AND 
Forget the Volt’s Roof, GM Puts World’s Largest Solar Roof on a Whole Assembly Plant
Just while we’re busy discussing whether GM will put a solar roof on the Chevy Volt, and we begin to hear rumors about the next year Prius getting a solar roof option, GM has taken the idea to the next level.
Today GM announced that they have placed a massive solar panel array on the roof of their Zaragoza assembly plant in Spain where the Opel Corsa, Meriva and Combo models are built. This will be the world’s largest rooftop solar system and will be built by Energy Conversion Devices.
The solar array is 10 megawatts in size and can produce 15.1 million kilowatt-hours of energy per year, enough GM Europe’s President Carl-Peter Forster states to power 4,500 Chevy Volts through typical yearly commuter cycles.
Source (Reuters )
UPDATE : Here’s GMs video about it:
[flash http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SB9Ly-6wmgQ]
72 Responses to “Forget the Volt’s Roof, GM Puts World’s Largest Solar Roof on a Whole Assembly Plant”
Leave a Reply
Recent Posts
- New York Times Report on the Chevy Volt Generator Mode Driving Experience
- CNBC Test Drive of the Chevy Volt in Charge Sustaining Mode
- Chevy Volt Will be Able to Hit 104 MPH
- Chevy Volt and Battery Program Update
- GM to Announce Initial Volt Markets at LA Auto Show
- Coalition of Industry Leaders Releases Roadmap to get 120 Million Electric Cars on US Roads by 2030
- Op-Ed: GM Reports a $1.2 Billion Loss, but Has the Cash To See Volt Well into Production and Beyond
- Three Chevy Volt Paint Color Finalists Announced
- What BMW Has Learned from the MINI E Program So Far: That They May Need to Build EREVs
- GM: EVs are Cool, but EREV’s are Really Cool
Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts
- Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]BigCityCat
- Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]omnimoeish
- First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]admin
- Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]Texas
- New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]srschrier
- New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]srschrier
- New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]srschrier
GM-Volt.com is not affiliated with General Motors Company
All contents copyright 2007-2009 GM-Volt.com, LLC - All Rights Reserved
Home | Contact | Privacy Policy | About | Back to Top
July 8th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
GM is really getting green!! Workers will be able to charge their Volts. Great!!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Not sure how they justify spending this kind of money when they are in such deep financial trouble.
It’s a nice gesture, but they need to be putting money into cars not buildings now.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
We need more of this here in the USA! That said, despite their financial woes, no car company is better poised for the future than GM!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
2 JEC:
Easy.
1. Tax write offs for the one profitable sphere of their business (anywhere outside the US lol)
2. Decreasing monthly expenditures. Their power bill is likely enormous and the solar structure reduces this monthly expense substantially changing it from something that will likely go up in the near future to something that is a fixed cost.
3. Marketing. Rebranding as a Green company is important.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Spain is a great place for solar, but does GM have any plants in the U.S. located in a place with similar weather?
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
JEC #2
“Not sure how they justify spending this kind of money when they are in such deep financial trouble”
*** *** ***
GM Europe is it’s own cost center. The focus of GM’s problems stem from NA operations. Unbelievable as it may sound, the Roger Smith (rest his soul!) model permeated throughout NA for quite some time.
Maybe….just MAYBE until now it was a blessing that GM was not a “globalized” entity. What may save them in the long run is that most of their global (non NA) operations have been performing quite well…ON THEIR OWN!
Is it ANY surprise that GM chose to hand Frank Weber the responsibility for E-flex success? It’s not only because he’s the best, it’s also because there is most certainly a bludgeoned mentality in the halls of short-run Detroit that must be overcome. It will be done, but now is not the time or place!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
I am back with the data of 26650 made by A123 systems, the batteries are the best I have ever seen in terms of long life, one tested at 25C, one tested at 37C, both in environmental chamber and both discharged at 5A, you can see the difference. In reality, no matter how good is the BMS/TMS, the battery will degrade much faster than you see from my experiment.
