FF vs. Solar

[Brian H]

One of the academic renewable source climate crisis loons over at RealClimate computed that it would take a tiny little square 231 km. on a side of solar cells in Saudi Arabia to provide 2TW capacity, sufficient to keep the Earth supplied. Ignoring the expense of laying (superconducting?) power lines from KSA to the rest of the world, I calculated that, at current costs of about $400/m², that would run to about $21T. The equivalent cost for an equivalent capacity from FF generators would be about $100B, or about 0.5% of the solar. With no transmission lines having to snake around the globe. And no down time from sand storms.

Heh.

[Breakable]

FF is clearly superior technology compared to solar.
Some advantages of solar might be:
Access of technology for individuals. An individual most likely will not afford a FF reactor for some time.
Absolutely no fuel required. While FF requires minuscule amounts of fuel Boron, no-one can say what would the exact price for consumers, once the popularity of FF will rise to the sky. Especially once the world gets involved in the first global space war ;). Battleships anyone?
The price of solar panels, batteries, super-capacitors, superconducting (or HVDC) transmission lines is constantly falling because of manufacturing and design improvements. The price will fall even faster once fossil fuels are not the only source of energy.
It is possible that in the near future it will be cost-effective to print solar cells with your own printer at home. Now it is possible, but not so convenient or cost-effective. It will be a much longer time for someone to be able to print a fusion reactor at home.

Basically having advantages means that you can find non-competing uses for each of those technologies.

[Breakable]

Regarding the global solar power, I dont think you believe that anyone would consider using KSA as their solar-powered energy source when they have their own. For example the plan for EU is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec#
And there is no problem with sandstorms as long as they are not global and there is extra capacity that is part of the grid.

Also take a look how much power USA has compared to EU:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t175/jcwinni/Sunbelt_Map_550x366.jpg

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Regarding the global solar power, I dont think you believe that anyone would consider using KSA as their solar-powered energy source when they have their own. For example the plan for EU is:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/01/solar-power-sahara-europe-desertec#
And there is no problem with sandstorms as long as they are not global and there is extra capacity that is part of the grid.

Also take a look how much power USA has compared to EU:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t175/jcwinni/Sunbelt_Map_550x366.jpg

Actually, the figures used were specific to KSA because of the intensity and reliability of the sunshine. Moving to other locales carries an efficiency /output cost of up to 10X.

Solar may be convenient for hyper-local or hyper-isolated applications, but that’s about it. Without lossless storage, its usefulness is almost peripheral. In the artificial pay-back environment of having utilities buy excess and absorb the bumps and valleys of output of (e.g.) residential solar, it can look good, but only because the utility is paying/buying at the going rate, usually >10¢/kwh, which is about 40X the price of getting it from an FF generator. If the home solar rigs had to sell/value their output at 0.25¢/kwh, they wouldn’t look so self-supporting!

The Desertec project is a bit better, but the plant cost per W isn’t even hinted at, and the transmission requirements are the same. HVDC transmission is an improvement, but will need to go AC for transformers at the receiving end, of course.

As for the map, the US Southwest has already demonstrated that its “suitability” for solar is purely an illusion; those nasty shadowy panels disrupt the ecosystem too much even for Death Valley to tolerate them! It’s been proven in court! 😆 😆

Update: the cost per W of 15 existing and proposed CSP projects averages $3.35, or 67X FF. Downstream marginal costs of production are projected in the 3.2¢/kwh range (optimistically), which is about 13X FF.

More economic roadkill! :cheese:

[dash]

Brian H wrote: As for the map, the US Southwest has already demonstrated that its “suitability” for solar is purely an illusion; those nasty shadowy panels disrupt the ecosystem too much even for Death Valley to tolerate them! It’s been proven in court! 😆 😆

Do you have a link that discusses this, or can you elaborate any? It’s hard to imagine there is anything there that can be harmed by the presence of solar panels.

Now windfarms — I’ve heard the argument that those big spinning blades kill a lot of birds…

[Brian H]

dash wrote:

As for the map, the US Southwest has already demonstrated that its “suitability” for solar is purely an illusion; those nasty shadowy panels disrupt the ecosystem too much even for Death Valley to tolerate them! It’s been proven in court! 😆 😆

Do you have a link that discusses this, or can you elaborate any? It’s hard to imagine there is anything there that can be harmed by the presence of solar panels.

Now windfarms — I’ve heard the argument that those big spinning blades kill a lot of birds…

Don’t have that one handy, but here’s a similar for the Mohave, which includes Death Valley: http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/battle-brewing-over-giant-desert-solar-farm/?hp

[Breakable]

While $3.35 or 3.2¢ is quite high it should continue to fall as technology improves. And for FF we still need to see it in action to know all the actual costs. Of course I agree that currently the margin seems to be pretty high.
One thing what I am concerned about FF in comparison to renewable energy sources is that it makes military technology cheaper and more advanced. I just hope this will not lead to more rounds of cold war, so that all the economical advantages would be negated as result.

[texaslabrat]

Breakable wrote:
One thing what I am concerned about FF in comparison to renewable energy sources is that it makes military technology cheaper and more advanced. I just hope this will not lead to more rounds of cold war, so that all the economical advantages would be negated as result.

