US approves world's biggest solar energy project

[RandomGuy]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States approved on Monday a permit for the largest solar energy project in the world -- four massive plants at the cost of one billion dollars each in southern California.

"The Blythe solar power plant will consist of four, 250-Megawatt plants, built on public lands in the sun-drenched Mojave desert," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

"When completed the project is expected to generate up to 1,000 Megawatts of energy... That's enough electricity to power up to 750,000 average American homes and to make Blythe the largest solar power plant facility in the world."

The total capacity will be roughly equal to the turbine output of a nuclear power plant or a large modern coal-fired power plant, according to Solar Millennium, the company developing the facility.

Solar Millennium plans to begin construction on Blythe this year, the company says on its website. At the height of construction, the project is expected to create more than 1,000 jobs.

The Blythe facility is one of a raft of renewable energy projects that have been approved in recent weeks by the Interior Department.

Earlier this month, Salazar approved the first five renewable energy projects on public lands, four in California and one in Nevada, both states that have been hard hit by the economic downturn.

Two weeks ago, Salazar inaugurated the world's largest wind tower manufacturing plant in the working class town of Pueblo, Colorado, which will be run by Danish company Vestas Wind Systems.

One week earlier he signed a lease for the first major offshore wind farm, off the coast of New Jersey.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101025/ts_alt_afp/usenvironmentenergysolar

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

On the advice of a friend, I created a "fantasy stock portfolio" about 3 years ago, and Vestas Wind Systems is one of my favorites. It has done very well.

[coyotes_geek]

I think these are the same solar plants that were involved in some stink about not being able to get environmental approval. Something to do with concerns over some kind of desert critter IIRC. Either way, glad it's been resolved. At least I'm assuming it's been resolved........

[boutons_deux]

the American West is mostly an unpopulated, sun-beaten wasteland. We needs dozens of these and solar thermal plants, 100s of Gwatts, for "free". I say fire the entire military, they can't beat bunch of ragheads, and dump their $700B/year into energy and other infrastructure.

And much of same land, eg, West fricking TX, is very windy, could support solar and wind on the same land (sewage, roads, water treatment/distribution).

Transmission lines are a barrier, as we see trying to bring wind power from West TX to central TX through the Hill Country.

[RandomGuy]

I think these are the same solar plants that were involved in some stink about not being able to get environmental approval. Something to do with concerns over some kind of desert critter IIRC. Either way, glad it's been resolved. At least I'm assuming it's been resolved........

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=120676


Yes, it is good to see it resolved, I think that was the impasse alluded to in the story.

I am generally for protecting the environment, but there is such a thing as going a bit too far. Humans need electricity.

[RandomGuy]

the American West is mostly an unpopulated, sun-beaten wasteland. We needs dozens of these and solar thermal plants, 100s of Gwatts, for "free". I say fire the entire military, they can't beat bunch of ragheads, and dump their $700B/year into energy and other infrastructure.

And much of same land, eg, West fricking TX, is very windy, could support solar and wind on the same land (sewage, roads, water treatment/distribution).

Transmission lines are a barrier, as we see trying to bring wind power from West TX to central TX through the Hill Country.

Actually wind on the coast feeding things like desalinization plants would work wonders. Australia already does something like this.

Coastal wind plants feeding electricity into desalinization plants would be an interesting investment possibility.

[DarrinS]

California knows how to get shit done.

[word]

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The United States approved on Monday a permit for the largest solar energy project in the world -- four massive plants at the cost of one billion dollars each in southern California.

"The Blythe solar power plant will consist of four, 250-Megawatt plants, built on public lands in the sun-drenched Mojave desert," Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said.

"When completed the project is expected to generate up to 1,000 Megawatts of energy... That's enough electricity to power up to 750,000 average American homes and to make Blythe the largest solar power plant facility in the world."

The total capacity will be roughly equal to the turbine output of a nuclear power plant or a large modern coal-fired power plant, according to Solar Millennium, the company developing the facility.