The picture is here:
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gmvolt97@yahoo.com
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
The article did not say if they purchased the solor array. It could be an arrangement to purchase electricity from the solar array installed on their roof. That way they can control fixed cost of electricy thru power purchase agreement for a number of years at a fixed price. After the contract is done, the provider and either sell it to GM or upgrade the panels and reenter agreement with GM.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Now the Zaragoza plant needs to be prepared to sell tickets for the roof-top tour, with a knowledgeable tour leader. (Not a joke but based on actual experiences in USA — people are going to want to go and see the roof and hear about it.)
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
GM will not succeed, look at the data I promised to post yesterday!!!! The battery from A123 is very sensitive to temperature.
Look at here and put this in your URL!!!
pictures.aol.com/galleries/gmvolt97@yahoo.com
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Jus because you do not like my comments, you wanna ban me, hahahahaha, Both GM and toyota is likely to fail in the PHEV project.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
10……P.D.F.T.T !
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Battery Expert, I am the “Hot Air Expert”. Are you trying to take my spot here?
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Grizzly # 11 , you are correct.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
This solar panel is very cool. I would love to have it on my house, but it is still so darned expensive. I really wish Nanosolar would start selling their solution to consumers in this country. Better yet, Nanosolar needs a few competitors that would do it first.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Dear Battery Expert, I am the expert on s**p*d and all the many flavors thereof. Please understand that you may not use this word or phrase, depending on interpretation, without my permission. Thank you.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
This is great time for most of us to start working towards having green garages ready for when we get our volts. Most of us will have 4 to 5 years to be ready.
I have just put up a 24 foot by 30 foot steel structure for a car port in front of my garage. Planning for it to have solar capture and possibly 2 or 3 small wind chargers all feeding to green garage for storage during the day time to charge my volt on my return from work.
How great it would be not to have to depend on oil or on the grid for daily driving. Am looking forward to some tax incentives for green garages in the future..
voltik
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
RB # 16
Tsk..tsk tskk!!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
#15 Rashiid
Take a look at Nanosolar. They can now produce electricity that can compeat with coal. Its call thin film PV. Very exciting field! Nanosolar has dropped the cost be one full order of magnitude. The just print the cells. No vacuum chambers or anything.
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
19 Arch:
The biggest problem with Nanosolar is that there is no efficiency increase. Its strictly a production breakthrough, which is great, but it still requires a massive amount of panels (square footage wise) and, as a company, they don’t seem too interested in expanding or licensing their manufacturing techniques. They are sort of odd, they have had their entire production sold for two years out yet there are no plans on the books to increase production capacity.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
#20 Morgan
You are correct. Check this out. The game is changing.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/07/08/innovalight-nabs-5m-for-thin-film-solar/
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Now who was it that pointed this out the other day.
ummmm statik ????
Never mind, suffering from ‘deja vue’ lol.
As Tag would say:
Be well.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
21 Arch:
that is great! The solar cell manufacturing facilities in a box (silicon wafer) cost around $15 million. It was one of my pipe dreams while I was laid off last fall of starting my own company and I did a massive amount of solar research before determining the technology couldn’t yet do what I wanted it to. (battery and electrification of a current large mobile application)
I also liked the utility of Powerfilm http://www.powerfilmsolar.com
They are about to release their product built right into the rubberized roofing material large structures use. That makes solar panels move from an addon to an integrated system at initial construction.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
To be honest there seems to be a big crowd gathering.
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/shells-showa-solar-plans-1-gigawatt-plant-1082.html
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
#23 Morgan
Its a whole new game now. Lots of players.
http://venturebeat.com/2008/07/03/miasole-perhaps-not-so-unhealthy-after-all-may-get-200m-investment/
Take Care
Arch
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
25 Arch:
oh yeah, there are TONS.
