Only You Can Prevent the Coming Green Backlash (solar panel, mercury, furnace)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Solar and wind compared to coal? About $24 for the renewables per megawatt while coal was 44 cents
Erm no...
The price of the coal needed to generate 1MW from coal was about 44 cents, the price of sunlight to generate 1MW from sunlight is zero. (BTW normally the term W-h is used to indicate a price of power, and I call BS on 1MW-h costing 44 cents by coal) figures I've found are for a 500MW plant 350 Metric Tonnes of coal used per hour (Aug 13 prices for coal range from $67.85/short ton to $15.00/short ton)
If you want to get technical, coal plants run to about $750-$1000 per kilowatt so you're average 500MW plant is for ease of figures $500M. Then there's the coal, then there's the ash disposal, smoke stack filter removal and replacement, carbon tariffs, all these cost money and all these increase the cost per megawatt. A Solar plant of comparable size say the proposed Topaz Solar Farm is costing $1B, twice that of a coal fired plant of 550MW, however the running costs are comparatively very low in comparison to a coal fired plant.
So your 500MW plant uses 350 tons of coal per hour (500 MW-h) we'll split the difference between Powder River coal ($15.35), and Uinta basin coal ($40.00) since the BTU of Powder river is too low for only 350 tons per hour. So call it $27.67 per ton.
So Topaz valley is rated for 1,100GW-h power generation per year. That would need 770,000 tons of coal. or $21.3M per year. Now they both have 30 year lifespans, give or take. So the cost is $639.1M in coal costs for the life of the plant.
Now remember the cost of the plant...? $500M So the plant costs $1.139B in coal and capital over the course of it's life. There are other running costs, but for the sake of argument we'll say Topaz has the same costs (This is greatly in the FAVOR of the coal plant).
So total cost of coal, $1.139B, for 1,100 GW-h per year from a 500MW coal plant
Cost of Topaz Valley $1B for 1,100 GW-h per year from a 550MW solar farm
Savings of $139M, not including the costs of ash disposal (fly and bottom ash), and flue sludge desulfurization heavy metal detoxification. Oh and a metric tonne is 2200lbs, so you're also getting 10% off for your coal.
The price of the coal needed to generate 1MW from coal was about 44 cents, the price of sunlight to generate 1MW from sunlight is zero.
So it doesn't cost anything for solar? Wohoo, where do I sign up for this free electric?
Wish it was only 44cents, that would be something eh? Thought it was clear but I was referring to the subsidies provided by the federal government in 2007:
The refined coal is either for liquid fuel conversion or something like k-fuel. Neither amounts to much if anything for electric generation, I'm not even sure if it belongs under the electric generation category. If we combine it with the the other coal category the costs rise from 44 cents to $1.50. One other interesting thing to note while solar and wind subsidies went to direct tax breaks effectively subsidizing production the lions share of the coal subsidy went to R&D.
Quote:
A Solar plant of comparable size say the proposed Topaz Solar Farm is costing $1B,
Is that the cost before or after the subsidies including both federal and state subsidies? What I'm asking is what is the total cost?
More importantly what is the utility paying for the electric? For example there was a lot of hoopla over the proposed wind farm in Mass. a few months back, what you didn't hear was the contract they signed with the distributor for 22.5 cents a kWh with a 3.5% increase every year over the 15 years of the contract. The already high rate will increase to more than 33 cents by then.
Lastly the sun doesn't shine 24/7 so is this the "up to 550mw" or average, how effective or what percentage of that 550mw compared to coal plant?
Here's why I'm skeptical, I have yet to see anything that can even come close to coal. I see these articles all the time with estimates for this and that and then when it's all said and done and you do a little research the estimates are so far off either because they have not included the subsidies or fudged something it's very hard to believe anything they say. When that wind farm in Mass was first proposed they claimed it was going to cost X amount and that it would save people money, no one is saving anything at 22 cents a kilowatt wholesale. This is going to cost people money, that's just a fact.
Last edited by thecoalman; 08-21-2010 at 02:05 AM..
Nice cherry pick, now comment on the cost breakdown, BTW how much are you currently paying for your sunlight...? Do you get charged more if you're growing tomatoes?
Arguing subsidies just muddies the waters, lets be completely frank and honest, the grid price for a kW-h of power is below the actual production costs, regardless of the generation mechanism. So we're still paying the real price, it's just not on your electricity bill. For example in the UK (with similar generation and use patterns to the US) the price per kW-h is approximately 18 cents US averages 11.9 cents. It would also be a bald faced lie to say that electrical power generation prior to 1980 received no subsidies or grants.
Here's the guidance quote from the report you linked to to help explain why it's better to ignore them...
Quote:
The differences between rankings of subsidies and support based on absolute amounts and amounts per megawatthour are driven by substantial differences in the amount of electricity generation across fuels. Capital-intensive, baseload generating technologies, such as coal-fired steam generators and nuclear generators, together produce about 70
percent of total net generation, which tends to reduce their subsidies and support per unit of production compared to the other fuel groups (Table ES5). For the same reason, electricity subsidies for solar and wind show a relatively large subsidy per unit of production, as these groups account for less than 1 percent of total net generation in the country. It is important to recognize that the subsidies-per-megawatthour calculations are a snapshot taken at a particular point in time. Some electricity sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, and natural gas, have received varying levels of subsidies and support in the past which may have aided them in reaching their current role in electricity production. The impacts of prior subsidies, some of which may no longer be in effect, are not measured in the current analysis.
