General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power!!! (Solar is Simply Cheaper, Cleaner)
The highly unusual thing about this is that the average residential retail cost of electricity in the United States is 11.4 cents per kWh, which is twice as much as the price at which this power plant will be producing electricity!
(The resulting $0.0579, or six cents, per kWh is less than half the average price of energy generated by new coal-fired power stations (12.8c/kWh) Read more: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/us--thin-film-solar-energy-sells-cheaper-than-coal-fired_100010043/#ixzz2Jx3NDAaO)
Also, the typical price of thin-film solar power is 16.3 cents per kWh, which is 2.8 times more.
Clean Technica (http://s.tt/1zjUZ)
Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/02/03/thin-film-solar-power-to-be-sold-for-less-than-coal/#5XFl9uoaqTU9t98h.99
Let's stop subsidizing nuclear, coal, gas, and other non-renewables, which are EXPENSIVE, antiquated technologies from a bygone era.
postulater
(5,075 posts)librechik
(30,674 posts)last year they produced with solar the equivalent of 20 nuclear power stations.
Texas and everywhere else here in the states would benefit from more investment in solar as well as other alternatives.
postulater
(5,075 posts)I remember hearing about the German govt. investment in home solar electric.
The govt funds the purchase of the panel on your house, you pay back over ten years. The cool thing is that many places actually produce enough power to sell back to the grid. Those people actually make money by having the installation on their house.
Sure makes sense.
I'm hoping it comes along soon enough to make it worthwhile for my next car to be a plug-in electric or plug-in hybrid at least.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)That was a rhetorical question.
Solar Panels are going to be a big part of the future, but they don't operate 24 hours a day. Some other technology will be needed to handle hours when the sun is on the other side of the planet. If we are going to burn natural as or even coal at night, we need to subsidize research to make them clean as possible.
bobalew
(321 posts)We have Battery technology, How about Store & forward? How about using one's electric car as a part of that energy storage concept, on a mass basis? Please don't use that "Argument", anymore, we have many more technological solutions to that issue. And as Far as "Clean Coal" goes, there's no. such. Thing! Natural gas has a better chance of being clean, but there's just too much incentive on the Producer's part to cheat while drilling for it, and messing up the environment for profit's sake, which, by the way describes the whole coal industry in a nutshell( Take the tops off of mountains, trash the mountain valleys, and pollute for profit).
green for victory
(591 posts)"This technology has been successfully demonstrated and is ready for commercialization. From 1994 to 1999, the Solar Two project demonstrated the ability of solar molten salt technology to provide long-term, cost effective thermal energy storage for electricity generation.", Boeing
In 1995 Solar One was converted into Solar Two, by adding a second ring of 108 larger 95 m² (1,000 ft²) heliostats around the existing Solar One, totaling 1926 heliostats with a total area of 82,750 m² (891,000 ft²). This gave Solar Two the ability to produce 10 megawattsenough to power an estimated 7,500 homes.[1] Solar Two used molten salt, a combination of 60% sodium nitrate and 40% potassium nitrate, as an energy storage medium instead of oil or water as with Solar One. This helped in energy storage during brief interruptions in sunlight due to clouds.[1]
The molten salt also allowed the energy to be stored in large tanks for future use such as night timeSolar Two had sufficient capacity to continue running for up to three hours after the sun had set.
>>>>>>>>>>anyone think it could have been improved over the last 20 years if the US wasn't prancing around the world like a teenager on prozac, bombing and invading anywhere it wants>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Solar Two was decommissioned in 1999, and was converted by the University of California, Davis, into an Air Cherenkov Telescope in 2001, measuring gamma rays hitting the atmosphere. Its name is now C.A.C.T.U.S..[2] Solar Two's 3 primary participants were Southern California Edison (SCE), the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)north of highway 15. How efficient are these in Alaska?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Photovoltaics, however, do.
And you know that, as well.
And energy storage schemes date back over 100 years and would be more widely implemented today if it wasn't for cheap dirty fossil fuel and human disregard for the environment.
I'll bet you also knew these things.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)in shill school.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)All are storage practices in use already to store power when it's not needed on the grid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_wind_hydrogen.html
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)energy profile, among others.
When you add in the hidden costs of coal (cancer, mt top removal, sludge ponds, CO2, etc) and gas (fracking, contamination, C02), and the additional cost of subsidies, they simply become to expensive to continue to use.
They were great when we were tooling around in steamboats, and setting our rivers on fire, but it's time to join the future.
librechik
(30,674 posts)a. there are battery backups and be, we don't need battery backups when the system is wired into The Grid.
solar is more than ready to supply all our needs, with a smart grid especially.
BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)solar and wind, or solar and hydro, or solar and geo or ... you get the picture.
We may always need a few natural gas-fired plants around for peak capacity, especially in the parts of the country that don't have hydro or geothermal resources. But we should be moving to supply the first 70% of our needs with renewables.
robinlynne
(15,481 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Take away subsidies, saftey standards and living wages, how do the costs compare? They are putting up coal plants like they are going out of style (set to operate 50+ years till end of life). The cost advantage of solar has to be pretty decent to have them shutdown those plants and swtch
think
(11,641 posts)that they want to breath
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)BlueStreak
(8,377 posts)I remember years ago that Honda (I think) bragged that their cars, when driven in Los Angeles, actually had cleaner air coming out the tailpipe than was sucked into the intake. I wonder if it would be possible to build a generator that runs on smog.
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Just insanely awful.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I read the one comment at the pv magazine site which questions the coal price (12.8c/kWh) and had to go checking.
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_04.html
The EIA lumps all fossil fuel together, existing NG and coal plants, and the total cost is about 3.5 cents/kWh.
I think the operative term that explains the high cost quoted in the article is "new" (coal-fired power stations).
The build-out cost, maintenance operation and fuel cost for a new "cleaner" coal plant, all taken together, may be as high as 12.8 cents/kWh, or even higher.
In any event, I'm a big proponent of solar.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)I read a piece either here or over on TOD indicating that the thin film deteriorates quickly.
Perhaps that is not now the case.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/20/958515/-After-Wind-Solar-disasters-Millions-learn-new-energy-source
Actually, that wasn't the one I was looking for, but it'll have to do.
rightsideout
(978 posts)Just got a system put on our house last year. It provides 70 percent of the electricity we use. This is our first winter with it and a couple days ago the system produced more electricity than we used even though there is less sunlight.
The other 30 percent of the electricity we get is from wind signed up through our utility.
[link:|