Here was a good resource I used during the fall for all sorts of companies.
http://www.ecobusinesslinks.com
A LOT of solar companies listed there.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
It’s misleading to say that solar can compete with a conventional base load plant like coal or nuclear in dollars per watt. You have to compare kW-hr per year between the two.
The 10 megawatt solar system produces 15.1 million kW-hr per year. That means the “10 megawatts” is available only 17% of the time, compared to a power plant’s 90+% availability (including night time when we will charge our cars).
If you have to pay a premium for peak electricity during the day, and don’t need it during night, then it might make sense. But do the math. Even if you have a battery that stores the solar energy on a 100% efficiency basis, you would need an unearthly solar PV array to capture the same amount of energy per year as a power plant.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
OhmE #27
There is no competition between the two. Rooftop solar does not compete with power plants, at least not in my state! Anything you capture on your rooftop is that which you do not pay the PWR company for juice, whether you capture it directly or use it to run your meter backwards.
I fail to see your point. What is your point????
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
27 OhmExcited:
Its a different business philosophy. The goal with solar is not power plants per se. Its a distributed power generation grid.
Think of the power generation if the government mandated and gave rebates/credits for everyone to install a 5 KW/Hr solar system on every house in the country which amounts to from grabbing the first one I saw online:
~$19,000 per home installation just for the panels.
That is a CRAZY amount of power generation for the price of a reasonable car. The problem is of course that current solar panel production is nowhere near capable of supplying that kind of demand so you can assume as production ramps up that $19,000 is actually going to be much less. Nanosolar currently broke the $1/Watt barrier with their production techniques and plants are being started all over the place using similar production methods.
That cuts that price down to $5,000 per home installation for a 5 KWH home.
Anyone else getting all tingly thinking of the possibilities of THAT much cheap energy? Now add in our used Volt batteries to store excess daytime energy all those houses are shooting back onto the grid for peak and nighttime usage.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
One of the reasons GM is building the Volt is to acquire the green halo that Toyota enjoys. Just recently a Toyota prius was sporting a solar array on the roof that could become a production item, possibly as optional equipment. Output around 200 watts.
If GM really, really wants to stomp on Toyota’s green halo, they should make arrangements with a capable thin-film photovoltaic manufacturer like NanoSolar for a bulk purchase agreement. Why? So that the Volt customer that wants to be truly vibrant green can install an optional, cost effective solar array on their house or garage (sized in kilowatts) and totally make the charging of their Volt oil and carbon free. Oh, and by the way, it would also offset their daily electric consumption. Hmm… and it might also provide a bit of income as the grid would be back-feed resulting in a check from the power company for power produced. GM could have a third party handle all of the sales/installation issues so it wouldn’t be a drag on GM’s resources.
There you are GM, an electric car with a no-carbon/no oil energy supply all with just one stop at any Chevrolet dealer. Let’s see Toyota top that?
A Volt and solar arrays, power to the people, literally!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Steps like this are really changing my view of GM.
Well done, and keep up the good work.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
#30
LyleL
If GM doesn’t do that it would be a great idea for a third party to do, sounds like a good business model.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
#10 Detroit Loser – I don’t believe a work of it until Battery Expert speaks. HE speaks the truth.
Bow, mortals. Bow down before Battery Expert’s awesome Expert-ly-ness. Gaze, oh unworthly ones, at the perfection that is Battery Expert. Disbelievers shall wear paper bags over their heads (with eyeholes in them), until they achieve purity of thought, and agree with Battery Expert on all things. Give thanks for his wisdom in all things battery-ish. Confess your doubts, and accept HIM as your battery expert – Battery Expert forgives.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Battery Expert: What is the dimensions of the A123 26650 Cell? Length x Diameter? Is this the standard one that is slightly bigger than a AA battery? Just wondering. 5A seems like a big current for a single battery and most would fail with that much being drained at a high rate of discharge.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I think GM is taking a very big risk and putting a lot into green thinking. I applaud their efforts but they also must be careful. A lot of people talk green but when it comes to pulling the green out of their pocket to pay for it, well it’s just talk.