That annual report by the way has been heavily criticized (for many years) for under-reporting and estimating on the subsidies from many organizations both in the US and Internationally.
The issue many people have when discussing Solar v. Fossil Fuel use the same argument, "well it cost more than twice as much to build a solar plant than a fossil plant", this ignores the running costs of fossil plants. Or alternatively does the reverse and uses capital cost of Solar and compares it to coal cost.
It comes down to the following basic business rule. How much does it cost for comparable power plants, and what is the total capital and running costs over their lifetime?
Once the initial capital investment is made on Solar the running costs are perhaps two orders of magnitude lower than a coal plant. The decommissioning costs (sometimes covered by governments) are also significantly lower (and the panels can be recycled into more panels). Here's a totally anecdotal personal example it took 10 years of environmental clean up of radio-actives (uranium and thorium), heavy metals and toxic organics before the land of a coal plant I grew up beside was able to be redeveloped IIRC the overall cost was approaching $1B. Yup burning lignite is a b*tch.
The cost breakdown I provided is as accurate as I could make it, I'm not including any subsidies can you deny my findings? Seriously I'm asking the question...
Now the current cost of Topaz is for the plant, how much First Solar is paying and how much the Fed and State are paying I have no clue although it's unlikely for them to reduce the overall publicized cost by including subsidies, for all we know the total cost to First Solar might be anywhere from $1B to ($250M) a 250M dollar return they're certainly not going to publicize that.
The Topaz 550MW is Wp (Peak use wattage) which is the same rating as a 550MW coal plant. Coal plants also do not run 24 hours a day 365 days a year. It's annual power supply is 1100 GW-h/year, now interestingly I have a list of the Solar power plants in the US, and PV generation Summer and Winter are the same, unless the plant is a Solar Thermal, and not a PV. The list is available from here.
No discussion of economics can be made without figuring in the environmental cost. Period.
What's the cost on the environment and living species of using fossil fuels versus what's the cost of using sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geo-thermal?
Environmental economics is the honest way to assess value and costs.
Why the growth of environmental economics versus old-school economics?
Just a whisper: peak oil (and coal and gas) and exponential mathematics: the remaining reserves, even with new discoveries, cannot keep up with the demands created by global population growth.
Running out time is accelerating, we're on the downhill curve. It's got nothing to do with green, it's got everything to do with survival.
It is inevitable that all this greeny gooberism will grow tiresome and people will see it as an elitist movement by people who think they are smarter than the rest of us.
I think there will be some backlash when people get tired of "green" being positioned as an act of consumerism. I know I'm annoyed by that now. I'm also irritated by some more outspoken people who have a rather openly smug attitude; just this morning at the drug store the guy in front of me held up the line while he emptied everything out of his plastic bag, handed in back to the cashier, and said something along the lines of "I don't need this; give it to someone else and help the planet." Bringing your own bags: great. I do that, too. But this was the wrong way to go about it. I didn't get to see him leave, unfortunately, but (fair or unfair) I envision this guy getting into a car and driving off, perhaps to his large home with new bamboo floors, confident that he's personally saving the planet.
I am also really, really annoyed by the massive consumerism attitude towards green living, with the idea that the "green" thing to do is to buy your way towards a more eco-friendly lifestyle. When it becomes positioned as something for the upper class consumers, then yes, I think there is risk of backlash and resentment.
I think there will be some backlash when people get tired of "green" being positioned as an act of consumerism. I know I'm annoyed by that now. I'm also irritated by some more outspoken people who have a rather openly smug attitude; just this morning at the drug store the guy in front of me held up the line while he emptied everything out of his plastic bag, handed in back to the cashier, and said something along the lines of "I don't need this; give it to someone else and help the planet." Bringing your own bags: great. I do that, too. But this was the wrong way to go about it. I didn't get to see him leave, unfortunately, but (fair or unfair) I envision this guy getting into a car and driving off, perhaps to his large home with new bamboo floors, confident that he's personally saving the planet.
I am also really, really annoyed by the massive consumerism attitude towards green living, with the idea that the "green" thing to do is to buy your way towards a more eco-friendly lifestyle. When it becomes positioned as something for the upper class consumers, then yes, I think there is risk of backlash and resentment.
The backlash will come when people can no longer afford to have the lights and AC on or when the grid goes down and they can't post on forums like this.....
Nice cherry pick, now comment on the cost breakdown,
You need the whole cost breakdown don't you? If we're going to say the plant cost $1billion but was only possible because of $1 billion in government subsidies then we don't know the true cost do we?