A valid concern, but on the other hand the general availability of very cheap power eliminates many of the causes of war to begin with (competition for resources). When there is no more need to burn dead dinosaurs for transportation or industrial/residential power (which of course leads to ever cheaper manufactured goods among other things)…when fresh water can be cheaply desalinated and pumped where it is needed…etc…then the pressures to engage in warfare to provide those resources to one’s people subsides. There will, of course, ALWAYS be SOMETHING that people will fight about…but when basic material and sustenance issues are taken care of through universal availability of cheap power perhaps the scale and intensity of such disagreements can be contained. One can hope, at least.

[Brian H]

texaslabrat wrote:

One thing what I am concerned about FF in comparison to renewable energy sources is that it makes military technology cheaper and more advanced. I just hope this will not lead to more rounds of cold war, so that all the economical advantages would be negated as result.

A valid concern, but on the other hand the general availability of very cheap power eliminates many of the causes of war to begin with (competition for resources). When there is no more need to burn dead dinosaurs for transportation or industrial/residential power (which of course leads to ever cheaper manufactured goods among other things)…when fresh water can be cheaply desalinated and pumped where it is needed…etc…then the pressures to engage in warfare to provide those resources to one’s people subsides. There will, of course, ALWAYS be SOMETHING that people will fight about…but when basic material and sustenance issues are taken care of through universal availability of cheap power perhaps the scale and intensity of such disagreements can be contained. One can hope, at least.

The only solution to advanced military technology is to have it yourself, in large enough surplus to prevent your enemies from matching or surpassing you. And be willing to use it if necessary to prevent the over-ambitious from doing harm. History provides no other alternatives.

texas is right to some extent — where war is caused by desperation or actual imposed inequality. This is the minority of cases, of course. Try coming up with examples. There aren’t many.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: While $3.35 or 3.2¢ is quite high it should continue to fall as technology improves. And for FF we still need to see it in action to know all the actual costs. Of course I agree that currently the margin seems to be pretty high.
One thing what I am concerned about FF in comparison to renewable energy sources is that it makes military technology cheaper and more advanced. I just hope this will not lead to more rounds of cold war, so that all the economical advantages would be negated as result.

It’s still just a boiling-water-turbine heat source. That hardware alone locks it in the high-cost bracket, since that stage of electric generation is about 30% efficient after a couple of centuries of highly motivated technological effort. And storing the heat in molten salt overnight etc. is NEVER going to get truly inexpensive. And yet further, the locales on Earth where the sun is intense enough are remote from the bulk of the population, and transmission is a BIG deal for sun-to-socket costing.

[Aeronaut]

Why are we discussing a zero-sum game concerning solar, wind, bio, and the like? It is our great privilege to make all of them more cost-effective by steadily lowering the hidden energy costs in manufacturing and installing them. ‘Sides, they already have some lobbying muscle that I’d rather not take on. OPEC & Co. is going to be tough enough.

[Brian H]

Aeronaut wrote: Why are we discussing a zero-sum game concerning solar, wind, bio, and the like? It is our great privilege to make all of them more cost-effective by steadily lowering the hidden energy costs in manufacturing and installing them. ‘Sides, they already have some lobbying muscle that I’d rather not take on. OPEC & Co. is going to be tough enough.

It’s a positive sum game, indeed, but they’re doomed to get far less of it than they think! :coolgrin: 😆 ;-P

Speaking of OPEC, have you heard the oil-pumpers are going to demand (permanent ongoing) compensation for being rendered obsolete and impoverished?

For which French has a perfect retort: “Mange la merde!” :smirk:

[Henning]

Take a look at the Spanish electrical power supply. Last few days have been quite windy. Especially take a look at 2009-11-08 (that’s 8th of November 2009 año del dios). More than half of Spanish power production has been accomplished by wind (light green area, called Eólica). Then add 20% of other regenerative production (dark green area, Resto reg. esp.).

That energy has been fed into the grid, because the meteorological office could determine time and location of favourable conditions, and advice the other producers. No power outages occurred.

Therefore regenerative energy production is viable for Spain. If they continue their efforts like the last ten years, they’re more or less set.

Conventional energy production is a backdrop, if the doesn’t blow enough, the sun don’t shine. Nuclear (fission energy) is a money dump – you need to clean up the mess afterwards, nuclear waste and nuclear sites. Aneutronic fusion is still a dream and will as well stay that, although we’re working on it but DON’T COUNT ON IT!

So stop whining about “regenerative energy will never make it” and “there is no greenhouse effect”! Period.

[Aeronaut]

Brian H wrote:

Speaking of OPEC, have you heard the oil-pumpers are going to demand (permanent ongoing) compensation for being rendered obsolete and impoverished?

For which French has a perfect retort: “Mange la merde!” :smirk:

Isn’t that what supply and demand is all about? Investing the loot for a rainy century or few? The current issue of Inc magazine has a killer article about what the Chevy Volt (non-hybrid) and it’s support infrastructure are going to look like- and why. I’m sure that’s what OPEC is concerned about, since we have coal. :smirk:

Sorry, I have no idea what the French retort means. I know some Spanish…

[dash]

Aeronaut wrote: Sorry, I have no idea what the French retort means. I know some Spanish…

It means, “Eat shit!”

[Author]

Posts