Solar Millennium plans to begin construction on Blythe this year, the company says on its website. At the height of construction, the project is expected to create more than 1,000 jobs.

The Blythe facility is one of a raft of renewable energy projects that have been approved in recent weeks by the Interior Department.

Earlier this month, Salazar approved the first five renewable energy projects on public lands, four in California and one in Nevada, both states that have been hard hit by the economic downturn.

Two weeks ago, Salazar inaugurated the world's largest wind tower manufacturing plant in the working class town of Pueblo, Colorado, which will be run by Danish company Vestas Wind Systems.

One week earlier he signed a lease for the first major offshore wind farm, off the coast of New Jersey.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101025/ts_alt_afp/usenvironmentenergysolar

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

On the advice of a friend, I created a "fantasy stock portfolio" about 3 years ago, and Vestas Wind Systems is one of my favorites. It has done very well.


Good. The answer to energy for us, is to muster all we can. Solar still doesn't deal with the peak demand dilemma, but it's better than nothing. In the northern latitidues where peak demand is heating not cooling, it's a no go.

Since peak demand Is during the hours you can collect solar in this part of the hemisphere, it's all good. My solution/opinion has always been use it all. Solar, wind, nuke, natural gas, coal...


anything but ethynol...that's a loser all the way.

[The Reckoning]

for some reason i keep hearing some evil mastermind's laugh in my head as i read this article...

[word]

for some reason i keep hearing some evil mastermind's laugh in my head as i read this article...


Gore ?

Hey, I'm pro oil, gas, coal, nuke as anyone, but there are places where solar and wind make sense. This is one of those places. It's smart, like I say, in this situation, in that climate. Were they doing it in Wisconsin, I'd laugh.

[MannyIsGod]

Eventually all our energy needs will be met by solar.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow...

Only about 40 years to pay the construction costs. I wonder how much that labor costs and ongoing maintenance costs are that I'm not calculation?

[ChumpDumper]

Wow...

Only about 40 years to pay the construction costs. I wonder how much that labor costs and ongoing maintenance costs are that I'm not calculation?No you aren't calculation, flaglot.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...

Only about 40 years to pay the construction costs. I wonder how much that labor costs and ongoing maintenance costs are that I'm not calculation?

All your solar plants are belong to us.

Seriously though, "40 years"? What basis are you using to calculate that?

[boutons_deux]

WC with his head up his ass, as always.

WC, give the construction costs and payback and insurance costs for McLiar's 100 nuke plants.

[coyotes_geek]

Wow...

Only about 40 years to pay the construction costs. I wonder how much that labor costs and ongoing maintenance costs are that I'm not calculation?

The standard home mortgage in this country is 30 years, so what's the problem? 40 year bonds aren't that uncommon for financing major infrastructure projects.

[RandomGuy]

WC with his head up his ass, as always.

WC, give the construction costs and payback and insurance costs for McLiar's 100 nuke plants.

It was actually calculated that, based on McCains pledge to get the same % of US electricity from nukes as France currently has, one would need on the order of 700 nukes to be built in the next 30 years, not 100.


Just tryin' ta help.

[CosmicCowboy]

I think these are the same solar plants that were involved in some stink about not being able to get environmental approval. Something to do with concerns over some kind of desert critter IIRC. Either way, glad it's been resolved. At least I'm assuming it's been resolved........

Issuing the permit doesn't mean it's resolved. All someone has to do is find an insect that only lives in that area and sue in Federal court and they can shut the solar bug toasters down for years.

[coyotes_geek]

Issuing the permit doesn't mean it's resolved. All someone has to do is find an insect that only lives in that area and sue in Federal court and they can shut the solar bug toasters down for years.

If someone finds something new, yeah, it's possible. But to get the permit you have to go through a detailed and lengthy environmental review process where theoretically you've identified all potential environmental impacts.

