First Solar first to achieve US grid parity:

Link (http://www.examiner.com/x-1660-Baltimore-Renewable-Energy-Examiner~y2008m12d17-Is-Solar-Cheaper-than-Coal)

Before including subsidies, First Solar beats cost of conventional energy - $0.075 vs. $0.09 per kWh. I suspect Nanosolar has been doing this all along, but they have been installing in Europe, where the Feed-In-Tariff is paying them multiple times the actual cost.

THAT IS WHY YOU DO NOT USE FEED-IN-TARIFFS, AS THEY SET TOO HIGH OF A TARGET!

Wow. That's encouraging. Cost was the only rational argument against solar (at least in areas with adequate sunlight).

Unfortunately, it doesn't do much for those of us up North. But every little bit helps.

Wow. That's encouraging. Cost was the only rational argument against solar (at least in areas with adequate sunlight).

Unfortunately, it doesn't do much for those of us up North. But every little bit helps.

http://www.doa.state.nc.us/energy/programs/renewable/docs/ussolar.jpg


We Americans have such good solar resources it's almost as embarrassing as the Middle East having great solar energy resources after having such great petroleum resources. Then again, we don't have to live in the desert. ;)

Remember, we have more than enough solar energy resources to power the entire world. We can put up high voltage lines when and where it makes sense.

If only we had better electrical energy storage...

That's not the complete story. For one thing you can't compare generation cost and price. For another, you certainly shouldn't compare generation cost from an intermittent source to price. Finally, that is only applicable to Nevada or similar locations wrt sun. It would be 2-3 times that in NY on average and nearly useless in the winter.

I have a problem with the map, and I pointed it out to Texas in a similar map about 6 months ago. According to it, south Florida has the same "solar resource" as Northern Montana at the Canadian Border. And Inland San Diego County California, Dry Dry cloudless desert, the same as the Moss/Rain/Fog Redwood forest of North Costal California. Common sense would say No Way Jose. I will say, Bullshiatt. Someone at North Carolina has their heads in the clouds. I defy anyone living in Northern Minnesota or Montana to post up their solar electric data for the last week. Cough.

Will someone please check the cost of the 12.6 mW facility.

[QUOTE]The 12.6 MW system, located in the Nevada desert, cost $0.075 per kWh to install/QUOTE]

My number looks bad. What do you get ?

Thanks to the Einstein voters of California, we will be forced to buy this power. I hope this little gem can deliver as promised. :D

I will say, Bullshiatt.

the problem with the given map is that we do not know its full context.

for example other NREL solar maps in context,


These maps provide monthly average daily total solar resource information on grid cells of approximately 40 km by 40 km in size. The insolation values represent the resource available to concentrating systems that track the sun throughout the day.


december2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_december_may2004.jpg)

july2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_july_may2004.jpg)

annual2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_csp_annual_may2004.jpg)

----------------

compared to :


These maps provide monthly average daily total solar resource information on grid cells of approximately 40 km by 40 km in size. The insolation values represent the resource available to a flat plate collector, such as a photovoltaic panel, oriented due south at an angle from horizontal to equal to the latitude of the collector location.

december2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_december_may2004.jpg)

july2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_july_may2004.jpg)

annual2004 (http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/us_pv_annual_may2004.jpg)

Are you saying you agree that south Florida and Northern Montana have the same solar resource ?? I admit I don't understand the terms and conditions. But, fern for frog, gator for gar, it does not seem plausible. Solar may have a place eventually in northern Montana, but it will pay better, sooner, in southern Florida, South Texas, or Southern California.

The point well made is the potential for solar power in the USA is tremendous. I just look at things on this board with a simple, but critical eye. A tremendous solar hot spot by any measure is in the desert of south east California. It's within easy transmission range of MAJOR metropolitan areas, say 20 million peoples, at least.

Back to the original post, I want to point out that the article is by financial party that stands to gain by trumping up the value of the project, at a time when many see it is falling.