We also have to see if the stock market dicks let go of the stock and allow it to return to favor. Many companies have been ruined not by the company itself but by buyers and sellers. I think GM has some great ideas and is really turning the corner in their thinking. My concern is that the company would go into a re-org on a BK. This would keep them running but a lot of their projects would be killed.
I like the looks of the concept Volt. I really like the 40 mile commute range, it works for me (30 miles a day round trip), and I like the extended drive with the small engine/generator combination. The Volt does what I need it to do and looks good doing it. If the production Volt looks like mom’s sedan, then I might be looking at other fuel/energy efficient cars. I am a Chevrolet fan, but GM still needs to produce a car that has visual appeal. For now I’ll keep my Avalanche to pull my camping trailer, haul my motorcycle and for large loads. I’ll keep riding my motorcycle to and from work until the Volt comes out. September isn’t too far off and hopefully we’ll see exactly what the Volt is going to look like.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
A123 26650 Cell is about the size of a C cell
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
$1 per (peak) watt is extremely good, so I applaud Nanosolar if they come through with it. However, let’s do the math. Using the same 17% average availability, let’s calculate what it would take to produce the same energy per year as a 1000 megawatt power plant and have it available throughout the day when you need it.
So, assume you are able to store the solar energy and use it when the PV is not generating power, and the efficiency is 80%, which is very optimistic. It would cost $7.4 billion to procure the raw PV’s from Nanosolar, then add the cost of the energy storage system, land, installation, support structures, etc. Aside from the cost, the company would not be able to produce the PVs fast enough to scale this across the nation. There is a reason the power companies only offer a negligible fraction of their power from solar. They’re not stupid. It’s just math.
The only solution to living off renewables is to drastically change our lifestyles. By drastically, I mean just that. Humongous, quantum leaps in efficiency for our homes and industries. Maybe it will happen. But that energy to charge all these new EVs has to come from somewhere.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Does anyone know why we are getting ads for CarWaterKits.com at the bottom of these articles? Mythbusters bought one of these so-called water fuel conversion systems – it was supposed to convert water into its hydrogen and oxygen elements. It worked so poorly, the test car would not even try to start.
Why are scamsters like this getting on GM-Volt.com?
LowerMyBills.com? Burstnet.com with a “brief” survey? Who are these people I’m seeing on GM-Volt.com, Lyle? Advertisers? Where is the “Viagra without a prescription” or the “get rich with my simple 7-step plan” ad? They would fit perfectly with these guys.
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
#38
Get Firefox with Noscript. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about it!!
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
37 OhmExcited:
from the lastest Nanosolar email:
“Dear Nanosolar friend:
We wanted to let you know of a major milestone in solar energy technology we have now achieved: The solar industry’s first 1GW production tool.
Yes, that’s 1GW of capacity from a single production tool!……..Our 1GW CIGS coater cost $1.65 million”
That is in one year of production. 7.8 billion is indeed a huge investment for a power company. However, $5,000 is a small investment for me to install a 5 kwh system on my house.
That is what I meant by different business model. It is no longer a model of Build the facility and sell the product (energy), mass produced cheap thin film changes the game from that model to Sell the production capability and don’t worry about the product (energy).
(Quote)
July 8th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
The prodigal son has returned home – slaughter the lamb, prepare the feast.
It is smart for GM’s overseas operations to make these investments now, while they are making lots of money.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 12:06 am
#23 Morgan
In the video it looks like they’re laying down rubber roofing material anyways. I think GM’s roof is a thin film solar roof. Is there anything that says it isn’t?
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 12:22 am
The system GM has are UNI-SOLAR thin film. It costs $2.49 per watt to manufacture and has an efficiency of about 8.5%. So that system cost a minimum of $25 million. I’ll bet the Spanish government subsidised it.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 12:26 am
It is good to see that things have stayed pretty much the same while I was gone….