[johnsmith]

Where's the usual RandomGuy chatter about cost overruns?

Am I to believe that there won't be any cause yahoo didn't mention it?

[RandomGuy]

Where's the usual RandomGuy chatter about cost overruns?

Am I to believe that there won't be any cause yahoo didn't mention it?

Many large construction projects end upwith overruns, and there is a possibility of that happening here, yes. No data at all as to the probability of that happening though, so I would be unable to quantify them.

If you are referring to the near 100% probability of cost overruns for nuclear plants, this is not a nuclear plant.

[TeyshaBlue]

Where's the usual RandomGuy chatter about cost overruns?

Am I to believe that there won't be any cause yahoo didn't mention it?

I don't think there's much of a data set out there to predict cost overruns. I'm pretty sure this event is singular.

[johnsmith]

Many large construction projects end upwith overruns, and there is a possibility of that happening here, yes. No data at all as to the probability of that happening though, so I would be unable to quantify them.

If you are referring to the near 100% probability of cost overruns for nuclear plants, this is not a nuclear plant.

That's my problem with your constant complaint of cost overruns.....there are overruns in damn near EVERY SINGLE FUCKING construction project on the planet. Fuck, suppliers sometimes budget in overruns knowing they'll make more money on them.

There are overruns in houses, commercial buildings, highways, toll roads, coal fire plants, nuclear plants, and there will be with 100% certainty, overruns on this as well.

So when this thing gets done (and I'm all for it), please make sure you post something that describes the overruns because I know how much you love to do so.

[RandomGuy]

That's my problem with your constant complaint of cost overruns.....there are overruns in damn near EVERY SINGLE FUCKING construction project on the planet. Fuck, suppliers sometimes budget in overruns knowing they'll make more money on them.

There are overruns in houses, commercial buildings, highways, toll roads, coal fire plants, nuclear plants, and there will be with 100% certainty, overruns on this as well.

So when this thing gets done (and I'm all for it), please make sure you post something that describes the overruns because I know how much you love to do so.

Hmmm That might take a few years, but you have my word, I will try to do so. I will add a subscription to this thread and come back to it.

Such overruns MUST be considered in any reasonable analysis of the ultimate cost of any given unit of energy. I hold nuclear's feet to the fire for that, because the scope of those overruns regularly reaches into the 400% of orginal estimated cost range.

I must say though, not 100% of all consctruction projects incur overruns, although the odds go up when the project gets bigger and more complex, such as nuclear plants. You are wrong about that.

[johnsmith]

I must say though, not 100% of all consctruction projects incur overruns, although the odds go up when the project gets bigger and more complex, such as nuclear plants. You are wrong about that.

You're right, there aren't......but then again, I never said that did I?

[johnsmith]

Hmmm That might take a few years, but you have my word, I will try to do so. I will add a subscription to this thread and come back to it.

Such overruns MUST be considered in any reasonable analysis of the ultimate cost of any given unit of energy. I hold nuclear's feet to the fire for that, because the scope of those overruns regularly reaches into the 400% of orginal estimated cost range.

I must say though, not 100% of all consctruction projects incur overruns, although the odds go up when the project gets bigger and more complex, such as nuclear plants. You are wrong about that.

And why is it that do you suppose that the overruns regularly reach 400% on nuclear?

I have a theory rooted in doing 100's of etimates on project that rage from power, to highways, to commercial work. By the time these projects get approved, materials and equipment prices have gone up exponentially because the red tape that is needed to cut through takes a fucking eternity.

Is that the construction processes fault? The engineers? I'm asking here.

[johnsmith]

I'm going to lunch now so that I can figure out a way to gouge the GC I'm working with on a change order that I'm going to charge him 50% more for than I normally would because I already have a contract in place.



See how that works?

[RandomGuy]

And why is it that do you suppose that the overruns regularly reach 400% on nuclear?