Anyone take the math challenge yet ??

The solar map is there. It is based on decades of data. Go to the NREL website and check it out. Some areas of our country are obviously not as good as other. Binghamton, NY for example sits in almost constant cloud cover. It will probably not be a good place to put solar panels for a long time, if ever.

Many people didn't think Germany could make it work but they are making it work. It might be very expensive at first but now that they are building the infrastructure and setting aside the required land area, they are getting ready to utilize their renewable energy resources, even if those resources are smaller than other countries (like the U.S.).

Getting the power lines run and the grid infrastructure in place is most of the battle. Just try to get a high voltage line put down along a long stretch of land. It's a bureaucratic pain. However, once you have it in place you can reap the benefits for generations to come.

What about the next generation of solar technology that Germany will use to replace their older generation panels? Is that technology going to be less expensive? Produce power at less cost? Yes. Will it get better as the technology moves down the curve? Yes.

People think that you can just throw up infrastructure over night. That's the crazy thing. It takes decades! It's extremely expensive both in terms of capital and time. The actual solar panel is only a small part of the equation. It's also the easiest to upgrade! You just recycle the old panel and bolt on the new one. No new permits, no new issues with people, no long delays, no ripping up houses to run new power lines, etc. The upgrade is easy once the infrastructure is in place.

Do people realize that this infrastructure is useful for as long as the sun is shining and there is no better renewable technology available?

Power line losses are only around 10% even for very long distances. Advanced high voltage DC technology is very efficient. Just search the Internet and you will see.


Summary:

1) We have massive solar resources in America - enough to power the entire world at current rates of consumption.

2) High voltage power line technology is very efficient.

3) The infrastructure we build now will be useful for centuries and beyond (unless a better technology comes along - if that happens then great!).

4) Solar data has been collected for decades and engineers know how much sun they have throughout the year. They can pick the best locations and use the correct amount of surface area to receive the required energy.

5) Solar technology improves every year. We are just at the start of the technology curve. Nanotechnology is changing the game. Solar panels are being produced like newspapers (roll-to-roll) and have been in high volume production for over a year now.


The main problem we have is electrical energy storage. However, we have that same problem with wind power as well as most current renewable energy options.

Very few of current energy production technologies can match supply and demand closely. Natural Gas and petroleum (gases and liquid) are some of the few technologies that can be adjusted easily. However, there is still a lag because they are thermal based systems. Thermal based systems also need a lot of water. Photovoltaics does not need water (accept to clean the panels) and there are no moving parts to maintain.

I guess it all comes down to what renewable energy options do we have and how will they fit into our future energy plan. The non-renewables should be treated as temporary energy resources that give us time to build a sustainable and renewable energy infrastructure, not to use until it's gone or it has polluted our environment beyond belief.

That is why I don't agree with people that continue to compare the costs of renewables against non-renewables where many of the hidden costs of burning non-renewable fossil fuels are conveniently excluded. Sure the prices are low but the hidden costs are extremely high. We all got a taste of just how expensive those costs can be when our petroleum supplies became unstable this past Summer (I contend that it triggered the very expensive global economic crisis). From our wars we know just how expensive it is to maintain energy resources that are not within our borders.

Yet, people continue to argue about the prices. it's amazing to me. It's like they can't see the forest though the trees.

Thus, I say we go down a similar path that Germany is taking. We can add upwards of around 20% of our electrical energy consumption (more if we have an electrified transportation fleet). We don't have to build too many pumped storage hydro facilities just yet. We have enough coal and NG resources so we can wait for better electrical energy storage technology to come alone (we should be spending billions on the research and development). Building the high voltage power lines (setting aside the land), getting the massive amounts of land area prepared and building out the smart grid built is a huge and important job. It will take us decades and cost trillions of dollars just to do that. It will be worth every penny.

