I've frequently pondered what it is that makes people drift between fascination and fear when confronting solar technology. I think it goes back to being an 8-year old kid that 'borrowed' dad's magnifying glass on a summer day to burn some leaves.
Here in hand was a powerful and magical piece of glass that would make paper and twigs and bugs burst into flames. Powerful mojo when you're eight. Combine that memory with the fear of being caught by mom when she catches a whiff of smoke in the yard and then sends your friends home and greets you at the door with a wooden spoon.
Even though they are now adults, they remember themselves as kids in the yard toiling covertly, fascinated by the power of sunshine and fearful of being caught manipulating a power of the universe.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"What is it about Solar Energy that frightens folks?"
Nights. Cloudy days.
Doesn't solar/wind only work (net) about 30% of the time?
I'm not saying don't do it, but seems like we get more reliable power and more power per square inch with nuclear power.
Actually I'd say 30% is the starting point from which you can only lose time from.
But that only matters if you're looking at simple ratios that aren't really important, except to compare one system to another. In other words, 'analyst mumbo-jumbo'
What counts is that over the long term, solar will deliver some quantity of energy, mostly when it's needed (i.e. daytime) without any ongoing costs. That's the "free energy" tag-line that renewable folks are so fond of.
Comparing solar to nuclear is an apples-oranges issue. Nuclear is baseload, and solar really has to be classified as peaking. But the goal of solar should not be to replace the other technologies, but to supplement them.
Solar is an unlimited resource, and when a large enough area is considered it can be harnessed on a continuous basis, but we don't have to achieve that for solar to make economic sense.
Today, no one thinks about solar without asking about the subsidies. The STS model is capable of competing on a level economic playing field. When we sat electricity at $90/MWh, that's fair market price, before subsidies, and because the fuel is 'free' (see above) the only basis for the cost is the one-time expense for the actual machinery. O&M is a tiny fraction of 1%.
The $90 is that one-time cost over 20 years. Stretch it to 30 years and the cost drops to $60/MWh... But then it's free for as long as the machine lasts; 40, 50 years... Experience tells us big generators last a long long time.
Contrast that to a 'fueled' plant. Fossil fuels are the major contributor to the cost of the electricity produced. Every minute the plant operates fuel is being bought. The Nuclear fuel cycle is less expensive on the surface but is heavily regulated and subsidized on the back-end or disposal phase.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro nuke, have been for decades. The rest of the world is NIMBY at best. A solar DG system can place a few hundred kW on the local strip mall, big-box, warehouse, theater, you name it! And no one will complain or picket -- someone might even bring lemonade and celebrate, even if it happens to be raining on the day of the ribbon cutting.
Post a Comment