I have a theory rooted in doing 100's of etimates on project that rage from power, to highways, to commercial work. By the time these projects get approved, materials and equipment prices have gone up exponentially because the red tape that is needed to cut through takes a fucking eternity.

Is that the construction processes fault? The engineers? I'm asking here.

That is the reason for a large majority of nuclear plants cost overruns to my understanding.

They are unpopular and often end up having to fight off a lot of lawsuits. I have followed the local SA utility's nuclear project, and that has taken place.

The fact that they are complex construction projects also leads people to grossly underestimate the time involved in construction. That is the rest of it.

One might use the sword of eminent (sp?) domain to cut through the gordian knot of litigation, at the cost of individual rights, but the complexity of the projects would still drive overruns.

That could be overcome by standardized blue prints though. The problem with THAT would be picking what design to use, and how to enforce that.

[Wild Cobra]

All your solar plants are belong to us.

Seriously though, "40 years"? What basis are you using to calculate that?
The approximate sale price of electricity to the consumer at 10/kwh and estimated average output.

Did I do my math wrong?

[RandomGuy]

The approximate sale price of electricity to the consumer at 10/kwh and estimated average output.

Did I do my math wrong?

To answer that I would need more information.

Show your work. :)


Would also need to source the data given to evaluate whether the information is current and reliable.

My gut says that 40 year payback is probably wrong for some reason. It would be an interesting calculation to make though.

[MannyIsGod]

If the plan is going to be up for at least forty years I don't care if it takes that long to get paid back.

[Wild Cobra]

Let's revisit the math.

The nameplate capacity will be 1,000,000 kwatts.

The cost will be $4,000,000,000

The equates to $4,000 per kwatt, but if we assign a 25% actual average output because of the earths rotation, angle, clouds, etc. then we only end up with an average usable 250,000 kwatts.

Over the course of a year, this is 2,191,500 kwh. (250,000 x 24 x 265.25)

If we sell this power at $0.07 per kwh wholesale, our annual revenue is $153,405,000, but... that doesn't work. We have power losses in transmission.

If we assign a 35% loss of power in inverter conversion, transmission lines, transformers, etc, we now only have an annual revenue of $99,713,250.

At that rate, it takes 40.12 years to recover the initial start-up costs.

[Wild Cobra]

If the plan is going to be up for at least forty years I don't care if it takes that long to get paid back.
That is only the gross revenue from the sale of electricity. Maintenance personnel, spare parts, downtime, and other operating costs are not factored in yet.

I'll bet it doesn't cover the transmission lines to carry the power either.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ you cutting the rated production by 75%

:lmao

[Wild Cobra]

LOL @ you cutting the rated production by 75%

:lmao
Yes. The sun is only shining half the time. Under impossibly best circumstances, that is a 50% loss already. The solar intensity is highest at noon. If they are fixed cells, then at best, they get about 70% average daytime exposure. Basically 0% at sunrise and sunset 50% at about 8 AM and 4 PM, about 86% at 10 AM and 2 PM, during the equinox. More in the summer, less in the winter. This averages to about 35% before any atmospheric conditions and dust reduce the power levels converted.

[MannyIsGod]

Your calculation sucks considering the future rated max of the plant is going to be much higher than 1000 MW but keep cutting it down.

[Wild Cobra]

Your calculation sucks considering the future rated max of the plant is going to be much higher than 1000 MW but keep cutting it down.
Keep dreaming our national wealth away.

I give what I believe to be realistic numbers. You challenge, when I show you my reasoning, you split off on a tangent.

Nice debating you, but you have obviously resigned from the issue. Sure, the rating will be higher in the future. After how much more cost though?

Is this a subsidy we should consider? I don't think so. If solar is the way to go, let power companies pay for it when they see profit in it. Not our tax dollars.

[coyotes_geek]

If we sell this power at $0.07 per kwh wholesale, our annual revenue is $153,405,000, but... that doesn't work. We have power losses in transmission.