At the same time we need to get as many EVs and plug-in hybrids on the road as possible (actually, this is job one). We need to also build the new smart grid to handle two-way energy flows as well as information exchange. The battery packs in the EVs allow us to add even more intermittent renewable energy resources to the grid. So for now, NG and coal will be our energy storage technology. We can add sustainable energy storage technologies as they become practical.

So for those out there that question if “going solar” is the right thing to do. I would like to say that it’s the best chance we have for getting off our fossil fuel burning addiction. It’s the best way for us to wean ourselves off of Mother Earth’s breast.

Note: before I get a post about this... I have never said that going only with solar is a good idea. We need to use as many of our renewable resources as practical. Since we are just starting to think about a life after fossil fuels we need to fully research and explore all of our renewable and sustainable options. We can then use information based on our real-work experiences to built the best energy infrastructure. We need the shotgun approach right now. I do know one thing for sure, sitting around waiting for the big shoe to drop (serious global non-renewable energy supply problems) is not the best path to take. Just remember, during the Great Depression the world had all the energy it needed. If you add their problems with our energy supply problems you can begin to see how badly things could get.

I’m hoping Obama’s trillion dollar plan builds useful infrastructure that will be a backbone for long-term economic growth, not just fixing up parks and building bridges to nowhere. Yes, we have a lot of projects that are shovel ready and will get people to work. However, if it’s not building useful infrastructure then it’s just a short-term solution. If we don’t fix our energy problems we are going to be back in the same boat, only this time with more water to bail out.

Are you saying you agree that south Florida and Northern Montana have the same solar resource ??

I'm saying that it is 100% dependent on the context. Data without context is nearly useless data.

For instance if a solar map were generated with the following context, than Northern Montana could easily have far more solar resource than Florida:
#1> The solar energy that reaches the surface past clouds and such.
#2> A single day Solar energy amounts ( so if Florida is covered by a large tropical storm and Montana is not than Florida gets next to nothing and Montana gets plenty )
#3> What time of year ( summer is very different than winter )

---------------

I would also say... good for you to question what you read / hear... :)

But if you disagree with data you are given ... then go out and find other data to counter it... even if it is just finding out the context of the data you were given... you might see an issue with the context.

----------------

as for solar resources of the two places... it depends again on context.... and on the resolution of the data you are looking at.

for instance with a dual axis tracker you can get these numbers of yearly average solar hours per day.

FL max
Key West ~7.2
MT max
Billings ~6.9

FL Min
Jacksonville ~6.5
MT Min
Kalispell ~5.7

So FL looks higher over all... but it still varies significantly from place to place... and some parts of MT do get more average solar hours per day on a yearly basis than some parts of FL.... a map might put Billings and Key west on the same color because the difference is too small for some maps to show with the given resolution they were made.

Of course these numbers do not tell the whole story... the whole story is never so simple.

Here is a global solar resource map. If you think about solar resources like you do petroleum resources you can get a good idea as to what countries are going to have a huge advantage in the future (assuming we don't perfect nuclear fusion or some other power source). Check out Africa. Even Australia is just basking in it. India as well as South East Asia look to have more than enough to get them up to and past what we refer to as 1st world development standards.

http://howto.altenergystore.com/images/article/world_solar_insolation_data.gif

I wonder what some of the other countries are going to do. Those that are solar poor as well as wind poor. Liquid hydrogen? Liquid Methane? Biofuels? Who knows. I know one thing for sure, it's going to be easier to compete if you have that solar energy resource than if you don't. ;)

It's ironic how no matter what, Africa always has the most resources but the least technology and the least sophisticated economies for the most part.

I wonder if some day Nevada which (besides Las Vegas) is almost completely unpopulated, will finally have a way to bring money into the state besides gambling. It's generally very flat and perfect for being home to the majority of the United State's electricity production. Beings that it's not very populated, running the high voltage lines and everything would be simple.

It's ironic how no matter what, Africa always has the most resources but the least technology and the least sophisticated economies for the most part.

