"Now
¾SOLAR POWER CHEAPER THAN COAL, OIL, GAS" says the big headline on the cover of Popular Science, Feb. 1985. It is belied by the story inside: the cost of the described solar plant producing 5 MW on 30 acres of reflectors works out to $2,800 per peak kilowatt. That is more than the cost of any nuclear plant that went critical even as late as 1984, not excluding Diablo Canyon, whose cost ($2,466/kW) was driven to insane heights by the antinuclear legalistic saboteurs (the cost of earlier nuclear plants was, of course, much lower). Nor do you have to say per peak kill for conventional power plants, for they can deliver their power at any time, not only when the sun is out.Popular Science's claim is based not on the cost of the plant, but on the alleged cost of the delivered energy. But that cannot be calculated without knowing the life of the plant and the maintenance and operating costs, which are particular critical in sources whose fuel cost is small compared with the investment cost (solar, hydro, nuclear). However, there is very little experience with solar plants, and none at all with this new type, though I would expect the maintenance costs of so little power over such a large area (16,800 mirrors made of 2.5 mil film, each sucked by a small motor to make the film concave, plus steam lines from 700 concentrators) will turn out to be an unpleasant surprise.
That is not to knock the new and interesting technology of the system (to which I may come back in a future issue), nor solar energy in general or even solar electric power
¾a very good source where it makes sense. It is not for large-scale power production (the giant plant above produces 1/200 the power of a conventional unit), but it is well suited for small amounts of power far from the electric power grid. The Naval Weapons Center in China Lake, Calif., has recently published a study concluding that photovoltaics begin to be economical for loads less than 10 kW located more than 2 miles from the power net.Even the supreme gurus of soft-headed energy, the Lovinses, admit in a recent article that in spite of the solar tax credits (usually 70% of the cost), solar heating plus super-insulation for a 1800 sq.ft home still costs $10,000, whereas making it all-electric is an investment of only $1,000. The snag, they claim, is that the $1,000 will commit the utility to investing $200,000 of ratepayers' money.
At first sight, this and similar figures appear to be concocted out of thin air; but deeper study reveals they are concocted out of nothing so solid. The saner part of what they are saying is that a diamond-studded pencil and sketchbook are in the long run cheaper than a camera, for the latter commits the photographic industry to invest in expensive machinery, and you are then forced to "subsidize" them by buying the film manufactured by the dirty dogs.
However, more important than this Mickey-Mouse arithmetic is the exaggerated publicity heaped on it. Lovins' antinuclear testimony (given at $625/hour, reduced to a mere $375/hour for non-profit organizations) to various PUCs spending other people's money is given nationwide publicity by the media moguls.
"We have no power," the Lovinses always assure reporters. This is true in the sense that they do not carry submachineguns; but the power conferred by media favor is one to which Congress, the judiciary, and the President of the US must bow.
What greater power would they want? A seat on the Soviet Politbureau?
|
|
Vol. 12, No. 7
Newsletter: Access to Energy Newsletter Archive Volume: Issues Issue/No.: Vol. 12, No. 7 Date: November 29, 2004 01:59 PM Title: Gratitude and contempt
Copyright © 2004 - Access to Energy Newsletter Archive
|