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

[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.​

More ignorance from the right. What if it's not either solar or fossil. There are all kinds of hybrids. Including plants that use solar during the day when the out put is highest and gas at night.

But that's the problem with right wingers. They are binary people. It's either good or bad. It works or it doesn't. It's on or it's off. Being binary is almost as limiting as determined ignorance.

Fine, if that's what the market decides. What I don't want is some ignorant turds like you deciding what kind of energy sources we use, and that's what happens when the government subsidized so-called "green energy."

 

[Arianrhod]

Are you ignoring how the technology has improved since they became "cool" in the 1970s?

If solar panels became 100% efficient, they would still cost far more than gas because you have to store energy to use at night. Storage costs 10 times more than the solar panels. Solar panels are never going to be more than 100% efficient.

Why is everything binary with you?

So you think solar panels can be more than 100% efficient? Either solar is more expensive than gas, or it isn't. If you object to reality being "binary," you're going to have a hard life.

So you've flip-flopped from "100% efficient" to "more than 100% efficient"? And you expect us to believe you're an engineer?

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand a basic English sentence.

Oh, I thought you were going to explain how something could be more than 100% efficient. Having failed that, you try to blame it on someone else. Typical.

 

[Arianrhod]

there is more solar energy reachimg the surface of deserts in six hours than all of humanity uses in a year

You want to cover every square mile of desert with solar panels? How much do you think that would cost? It would do wonders for the environment, wouldn't it?

Is that really your conception of an ideal world?

What happens when you run out of poor neighborhoods to dump the nuclear waste on?

Can you name one such neighborhood where they have done that? Don't they build wind mills in poor neighborhoods? They sure don't build then next to Martha's Vineyard.

Have you been out in the sun too long?

That would explain alot, and be a lovely bit of irony as well.

We already know you're a douche bag. No need to double down on it.

Another content-filled post that the moderators will let slide because Reasons.

 

[bripat9643]

You want to cover every square mile of desert with solar panels? How much do you think that would cost? It would do wonders for the environment, wouldn't it?

Is that really your conception of an ideal world?

What happens when you run out of poor neighborhoods to dump the nuclear waste on?

Can you name one such neighborhood where they have done that? Don't they build wind mills in poor neighborhoods? They sure don't build then next to Martha's Vineyard.

Have you been out in the sun too long?

That would explain alot, and be a lovely bit of irony as well.

We already know you're a douche bag. No need to double down on it.

Another content-filled post that the moderators will let slide because Reasons.

Are you saying you were expecting some kind of substantive response?

 

[bripat9643]

If solar panels became 100% efficient, they would still cost far more than gas because you have to store energy to use at night. Storage costs 10 times more than the solar panels. Solar panels are never going to be more than 100% efficient.

Why is everything binary with you?

So you think solar panels can be more than 100% efficient? Either solar is more expensive than gas, or it isn't. If you object to reality being "binary," you're going to have a hard life.

So you've flip-flopped from "100% efficient" to "more than 100% efficient"? And you expect us to believe you're an engineer?

I'm sorry that you're too stupid to understand a basic English sentence.

Oh, I thought you were going to explain how something could be more than 100% efficient. Having failed that, you try to blame it on someone else. Typical.

Where did I claim anything could be more than 100% efficient?

You have no clue what this discussion is about, do you?

 

[Arianrhod]

Where did I claim anything could be more than 100% efficient?

Post #110.

Actually, you said "never could," which even a four-year-old can understand. But you made it sound as if you'd just discovered it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.​

The technology is simply too costly to build and maintain. Now, that is not to say the technology should not be used.
As its use expands, more manufacturers and suppliers will come to the marketplace. That in turn will increase competition. The market for solar will react with lower prices.
Those in full support of alternative energy, will simply have to wait until the new technologies emerge and become practical and affordable.

 

[Indeependent]

I installed Solar Panels because PSE&G has a monopoly in my area and charges over $300.00/month even though we followed every recommendation made by the scumbag utility.
In fact, no matter where you live in Nassau County or how many people are home or not, the LOWEST Electric bill anyone gets is $300.00/month.
Private Utilities should NEVER have a monopoly.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Its great for off grid!

Sure it is.. But the subject matter is mass use. Not for survivalists and extreme environmentalists with LOTS of money..
I installed electronics in the home of a customer that had a very large solar panel on a mast on his property.
he said the thing cost over $50k.....And that was AFTER the federal subsidy. A subsidy the Obama admin eliminated.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Say what?.....First off...Solar energy is not going to save the planet. Second and most importantly, the planet does not need saving.
In fact, this rock will be here long after human beings become extinct.
Now for the hypocrisy meter....it just went to DEFCON 1....
"cost id of no concern".....Ya..Ok.....Then you'll have no issue with mandating that EVERYONE chip in and pay up......Would that be correct?...No whining and bitching about "the poor" who can't afford it.....You can't have it both ways.....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Your point?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.​

Why would you build a plant?

You can retrofit your home to energy neutral at a lower cost every day.

Dumb OP.

Is that a fact....Ok...ya got some equipment, labor and ancillary figures?
Then there is maintenance. The thing has be serviced. Most likely one would be prudent to insure the system. A standard homeowners fire and casualty policy would not cover damage to the unit.
All of these costs must be factored in before entering into an agreement to install a solar system....

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.​

Why would you build a plant?

You can retrofit your home to energy neutral at a lower cost every day.

Dumb OP.

Oh...and for those who reside in places where sunny days are at a premium?
Cities such as Seattle, Portland, OR, much of the Midwestern US and the New England states where sunny days are less than 180 days per year. How does the solar energy supporter resolve these?
In fact, save for areas in the southeast, the high desert of the west, eastern Washington and Oregon, solar power is a main source can be problematic....There is simply not enough sunny days.
On that note we move over to battery technology. Unless we can figure out an reasonably efficient and affordable method to store electrical energy, there is going to have to be development of technology that simply does not exist today, not is it in the engineering phase.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.​

Funny. Natural gas is dirt cheap right now - but fossil fuels are killing the planet. Fracking is ruining many communities and water sources - not to mention the earthquakes.

"killing the planet"?....How so? Explain. Provide examples. And don't post any shit about global warming or opinion pieces from environmentalist wacko blogs

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now build it in the North.......how much bigger does it have to be to do the same thing.......yeah lets pave the planet in solar panels,,,,great idea

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?

Wind....And just try real hard to get one those gigantic wind turbines built in a place like,. oh Northern New Jersey....or environmentally hypersensitive New York..Or off the shores of Martha's Vineyard...Those turbine blades produce sound waves that have given people migraine headaches and caused other issues

 

[thereisnospoon]

Now build it in the North.......how much bigger does it have to be to do the same thing.......yeah lets pave the planet in solar panels,,,,great idea

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?

Methane is another potential source and boy is it ever cheap....How come the alternative energy crowd is not all over this?
The answer is "politics"....
do a little homework....

 

[P@triot]

Are you ignoring how the technology has improved since they became "cool" in the 1970s?

It has? Where is your proof of that? You've popped your mouth off all day but have yet to add even a single link. Why is that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

The planet is going to be here long after we humans are extinct

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

no energy production will ever be 100%

 

[Skull Pilot]

Small modular nuclear reactors are what we need