I wonder if some day Nevada which (besides Las Vegas) is almost completely unpopulated, will finally have a way to bring money into the state besides gambling. It's generally very flat and perfect for being home to the majority of the United State's electricity production. Beings that it's not very populated, running the high voltage lines and everything would be simple.

Nevada Solar One is a 64 MW solar thermal plant that was just built in Nevada, and Ausra just opened up a manufacturing facility there, so they are definitely in the game.

Forget about Africa. Although Kenya is developing geo-thermal in the rift valley and bio-diesel from jatropha curcas, it is still a matter of whether or not their cultures will ever evolve to the point of defending property rights - starting with the first tenet - no person can own another person.

I predict that very valuable renewable energy resources will be developed in Kenya and elsewhere in Africa, and like Niger, Sudan and other African nations, civil war will break out as rivals fight for control of those valuable assets. Meanwhile, both the Sahara desert and Islamic nomads continue to push southward, displacing indiginous peoples.

Texas !!! That map looks more realisitc, doesn't it ?? A little less likely to set off the Tilt !!!! meter ??

The installation in question uses photovoltaic, no ? So, yeah, it's an investment, and it doesn't require a lot of water or anything else. I have been through and worked in the area near Kramer Junction and Ridgecrest. It's always bright, bright, bright. It will fry your your retinas if you don't wear protection. It will peel the paint off a car. Even in the winter. Solar has to work there first. If it can't, it can't work anywhere.

We are ready to find out. California, by voter initiative, hence code, has to import a given percentage of it's electricty that is "green" by the year 2020. I don't know the number and am obviously lazy, but the there is a market for the power.

I am wary of claims made in the original post, however. The author works for a brokerage (?) that invests in "Eco ventures". Notice the story and facts given are not by the facility or any regulating body. So, use guarded caution with the "facts."

Last chance at the Math Quiz !!

What does it cost to build the facility ?? Where is IamIan ??? Didn't he once quip " Oh, boy, some math to chew on?"

Last chance at the Math Quiz !!
What does it cost to build the facility ??
Where is IamIan ???
Didn't he once quip
"Oh, boy, some math to chew on?"


IamIan is here :D

what math quiz?

Are you referring to the cost to build the facility?

And ... no .. I've never said that :p

[QUOTE]what math quiz?

Are you referring to the cost to build the facility?
/QUOTE]

Yes. :)

[QUOTE]what math quiz?

Are you referring to the cost to build the facility?
/QUOTE]

Yes. :)

We can't know with the given information.
We would also need to know the time frame used to convert kW to kWh.

The article author claims,


The 12.6 MW system, located in the Nevada desert, cost $0.075 per kWh to install. And that's without subsidies. Conventional power fed to that grid is $0.09 per kWh.

If he is correct :
12.6 MW *1,000 = 12,600 kW

It does not list where in the Nevada Desert so it would be best to assume that it is an ideal spot. Should be equal or better than what Las Vegas NV gets.

Las Vegas NV gets an annual average of ~9.1 Solar Hours per Day.
Las Vegas NV gets a Peak Monthly average of ~11.8 Solar hours per day for the month of June.

The article does not list the time frame in which the facility will get those kWh numbers of output... was it over 1 Hour , 1 day , 1 month , 1 year , 20 years???

12,600 kW * 1 Hour = 12,600 kWh * $0.075 per kWh to Install =
$945 cost to install if the time frame is 1 Hour.

12,600 kW * 11.8 Peak average Solar Hours per Day in Las Vegas NV = 148,680 peak average kWh per day * $0.075 per kWh to Install = $11,151 cost to install if time frame was one day

12,600 kW * 11.8 peak average solar hours per day in Las Vegas NV * 30 days per month = ~4,460,400 kWh * $0.075 = $334,530 cost to install if time frame was one month.