Completely off topic:
The front page story in last Sunday’s Youngstown Vindicator was a story about Bob Boniface being from Poland, OH, and his involvement with the Chevy Volt.
It was a good article and they even got most of the facts correct!!!!
Go GM and Go Chevy Volt Team!!!
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 12:30 am
“GM will lease their roof space to Clairvoyant Energy and Veolia Environment, who will build, own and operate the rooftop solar installation. The project helps GM reduce costs, while providing “green” energy to the local community’s power grid.”
Very clever idea.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 1:35 am
Morgan@#20 #29 #40
A 5 kWh system would be a lot of panels and would need a good sized roof. Of course if the panels were more effecient then you’d need less space, but since the cost goes up quickly for more effecient panels, most times just using more panels is much more cost effective. Unless of course you have a small house and want a 5kWh system.
Solar is also area dependent. In some places it works well. In places like SoCal, AZ and TX it is particularily good because you get peak production at exactly the same time as you have peak demand — in the hottest days of summer during the afternoon. But if your roof isn’t south facing, or you live further north, or you have shade in summer by trees or buildings, then your production may not be so great.
The cost of the panels is only part of the cost of the installation. In any event my friends in Silicon Valley tell me it will probably be another 10 years before we see these things in residential installs. In this regard, if the cost of solar was really $1/kWh then our energy issue would be resolved since that would be about half that of energy from coal plants or wind plants. Right now it’s about $8/kWh. (A big driver for installing solar is that the federal tax credit is 1/3 the cost of the system, capped at $2000 for non-commercial buildings).
Generally you don’t use these things to be independent of the grid. If you do that then you need battery storage and you have to be careful about equalizing your household loads and so forth. It’s more much better to just plug into the grid.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Battery Expert:
Thank you for posting your data. I have a couple questions.
Were the temperatures you posted in your graph the environmental temperature or the cell temperature?
Your 25C/77F data appears to be about the same as A123’s 45C/113F 5A discharge data (the bottom graph):
http://a123systems.textdriven.com/product/pdf/1/ANR26650M1_Datasheet_MARCH_2008.pdf
(I believe A123’s data is cell temperature)
Your 36C/98F data appears inconsistent with your other data and the A123 data as it has a fundamentally different discharge curve than your other curve which matches all the A123 curves. The 36C/98F curve actually shows higher capacity than the lower temperature curve for the first 400 cycles. Do you have any idea why that would happen?
If correct, that would seem to indicate that one would want to run the batteries at really high temperatures for the first 400 cycles then switch to lower temperatures, which seems kind of odd.
Also a quick note about unisolar panels to the folks talking about them; they are popular in some areas because even though they are not as efficient in full sunlight as other types of panels, they are more efficient in lower light (eg. cloudy) than other types of panels.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 6:46 am
#37 OhmExcited,
Solar power helps the most when electrical demand is the highest, so there’s no reason to store electricity from solar.
In other words, solar doesn’t aim to completely replace our electrical power stations, but rather become a significant part of the mix, particlarly during peak use daylight hours. Nuclear, wind, geothermal, and hyhdro power can be used during non-daylight hours.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 7:16 am
#48 Dave G,
That’s a good point. I have an average size home in Florida (i.e. lots of sun). 200A service. By my calculation, that’s about 22K peak watts. To completely replace the grid, I’d need four and a half of those $19K roof top systems. Then I’d need controllers and lots of storage batteries. I don’t even need to “do the math” to figure out that I didn’t even pay that much to buy the house in the first place!
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 7:18 am
46:
A 200 Watt solar panel Silicon Wafer glass panel is $795 Retail.
The dimensions are 4′ X 3′ providing a sq. footage of 12 sq. ft per panel.
For the 5 KWH system you need 25 of those panels equaling 300 Sq. Foot on your roof for the panel at a cost of $19,875.
If your intent is to go entirely off grid then you need to install the batteries and charge controllers. You could just feed the energy directly into the grid have the power company pay you and draw all your energy off the grid and balance out at the end of the month.
