. The largest solar farm resides southwest of Las Vegas at a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, while one nuclear reactor has an output of at least 1000 Megawatts of electricity. For the amount of acreage a solar farm must take up, it's still far from being competitive to be seriously considered as a major supplier of our nation's power.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the one in California has surpassed the one in Nevada:

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanka for the information. Unfortunately unless they create a solar panel with a lot more capacity to generate electricity, I just don't see solar being capable of surpassing our nation's current forms of power generation in my lifetime. The land / power ratio is just not enough to recoup the initial cost and profit it tries to create.

Solar panels don't work so good in places like Wisconsin.

 

[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

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!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.

"Tout ca, c'est du sport!" "L'avion, c'est zero!"

that was the French General Foch, in 1910, mocking the idea of using the airplane to advantage in the military.

How does solar produce power when the sun isn't shining? How does wind produce power when the wind isn't blowing? Those issues aren't subject to technical advance. They are insurmountable limits.

There are these amazing things called storage batteries. You should look into them.

How much do you think the solar panels and storage batteries would cost to provide a home with 100% power 24 hours a day?

I know you can buy a travel trailer with built-in solar and batteries if you're serious about going off the grid and not just whining.

 

[Arianrhod]

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.​

Cost is of no concern, when we are talking saving the planet.

Solar farms simply doesn't have the adequate output to meet with current demand. The largest solar farm resides southwest of Las Vegas at a gross capacity of 392 megawatts, while one nuclear reactor has an output of at least 1000 Megawatts of electricity. For the amount of acreage a solar farm must take up, it's still far from being competitive to be seriously considered as a major supplier of our nation's power.

Ivanpah Solar Power Facility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Actually, the one in California has surpassed the one in Nevada:

Topaz Solar Farm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You mean the one that's about to declare bankruptcy?

No.

 

[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

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.

Don't tellme what I'm talking about, especially since you don't understand it. Your attempt to misdirect the conversation doesn't cover uninformed things you have already said.

 

[bripat9643]

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!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Don't tellme what I'm talking about, especially since you don't understand it. Your attempt to misdirect the conversation doesn't cover uninformed things you have already said.

You're the one who doesn't understand it, douche bag. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. Thermodynamics is one of the courses we have to take. That's where you learn about the efficiency of various kinds of heat engines. You don't even know the difference between a generator and an engine. A generator does not produce power. It only converts mechanical power to electrical power.

Bluster isn't going to fool anyone into believing that you aren't an ignorant lying douche bag.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Tout ca, c'est du sport!" "L'avion, c'est zero!"

that was the French General Foch, in 1910, mocking the idea of using the airplane to advantage in the military.

How does solar produce power when the sun isn't shining? How does wind produce power when the wind isn't blowing? Those issues aren't subject to technical advance. They are insurmountable limits.

There are these amazing things called storage batteries. You should look into them.

How much do you think the solar panels and storage batteries would cost to provide a home with 100% power 24 hours a day?

I know you can buy a travel trailer with built-in solar and batteries if you're serious about going off the grid and not just whining.

When did I ever claim I wanted to go off the grid?

 

[BULLDOG]

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!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

Don't tellme what I'm talking about, especially since you don't understand it. Your attempt to misdirect the conversation doesn't cover uninformed things you have already said.

You're the one who doesn't understand it, douche bag. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. Thermodynamics is one of the courses we have to take. That's where you learn about the efficiency of various kinds of heat engines. You don't even know the difference between a generator and an engine. A generator does not produce power. It only converts mechanical power to electrical power.

Bluster isn't going to fool anyone into believing that you aren't an ignorant lying douche bag.

I'm sure you would know. I can see you haven't had much luck with that

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Don't tellme what I'm talking about, especially since you don't understand it. Your attempt to misdirect the conversation doesn't cover uninformed things you have already said.

You're the one who doesn't understand it, douche bag. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. Thermodynamics is one of the courses we have to take. That's where you learn about the efficiency of various kinds of heat engines. You don't even know the difference between a generator and an engine. A generator does not produce power. It only converts mechanical power to electrical power.

Bluster isn't going to fool anyone into believing that you aren't an ignorant lying douche bag.

I'm sure you would know. I can see you haven't had much luck with that

Much luck with what?

 

[bripat9643]

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!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

 

[Arianrhod]

"Tout ca, c'est du sport!" "L'avion, c'est zero!"

that was the French General Foch, in 1910, mocking the idea of using the airplane to advantage in the military.

How does solar produce power when the sun isn't shining? How does wind produce power when the wind isn't blowing? Those issues aren't subject to technical advance. They are insurmountable limits.

There are these amazing things called storage batteries. You should look into them.

How much do you think the solar panels and storage batteries would cost to provide a home with 100% power 24 hours a day?

I know you can buy a travel trailer with built-in solar and batteries if you're serious about going off the grid and not just whining.

When did I ever claim I wanted to go off the grid?

"You," generic.

 

[Arianrhod]

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!

I don't know of anybody advocating for only one source of energy for all purposes, except for fossil fuel advocates. A reasonable plan for energy usage would include a wide range of things. Only an idiot would say this isn't the best time to start developing and using at least the most promising of the possibilities. We will need better sources of energy, but that won't happen if the possibilities are not explored.

You can use any source of energy you want so long as you don't force me to use it, but that's what you AGW cult members want. You want everyone to pay for your boondoggles.

Right. Everybody is really concerned about what kind of energy you, in particular, use. I didn't realize you were so important.

You mean you aren't proposing to make me pay subsidies for Solar and Wind or impose requirements that power companies switch to these sources of power?

The whole AGW scam is designed to control the kind of energy I use. Who are you trying to kid?

Not sure you can afford to, since you're already paying subsidies for petroleum and ethanol, not to mention WalMart.