Interesting article here discussing First Solar it in Forbes:
Malaysia gave First Solar a 16.5-year tax holiday, and so the company built much of its manufacturing there, and the company paid just $46.2 million in income tax last year. Germany has been an aggressive subsidizer of solar power, so Germany accounted for 65% of First Solar’s sales last year. The U.S. government has been generous, too, with a 30% investment tax credit for solar installations. And the Obama Administration, as part of its economic stimulus, offered cash grants during 2009-2010 in lieu of the credits.
So this company may not even exist if it were not for Germany which has some the highest electric rates in Europe, FYI the highest rates are in Denmark which is largest producer of electric from wind as a percentage on the planet. They also manufacture more than half the windmills made. Coincidence that both these countries are heavy into renewables and have highest rates?
Getting back to the plant is the Feds giving them 30%? The next question is how much is the state giving them? Since it's California then it's substantial. We're not talking about pennies here but subsidization that can top 50% between the feds and the state and I wouldn't be so sure the quoted $1b is the total cost.
I've looked for what the contract for this electric is going to be, the only information I can find is from utility spokesman of "No comment". That's all you really need to know isn't it? If it were cheap they be tripping over themselves to let you know how cheap.
What's the cost on the environment and living species of using fossil fuels versus what's the cost of using sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geo-thermal?
<pokes self in the chest> Yep I'm alive, coal keeps me warm and cooks my dinner. The switch to renewable energy sources is inevitable, at some point in time they will become cost effective. In the meantime you don't drive the bus off the cliff.
Quote:
Just a whisper: peak oil (and coal and gas) and exponential mathematics: the remaining reserves, even with new discoveries, cannot keep up with the demands created by global population growth.
Firstly the recoverable coal reserves in this country exceed about 2 centuries at current needs, total is more than 4 centuries. While cheap oil will diminish there is plenty of resources and alternatives available. For example with our coal reserves we could meet power generation needs and all the diesel/jet fuel needs over the next century. Then there is more than trillion barrels of oil in the Green Rive formation.
While oil shale is found in many places worldwide, by far the largest deposits in the world are found in the United States in the Green River Formation, which covers portions of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. Not all resources in place are recoverable; however, even a moderate estimate of 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from oil shale in the Green River Formation is three times greater than the proven oil reserves of Saudi Arabia. Present U.S. demand for petroleum products is about 20 million barrels per day. If oil shale could be used to meet a quarter of that demand, the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil from the Green River Formation would last for more than 400 years
Neither of these resources is exploited because of cheap oil, for the coal to diesel the price per barrel needs to around $40 to $50. If you get a blip like we had in late 2007 where the prices crashed any company involved with it would go bankrupt overnight, the risk is too great so there is very little investment but that will change.
[b][i]Firstly the recoverable coal reserves in this country exceed about 2 centuries at current needs.
Gosh, I'd love to see some back-up support of these figures not supplied by the coal industry.
Estimates of the oil resource in place within the Green River Formation range from 1.2 to 1.8 trillion barrels. And how much energy does it take to extract the oil from the shale?? A very expensive and energy-eating process!
Estimates are far from the reality...where do these estimates come from? The first I've heard of this. Most oil industry experts say the U.S.'s production and not-yet-recovered oil has peaked.
It's not that I doubt your veracity but once again, "current needs" do not approach the reality of our world's rapidly developing and growing population...and the unfortunate reality of the results of our unbridled Co2 emissions on climate change.
How many more burning Moscows, flooded Pakistans and flooded U.S. Midwests, blizzard-buried U.S. Northeasts and oiled-soiled-ruined Gulfs will it take for this devastation to sink in to our consciousness??
Gosh, I'd love to see some back-up support of these figures not supplied by the coal industry.
When I post something you can pretty much guarantee I have reliable unbiased resources. Those estimates are from the EIA(Energy Information Agency) which is an arm of the Department of Energy. Similar to the CBO they are tasked with being bean counters to provide unbiased and reliable information about energy.
EIA annually estimates recoverable coal reserves by adjusting the DRB to reflect accessibility and recovery rates in mining. As of January 1, 2008, EIA estimated that the remaining U.S. recoverable coal reserves totaled just under 263 billion short tons, from a demonstrated reserve base of 489 billion short tons.
We use about 1 billion tons per year, if the estimates are correct you have about 263 years of coal left. One thing to note the 263 is recoverable reserves or what they expect can be mined. The larger total of 489 would include coal that may or may not be minable, for example if it's under a road or town they won't include it.
Quote:
And how much energy does it take to extract the oil from the shale?? A very expensive and energy-eating process!
A lot more than what it takes in conventional well but the point is that it's there. At $3 or $4 per gallon it's feasible. I'm not sure of the process for extracting oil from shale but with coal it can be much more lucrative because you can use a co-gen process. You need a lot of heat to produce oil from coal, the "waste" heat can then be used to generate electric. It's a two step process that produces both electric and some very clean diesel which could be used in trucks, cars, trains, boats, jets etc. The Air force was moving forward with this back in early 2007 because they wanted to produce all their jet fuel domestically but the project got canceled when the price of crude bottomed out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's all you really need to know isn't it? If it were cheap they be tripping over themselves to let you know how cheap.
