VentureBeat

Ian Fernandes said:

Actually, the real cost of photovoltaic is much higher than the 20 cents/kwh its proponents claim; try more like 40-50 cents. The cost of natural gas power is near a peak now, it’s traditionally been much cheaper, and the cost of coal power, which makes up 50% of US generating capacity is 4 cents/kwh. In any case, thermal solar has potential.

Ian Fernandes said:

Although, I should add, anyone can *intend* to make solar thermal for less than 10 cents/kwh. I doubt these guys can actually do it.

Arno Harris said:

Solar power can be sold today at costs that are very competitive with retail utility rates. A “real cost” comparison on a kWh basis for various energy technologies involves a ton of assumptions that really should be stated before making blanket pronouncements. Otherwise, the comparison is pretty much worthless. I suspect Ian is comparing apples and oranges–ie solar-cost-without-subsidies vs NG and coal’s costs with today’s generous tax and regulatory incentives baked in. Also, the analysis probably does not include an appropriate risk factor for NG fuel price volatility nor the inevitable cost of carbon compliance for both NG & coal–solar has no fwd fuel risk and no carbon liability. Solar can be sold “behind the meter” to compete with retail rates while NG and coal must compete at wholesale. Finally, comparing the cost of an emerging technology to a mature technology as though they represent the same thing is dangerous–did anyone five years ago think you would be able to buy a hard disk for less than $0.50/GB?

Ian Fernandes said:

I recognize that actually calculating costs per kwh is not trivial, but I was in fact comparing real costs. Reality is that the unsubsidized cost of coal is around 4 cents/kwh and the unsubsizied cost of photovoltaic solar is around 40-50 cents/kwh or more, not including storage, which can quintuple the cost or more. No one can reasonably make the claim that photovoltaic can compete even with the high retail rates we pay here in california. Of course, there may be some improvements in photovoltaic costs over time, but such improvements are not on the horizon, and the efficiency of coal and natural gas isn’t exactly static either.

also, I read elsewhere that bright source plans to build a ‘hybrid’ plant incorporating solar and natural gas, which, unless they have some revolutionary technology, means they will actually be building 2 parallel plants. I suppose they can then use some clever accounting to claim they are producing solar energy at 10 cents/kwh when they are really running on gas.

Joann said:

Fernandes,

Please substantiate your coal cost numbers.

Some argue that coal is cheap, but the cost of intalling a new coal plant, with modern environmental controls, is quite expensive ($2-3 per Watt). Fuel is 2-3 cents/kWh (at current price - no Carbon tax), operations and maintenance is 1-1.5 cents/kWh, and capital (amortized over 20-30 years) is 1.5-2.5 cents/kWh. That adds to 5.5-7 cents at the wholesale level. What is your source for info?

Ian Fernandes said:

My source is the cost estimates that companies are using to get financing for proven technology. All your numbers are way on the high side. For instance, despite recent jumps in commodities and labor costs (much due to the boondoggle ethanol industry), TXU is estimating a cost of 1.1 cent per watt for upfront capital costs for their new coal plants. This is for a real project for which they need financing, not some imaginary solar project that no one has built yet and hence has no idea what it will cost.

John Ballam said:

Ian,

These are solar THERMAL plants NOT photovolatic plants. The only thing a solar thermal plant has in common with a photovoltaic plant is that the energy source is sunlight. Solar thermal plants use large mirrors to concentrate light, converting it to heat and which is transferred to a working fluid. From there on, it is a conventional steam plant.
Your assumption that a solar-gas hybrid plant would require two plants is inocorrect. A hybrid plant has a solar collector array, a gas fired heater and a conventional steam power block (turbine, condensor, steam generator,superheater, reheater and balance of plant). The steam power block is shared by both the heater and the solar array. The heater and solar array are plumbed in parallel with variable speed pumps which can partision the flow to either heater and/or solar array as needed. The amount of flow sent through the gas heater is controlled by the amount of heat required to be added to the solar heat input in order to maintain design turbine inlet steam conditions. The plant is designed so that it can run 100% solar all the way to 100% gas fired. In a prime solar location, 70% of the power generated per year will be solar. This means a 70% reduction in CO2 emissions and gas consumption. Not bad!! It is a very elegant design. By the way, two large 100 MW plants of this design have been operating in the Mojave desert now for 25 years. They are owned and operated by a partnership in which Florida Power and Light is the majority holder. The main obstacle to obtaining a lot more of this non-polluting, non CO2 emitting energy is political, not technical or econmic competativeness.
Solar thermal and wind are a REAL threat to oil and gas interests.
Just remember, about 43% of all green house gasses emitted by US per year (mostly CO2) are from oil, gas and coal fired power plants.

Krassen Dimitrov said:

Solar thermal is the most viable solar technology. Much better than PV or photosynthesis (algae). It may not be competetive to fossil energy now, but these investors are looking where the puck will be, not where it is now.

This is not a hype-scam, like GreenFuel, or even nanoSolar, although NanoSolar is much better than GreenFuel…

Nick Panchev said:

Dimitrow, please call Nick 909-263-2868

Kerry beauhrt said:

Ausra and Solel are the other two major players in the solar thermal market, and I note that FPL in Florida is convinced Ausra can deliver 5 cent per kilowatthour power
once the fabrication plants are operational. Wind and solar photovoltaic are goners - even if either could produce cheap power, their power is uncontrollable and thus unable to meet peak demand and thus must be duplicated by dispatchable power generators, making it true costs way way above what the wind (and photovoltaic)industry and its shills are always claiming. Distributed power (solar roofs) makes no sense anyway, and when California starts subsidizing people like Larry Hagment $327K of his million dollar roof, we’ve reached the apex of CAlifornia idiocy, which is really saying something. The most braindead state in the union and by far the most arrogant. I love watching Vermont with its nuclear power produce the lowest cabon emissions in the nation at 5pounds per megawatthour, while boastful California spews forth over 600 pounds to generate the same megawatthour of electricity. Really proved something by going with wind and photovoltaic (combined output of less than 3 percent), didn’t you, Californians? It’s appropriate that it is the home of Hollywood, the world of fantasy and ficion (”Who Killed the Electric Car?”).