Its not 10 years out, that is what it would cost you now. There are a ton of places you can retail purchase the panels and government subsidies are not really the driving force since Florida is the only state that has credits and the Government credit was only up to $2,000 dollars. However, don’t take my word for it, just do a basic internet search and you can find a multitude of homes that are going that route even in wintery climates (dual use systems: solar heating)
42 MIke D:
They are using thin film and installing it on the roof. The product I am talking about is: instead of installing the roof then laying the solar paneling you buy one product: The roofing material already has the solar panels in them.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 7:55 am
Good PR move and it also helps the PV manufacturer.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 8:02 am
#27, 37, & 43 OhmE
Although it seems to be unpopular, I am going to agree with your stance.
First, the installed solar array covers 183,000 square meters. I calculate this to be 42 acres! It is rated at 10 MW (10,000 kW) and can produce 5.1 million kWh annually in a sunny climate (Spain). Based on the 5.1 million kWh’s produced, versus its 87.6 million potential, I agree with your capacity factor of 17%.
So even though the solar array could cost the same as a nuclear plant in $/kW of capacity, 10 MW of the nuclear plant will provide reliable power around the clock for 90% of the entire year, and will produce 5 times more electricity.
I would almost guarantee that an automobile manufacturing plant that covers 42 acres will consume much more than 10 MW ( I estimate 50 to 100). Therefore, even at peak, this solar array is inadequate to provide all of the needs of the plant, not to mention it will not provide any power at night. Should GM shutdown the facility when there is insufficient solar power? Of course not. So don’t expect to see solar replacing power plants anytime soon.
I expect Texas to chime in at some point and also talk about pumped hydro for off-peak storage. So, to equal a 1000 MW nuclear facility, we will need 4200 acres of solar panels. However, with a 17% capacity factor, versus 90%, we will now need 22,200 acres, or 35 square miles.
For pumped storage, due to inefficiency, we lose energy when we pump water into storage, and lose it again when we use the water to generate electricity. A round trip efficiency might be 75%. So to use this power at night we need to add 1/0.75 or 33%. Increase the solar array to 47 square miles.
I will assume a 3-cloudy day scenario. Therefore, our storage needs call for 1000 MW for 72 hours, or 72,000 MWh. With a 200 foot elevation for the reservoir, this requires over 2 billion gallons of water. At a depth of 25 feet, the reservoir would cover 270 acres. So now we need to build a large storage pond at high elevation.
So besides occupying large land areas, what would be the cost of this solar array that displaces a 1000 MW nuclear facility? I think we would find it is quite staggering.
So, my point is that solar will definately play a role in power generation, and will be most advantageous by providing power during daytime peak, but it has a long uphill road before it can totally displace central power plants.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=aLCA2xrA3xxY&refer=energy
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 9:37 am
#52 BillR says: “So, my point is that solar will definately play a role in power generation, and will be most advantageous by providing power during daytime peak, but it has a long uphill road before it can totally displace central power plants.”
————————————————————————————-
Yes, I agree. The idea is to significantly increase the percentage of solar power in the mix during daylight hours when demand is higer. There is no need to store solar energy unless you live off the grid.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Commercially available, time tested polycrystalline solar modules with no subsidy when used to supplement utility electricity by direct grid tie, can charge a VOLT at roughly equivalent to US$3/gallon.
These modules typically have a 25 year power warranty. The oldest continuously monitored by MIT solar electric array at the Beverly High School in MA has degraded <15% after 30 years.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I don’t think GM is putting solar panels on the roof of its plant to allow workers to charge their Volts while at work. It is a sound business expense that will be recovered through reduce electrical cost at the plant. Way to go GM.
Now get the Volt finished and in the meantime, give us some economical cars and trucks that get great gas mileage. Cars with 40+ mpg and light-duty trucks with 30+ mpg.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 10:29 am
#45 kubel:
I’m sure that’s it.