Looks to me like you're really lowballing the price which the power could be sold. According to this, retail residential electric prices in California are $0.15/kwh. Differences in retail versus wholesale noted, but I have a hard time believing utilities are putting a 100% markup on electricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html

[TeyshaBlue]

Is this a subsidy we should consider? I don't think so. If solar is the way to go, let power companies pay for it when they see profit in it. Not our tax dollars.

It would seem to me that infrastructure costs and issues should be pretty much the prime target for spending taxes.....spending for the demonstrable betterment of citizens and all that.

[RandomGuy]

25% actual average output because of the earths rotation, angle, clouds, etc.


built on public lands in the sun-drenched Mojave desert

:cooldevil

Tell me more about the cloudcover at the location.

Then tell me how the production peaks at the same time demand does, and how that might effect your calculations.

[Wild Cobra]

Looks to me like you're really lowballing the price which the power could be sold. According to this, retail residential electric prices in California are $0.15/kwh. Differences in retail versus wholesale noted, but I have a hard time believing utilities are putting a 100% markup on electricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html
OK, maybe the return is better. They pay so much in electricity because of transmission costs, losses, taxes, etc. What would it sell for then? Another 50% higher? That's still about 27 years.

I'm flexible on the costs. My numbers are arbitrary. I think I'm lowballing the transmission loss myself. I'll settle for around 30 years. Sound better? If you disagree, what numbers would you use?

[coyotes_geek]

OK, maybe the return is better. They pay so much in electricity because of transmission costs, losses, taxes, etc. What would it sell for then? Another 50% higher? That's still about 27 years.

I'm flexible on the costs. My numbers are arbitrary. I think I'm lowballing the transmission loss myself. I'll settle for around 30 years. Sound better? If you disagree, what numbers would you use?

Your assumed sale price is the only number that jumped out at me. The 35% capacity number passes the smell test with me and I don't know nearly enough about transmission losses to question that value.

Whether it's a 30 year payoff or even a 40 year payoff I don't have a problem with it. As I said earlier in the thread, it's not uncommon to see infrastructure projects financed out over 40 years.

[Wild Cobra]

Your assumed sale price is the only number that jumped out at me. The 35% capacity number passes the smell test with me and I don't know nearly enough about transmission losses to question that value.

Whether it's a 30 year payoff or even a 40 year payoff I don't have a problem with it. As I said earlier in the thread, it's not uncommon to see infrastructure projects financed out over 40 years.
That 30 year payoff would assume that everyone worked for free, and there were no maintenance costs. It could be more like 60 years when you factor in all the operational costs. Who knows. Costs could exceed revenue, and it may never pay for itself.

[RandomGuy]

Let's revisit the math.

If we sell this power at $0.07 per kwh wholesale,

http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_b.html
While these aren't wholesale, I would question that.
Retail prices:

Residential 15.22 cents per kwh.
Industrial 13.55 cents per kwh.
All sectors (presumed weighted average) 13.58

Now if one assumes wholesale California:

California exchange website:
http://www.caiso.com/2777/277789c42ac70.html
Yields this report that states on page 2 figure e-1 of executive summary:
http://www.caiso.com/27c7/27c792e4cc50.pdf


Seems an average of 40 bucks per megawatt hour for 2009, do some fancy schmancy calcumalatin' 40.00/1,000 = .04

Given though, that is an average monthly price and most defintely NOT peak, we skip ahead to E.6 on page 9 to get a better figure of...
just about the same. .04

It must be noted that the report notes that peak prices are strongly influenced by the cost of natural gas, since that form largely supplies most peak loads.

If one really wants to estimate pay-back for solar though, one would have to fully encapsulate future cost increases in natural gas.

If one factors in the time value of money, and guesses that energy prices will go up a tad faster than inflation due to natural gas depletion over the next 40 years, that would probably be a bit better.