12,600 kW * 9.1 yearly average solar hours per day in Las Vega NV * 365 days per year = ~41,850,900 kWh * $0.075 per kWh to install = $3,138,817 cost to install if time frame is one year.

12,600 * 9.1 * 365 * 20 * 0.075 = ~$62,776,350 cost to install if time frame is 20 years.

But the question is still... what was the time frame used to convert kW to kWh?

----------------

The other question is the 0.09 conventional what it cost to install so we would be comparing apples to apples ... or is the $0.09 per kWh conventional cost ... the cost to buy... which would then also include transmission ... maintenance ... personnel ... profit ... etc... ????

Nevada has one other unique source of revenue. A least legal revenue. :confused: A lot of Africa is a human tragedy. I have two co-workers from Liberia. Ouch !! God Help those people. I don't think we realize how lucky we are to be part of the United States of America.

Jason, do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ??

Edit: Note the second entry in the blogs Beneath the posted article. .... "The modules pictured above are very clearly crystalline silicon modules and NOT those of First Solar. First Solar's modules are jet black. "

None of you little rays of sunshine caught that ???

Second Edit: Notice the Lush, tall green grass ?? Growing in the semi-arid sand of the Nevada Desert ? Where are the sprinklers ?? He he heh.

Let's wait for a source of information that's not made by the used car salesman, using a fake photograph, which by the way, is clearly lableled Firstsolar. Does anyone have integrity anymore ??

http://image.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/projects_applications_side.jpg

Jason, do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ??

OPEC SUCKS - sorry, I just don't understand your question. Can you restate, including whatever references and quotations from them, so that I follow what you mean?

The source, the author of the article, is employed by a firm that has interest in the facility. He is, in effect, a salesman for his business that sells people's investments. As such, I find his optimism, well, optimistic. He is not a neutral or objective third party. The picture HE included is specious. The panels are not the subject panels, and the background visible in the photo appear to be specious also. I don't know that much about power providers, of any type. I don't know how they disclose or publicly announce there power output. But there has to be a more credible source than that guy. Kind of like the EESTOR claims. Not saying it isn't going to happen, but..... How about

" PG&E announced today that delivery of 12MW began as the sun rose over the Nevada desert. The source of the new power was the solar ........ " so forth and so on.

Press release to the Sacramento Bee, CNN, or whatever. Does that make more sense ???

I don't know how they disclose or publicly announce there power output. But there has to be a more credible source than that guy.

They have to report to the NREL their monthly figures at least once every year... but the NREL usually averages groups together and does not usually publish individual power plants.

The source, the author of the article, is employed by a firm that has interest in the facility. He is, in effect, a salesman for his business that sells people's investments. As such, I find his optimism, well, optimistic. He is not a neutral or objective third party. The picture HE included is specious. The panels are not the subject panels, and the background visible in the photo appear to be specious also. I don't know that much about power providers, of any type. I don't know how they disclose or publicly announce there power output. But there has to be a more credible source than that guy. Kind of like the EESTOR claims. Not saying it isn't going to happen, but..... How about

" PG&E announced today that delivery of 12MW began as the sun rose over the Nevada desert. The source of the new power was the solar ........ " so forth and so on.

Press release to the Sacramento Bee, CNN, or whatever. Does that make more sense ???

OK, can you include whatever I said that caused you to ask that question, because I just don't remember what I might have said to cause you to ask this question?

The article reports a solar electric power milestone. Service cheaper than competing conventional power sources. To me, there are questions regarding the validity of the source of the information. As was pointed out.

[QUOTE]Jason, do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, ( Edit: that they can provide power at $0.075/kWh) or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ??/QUOTE]

Sorry for the unclarity of the question. I didn't mean to imply you made the claim. So....................

Regarding the claim that they have power cheaper than conventional sources, " ... ....... do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ?? " :)

I don't think it is a stretch for them to be producing power at $0.075 per kWh ... but I have my doubts that they are comparing apples to apples... power generation is not the same as the end bill to the consumer.