SoCal Edison is going to do a huge similar project here, involving several million square feet of roofs on industrial buildings. I think that one of the great advantages is that the power is produced close to the consumers. Building new cross country transmission lines is very expensive and controversial.
I am curious to know if or how the Spanish government is involved in this, as opposed to our own “energy policy”.
Anyway, all credit to GM for this. How can it be bad?
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Morgan @ #50
“For the 5 KWH system you need 25 of those panels equaling 300 Sq. Foot on your roof for the panel at a cost of $19,875.”
I don’t know where you are getting your pricing. I’m using installed prices for panels which are slightly larger than what you are using and also less effecient — 170 watts versus 200 watts. You’d need about 30 of these panels to create a 5 kW system.
That, however, would be a system rated in DC watts rather than AC watts. The conversion ratio for this is along the line of .88. Also you have the inverter which is probably 90% effecient. The bottom line is that the 5 kW DC system is something like a 4 kW AC system.
In any event, the cost of that system installed — including the inverter and so forth — would be about $40,000 before credits. This is a standard base cost and it’s pretty close to real world pricing.
“If your intent is to go entirely off grid then you need to install the batteries and charge controllers.”
You also need to do some fancy load balancing. Going off grid is really very expensive.
“You could just feed the energy directly into the grid have the power company pay you and draw all your energy off the grid and balance out at the end of the month.”
Yup, this is best for the vast majority of people.
“Its not 10 years out, that is what it would cost you now.”
I should have been clearer. I was referring to the “thin film” panels. Those are probably 10 years out for residential applications. You are correct you can get the traditional panels now.
“There are a ton of places you can retail purchase the panels and government subsidies are not really the driving force since Florida is the only state that has credits and the Government credit was only up to $2,000 dollars.”
I think the $2000 dollar credit you are referring to is the federal credit. This credit is actually 30% of the cost of the system. That sounds good but it’s capped for residential buildings at $2,000. It’s also set to expire at the end of this year and the Republicans have kept it bottled up in committee in the Senate.
CA, NJ, NY, CO and CT all have state rebate systems as well. Many are quite generous.
Without incentives you wouldn’t be seeing many of these solar installations. It’s just too expensive. The solar companies have a saying that they operate where the “climate is good for solar, and climate has nothing to do with the weather.” At this point incentives are everything, which is why you have so much solar in a place like Germany where the weather really isn’t ideal.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Don C #57.
And this is where I think the government talks out of both sides of their collective mouths. They want us to conserve and get off of foreign oil.
At the same time, they do not offer much in the way of incentives to make it cost effective to do just that.
In my state of CT, we can get a 3 KWH for free with state and federal incentives. Higher than 3 KWH, money is coming out of my pocket.
But since I don’t have a clear handle on what 3 KWH means or how it will help me, I haven’t really done anything. For the month of June, my daily average usage was 29 KWH. Probably because of the Central Air.
I could sell all the electricity I generate back to the electric company, but that is a complete scam. The more I sell back, the less they pay me for it. They get a “bulk discount” but don’t give me one in return.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
If I remember right, GM has a wharehouse in CA that has solar panels on the roof.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Rashiid@#58
I’d take a free 3 kHw system anytime. WOW! Are you sure about this? That is an unbelievable incentive.
You’ll get less production in CT, but here in SoCal if your placement is good you’d expect something around 130 kHw/month per kW. So a 3 kWh system would give you almost 400 kHw/month. I use about 575 kWh/month but that includes a couple of months with useage over 1000 kWh.
If you are linked into the grid, you only sell back to the grid when your production exceeds your use. If the system is smaller than your total needs, which is how you want to size it, you are offsetting the retail rate you would otherwise be paying. In this case you don’t need to worry about selling at the wholesale rate and buying at the retail rate.
