Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:12 PM Feb 2013

Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power!!! (Solar is Simply Cheaper, Cleaner)

According to a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) between El Paso Electric Company and First Solar, electricity will be sold from First Solar’s thin-film solar panels to El Paso Electric Company for 5.8 cents per kWh.....

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.
29 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thin-Film Solar Power To Be Sold For Less Than Coal Power!!! (Solar is Simply Cheaper, Cleaner) (Original Post) grahamhgreen Feb 2013 OP
In Texas. postulater Feb 2013 #1
Germany is the cloudiest country in Europe, and they use solar extensively librechik Feb 2013 #12
Thanks for reminding me of that. postulater Feb 2013 #23
How efficient are these solar cells at night, with just moonlight. Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #2
Let's see.... bobalew Feb 2013 #3
storage tech invented in the '80s was praised by energy sec Bill Richardson in the 90's green for victory Feb 2013 #4
Yes, this is a good technology. They are building similar plants all across the southwest, one just Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #7
Concentrating solar wouldn't work in Alaska, but then you know that. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #11
Be nice. I'm pretty sure they DON'T teach those things kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #27
Storage schemes: Pumped hydro, compressed air, hydrogen generation. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #5
Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Fuel-cells, Efficiency, Biomass, and Batteries in our cars can complete the grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #6
read up on the systems--the sun doesn't have to shine for solar to work librechik Feb 2013 #13
Moreover, we generally need less power at night, so a combination of BlueStreak Feb 2013 #17
That is what batteries are for. robinlynne Feb 2013 #24
Is it cheaper to operate a coal plant in China? NoOneMan Feb 2013 #8
Maybe they will decide think Feb 2013 #9
Either that or they'll decide such air could solve the population problem. HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #14
I wonder if that smog has any energy content BlueStreak Feb 2013 #19
In the above pic it looks thick enough to haul in buckets...would that be buckets of nitric acid? HereSince1628 Feb 2013 #22
That is fucking horrifying. AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #18
K/R, but some may be misled by the numbers. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #10
Yeah, but just one solar spill can create a major nice day. Scuba Feb 2013 #15
How long will the thin film panels remain at say, 95% effective. amandabeech Feb 2013 #16
A lot longer than a ton of coal remains 95% effective, I think! grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #25
I am so sick of the foot dragging on renewable energy. SunSeeker Feb 2013 #20
Beware! Look at this link. Oh, the horror: freshwest Feb 2013 #21
Solar's great!!! rightsideout Feb 2013 #26
That is awesome! grahamhgreen Feb 2013 #29
Hey! Hold on just a minute. If it is cleaner than "clean coal", why isnt it called "clean solar"?? rhett o rick Feb 2013 #28

librechik

(30,674 posts)
12. Germany is the cloudiest country in Europe, and they use solar extensively
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:52 PM
Feb 2013
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/26/us-climate-germany-solar-idUSBRE84P0FI20120526

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)
23. Thanks for reminding me of that.
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 07:49 PM
Feb 2013

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)
2. How efficient are these solar cells at night, with just moonlight.
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:19 PM
Feb 2013

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)
3. Let's see....
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:32 PM
Feb 2013

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)
4. storage tech invented in the '80s was praised by energy sec Bill Richardson in the 90's
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:33 PM
Feb 2013
"We're proud of Solar Two's success as it marks a significant milestone in the development of large-scale solar energy projects," said then U.S. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson.
"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 megawatts—enough 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 time—Solar 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)
7. Yes, this is a good technology. They are building similar plants all across the southwest, one just
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
Feb 2013

north of highway 15. How efficient are these in Alaska?

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
11. Concentrating solar wouldn't work in Alaska, but then you know that.
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:52 PM
Feb 2013

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.

 

grahamhgreen

(15,741 posts)
6. Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Fuel-cells, Efficiency, Biomass, and Batteries in our cars can complete the
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:36 PM
Feb 2013

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)
13. read up on the systems--the sun doesn't have to shine for solar to work
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:54 PM
Feb 2013

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)
17. Moreover, we generally need less power at night, so a combination of
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:44 PM
Feb 2013

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.

 

NoOneMan

(4,795 posts)
8. Is it cheaper to operate a coal plant in China?
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:38 PM
Feb 2013

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

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
19. I wonder if that smog has any energy content
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:47 PM
Feb 2013

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.

 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
10. K/R, but some may be misled by the numbers.
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 01:49 PM
Feb 2013

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.

 

amandabeech

(9,893 posts)
16. How long will the thin film panels remain at say, 95% effective.
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 03:33 PM
Feb 2013

I read a piece either here or over on TOD indicating that the thin film deteriorates quickly.

Perhaps that is not now the case.

rightsideout

(978 posts)
26. Solar's great!!!
Mon Feb 4, 2013, 10:40 PM
Feb 2013

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:|

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Thin-Film Solar Power To ...