The article reports a solar electric power milestone. Service cheaper than competing conventional power sources. To me, there are questions regarding the validity of the source of the information. As was pointed out.

[QUOTE]Jason, do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, ( Edit: that they can provide power at $0.075/kWh) or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ??/QUOTE]

Sorry for the unclarity of the question. I didn't mean to imply you made the claim. So....................

Regarding the claim that they have power cheaper than conventional sources, " ... ....... do accept the claim made in the web article/news release, or would you feel safer waiting for an audit or some other form of validation ?? " :)

OPEC SUCKS,

Thanks so much for clarifying, and sorry to put you through so many hoops. Yes, I do believe their claims, as Nanosolar has been making similar and even cheaper claims due to their thin film processes. In another thread, I am posting a story from Renewable Energy World that discusses how cheap solar is about to become.

[QUOTE=OPEC SUCKS;17893]The article reports a solar electric power milestone. Service cheaper than competing conventional power sources. To me, there are questions regarding the validity of the source of the information. As was pointed out.



OPEC SUCKS,

Thanks so much for clarifying, and sorry to put you through so many hoops. Yes, I do believe their claims, as Nanosolar has been making similar and even cheaper claims due to their thin film processes. In another thread, I am posting a story from Renewable Energy World that discusses how cheap solar is about to become.

That begs the question, why do you believe Nanosolar?

Also see my post in your thread about "how cheap" solar is about to become. Cheap compared to what and for who?

[QUOTE=Jason M. Hendler;17929]

That begs the question, why do you believe Nanosolar?

Also see my post in your thread about "how cheap" solar is about to become. Cheap compared to what and for who?

I believe Nanosolar, because they are using a roll-to-roll printed ink approach to production, in which a single machine can churn out 1GW worth of PV material per year - which gives validity to their claims.

Eventually, companies like First Solar and Nanosolar will begin to offer panels for home installation, so eventually, it will be cheap for consumers themselves, and not just utilities and power providers to utilities.

I guess my problem is that I don't have faith in what people say they can do. I guess being from Missouri, the "Show Me" state, I need more than words. Nanosolar has generated little else, as far as I can tell, to support their cost numbers.

I guess my problem is that I don't have faith in what people say they can do. I guess being from Missouri, the "Show Me" state, I need more than words. Nanosolar has generated little else, as far as I can tell, to support their cost numbers.

I am from the big MO as well, and being degreed in both Electrical Engineering and Mechanical Engineering, and having worked in electronic packaging design and manufacturing, Nanosolar has shown me enough of their design and processing to convince me that their claims are very likely, which is backed up by the enormous investments they've received and the partnerships they've crafted within Germany and France.

That said, I do NOT discourage your skepticism, and will continue to search for more than 2nd order indications of their success.

The neighboring utility, SMUD, has a "Clean Power Estimator". I am not in their area, we are serviced by PG&E. However, using SMUD's estimator, their lowest install cost per kW (h) is $6,000. Based on that, and some income, tax, and utility bill "modeling", a 3 kW (hr) system just got a lot, a lot better. Here it is again.

http://smud.cleanpowerestimator.com/default.aspx

I guess where I am going with this is, what is the consensus best guess at the cost per kW (hr) based on the projected re-pricing of solar panels. Given the state of the housing market boom, and subsequent scarcity of work for licensed, certified electricians...... the cost of the inverter,the labor to install the panels..... anything else ??

Could it be lower than SMUD's lowest cost, $6,000/kW (hr) ??

some more details I bumped into:

First Solar Reaches Grid-Parity Milestone (http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/first-solar-reaches-grid-parity-milestone-says-report-5389.html)

So we know the facility in question cost $40 Million and is actually rated at 10 MW.

Also as pointed out on EcoGeek (http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2400/83/) by switching to kWh instead of the traditional kW rating for parity the original article altered the term.