How much you save is complex. In most of CA the rates are tiered, with more useage costing more. The low rate might be $.08 and the higher rates $.15 to $.38. A solar system that eliminates charges at the $.38 band will almost always be welcome. Less so if you’re eliminating charges at the low rate. Additionally if the distribution charges are included in the per watt rate or a separated out will also significantly how much your bill is reduced by.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Is it concievable that one day, so much roof-top solar will be around that there will be two off-peak times — the middle of the night, and the middle of the day?
It could certainly make a difference for people who have to re-charge electric vehicles at work …
* not anytime soon
* hopefully within my lifetime, almost certainly in yours
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
Don C #60. Thank you. That was a great explanation.
According to this website, it is free, it is free in CT and some other States as well. Unfortunately, not yours though.
http://www.power-save.com/incentives.html
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
jackson@#61
It really depends on whether the thin film solar panels pan out. Right now solar is 4X the cost of alternatives. The thin film firms, and there are a lot of them, are all confident that their technologies can provide power at a cost equal to or less than the alternatives. If they can then solar will pick up very quickly. If not then solar will remain a niche power source.
BTW I’ve seen a lot of designs for solar roof plug-in “garages”. Reminds me of Alaska, where we had plug in heaters for the radiators. At those temperatures you might need to juice the battery fairly frequently.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Rashiid@#62
That’s an interesting site. Thanks!
In looking at the CA figures, the FREE seems overdone. The rebates seem overly generous and the installed costs too low. A 1kW system would probably cost close to $9000 and the state/utility rebate would probably be closer to $1900, meaning rather than FREE it would set you back something on the order of $5000.
On the cost side perhaps they’re just giving the raw costs of the panels …
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Don C #64. says “On the cost side perhaps they’re just giving the raw costs of the panels …”
Well it wouldn’t really surprise me. They are in sales mode after all.
However, I think I will call them and see how much an actual 3 KWH system will cost me out of pocket.
Thank you very much for your feedback.
(Quote)
July 9th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Solar is definitely an expensive proposition, but Germany has had great success and has beat their own oil lobby with leadership, something I’d like to see in the US but won’t hold my breath.
Here’s a pretty good article:
http://tinyurl.com/5w2b88
(Quote)
July 10th, 2008 at 2:53 am
#34 Mark H
Yeah, that’s the one, the 26650. The specs are on the datasheet I provided a link to. 5A is pretty doable, it’s just about 2x the 1 hour discharge rate (or 2C). A123’s technology allows some very high charge and discharge rates compared to other formulations (like 10C is no problem as I recall reading somewhere. The datasheet lists maximum continuous discharge rate at about 30C rate!).
It allows crazy things like this!:
http://www.killacycle.com/
I should also reiterate that I’m not a (the?) battery expert.
(Quote)
July 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am
You know they can build one in Arizona sun is alway up there , or death valley hot as hell there.Lol
(Quote)
July 13th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I live in California, so most of my knowledge is about companies here, but Borrego Solar has a one location in Boston.
http://www.borregosolar.com/solar-energy-company/solar-contractor.php
Solar City offers leases – you allow them to build on your roof, they own the equipment, so you don’t have to pay up front for solar.
http://www.solarcity.com/
Sunpower has a great cost calculator. They also offer integrated solar roof tiles as well as traditional panels mounted above the roof.
http://www.sunpowercorp.com/
(Quote)
July 14th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
“It’s also set to expire at the end of this year and the Republicans have kept it bottled up in committee in the Senate.”
—
Earth to Don the Republicans have not had control of any committees in the Senate since Jan 2007, if they’re blocking anything as suggested it’s because they’re getting help from Democrats.
(Quote)
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:02 am
This may be good pr but I wonder how long it will take to pay for itself, anyone know.
Wouldn’t it make more sense for a cash strapped company to hold off on this kind of spending until they start turning a profit ?
(Quote)
April 30th, 2009 at 4:36 am
Fantastic. Great achievment.
Now would you please tell me the cost of 10 megawatts solar power plant and when this size will be available.
(Quote)