-------------------
Edit:
Assuming 4% price inflation of natural gas (and coal for that matter) would impact the overall price considerably.
Here are the factors for the next 40 years.
year 4% 5%
1 1.040 1.05
2 1.082 1.103
3 1.125 1.158
4 1.170 1.216
5 1.217 1.276
6 1.265 1.340
7 1.316 1.407
8 1.369 1.477
9 1.423 1.551
10 1.480 1.629
11 1.539 1.710
12 1.601 1.796
13 1.665 1.886
14 1.732 1.980
15 1.801 2.079
16 1.873 2.183
17 1.948 2.292
18 2.026 2.407
19 2.107 2.527
20 2.191 2.653
21 2.279 2.786
22 2.370 2.925
23 2.465 3.072
24 2.563 3.225
25 2.666 3.386
26 2.772 3.556
27 2.883 3.733
28 2.999 3.920
29 3.119 4.116
30 3.243 4.322
31 3.373 4.538
32 3.508 4.765
33 3.648 5.003
34 3.794 5.253
35 3.946 5.516
36 4.104 5.792
37 4.268 6.081
38 4.439 6.385
39 4.616 6.705
40 4.801 7.040

[RandomGuy]

If we assign a 35% loss of power in inverter conversion, transmission lines, transformers,

You are also assuming that the producer eats the entire transmission loss. This is unlikely.

Based on the mark-up between wholesale and retail, I would guess that the producer eats almost none of that loss, but that would require some reading of the utility financials to determine.

[Wild Cobra]

Given though, that is an average monthly price and most defintely NOT peak, we skip ahead to E.6 on page 9 to get a better figure of...
just about the same. .04

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the $0.04 is the number before transmission line losses, taxes, operational costs of the PUD, etc.

Wow...

At only $0.04 per generated kwh, that brings the return time to 45 years assuming zero operational costs. So with transmission costs, line losses, operational expenses, etc.... Californians are paying more than 3 times the cost...

Doesn't surprise me. They generate very little of their own power, so they have huge line losses. The farther you go, the larger the losses. I think the 35% loss I calculated is typical for local use. Most the loss is in the transformer stages, but would be more yet at low voltages.

[RandomGuy]

Do you think it would be safe to assume that the $0.04 is the number before transmission line losses, taxes, operational costs of the PUD, etc.

Wow...

At only $0.04 per generated kwh, that brings the return time to 45 years assuming zero operational costs. So with transmission costs, line losses, operational expenses, etc.... Californians are paying more than 3 times the cost...

Doesn't surprise me. They generate very little of their own power, so they have huge line losses. The farther you go, the larger the losses. I think the 35% loss I calculated is typical for local use. Most the loss is in the transformer stages, but would be more yet at low voltages.

Given 4% inflation of electrical prices over a 40 year period starting at .04 cents per kwh, that would make the average price of electricity over that period to be almost exactly 10 cents.

Given a 5% inflation of electrical prices that would make the average price over the same time period to be almost 16 cents.

Your calculations in determining payback period will be heavily influenced by the time value of money.

You can plug in the columns I gave above into a spreadsheet to help.

[RandomGuy]

Other factors:
PV output declines over time.
Few mechanical parts means a much more reliable source, assume wind base of about 2% build cost per month for maintenance per year. (if memory serves, found data in wind turbine company's financials)
This must be indexed for overall inflation/cost of capital.
Also note that it is likely that the PV installation will have a lifespan that far exceeds any equivalent competing source of energy.

[RandomGuy]

They generate very little of their own power, so they have huge line losses.

By the by, the total imported Mwh was also in that pdf file I gave. Fascinating document.

[Wild Cobra]

You can plug in the columns I gave above into a spreadsheet to help.
Not really. The number I generated already has a large unknown error factor. Starting at $0.07 per kwh was my guesstimate of what the solar facility would sell the power for. I don't think power prices have gone up by that much, and I missed the year somehow by a decade at first in your linked material. If I assume a 2% annual increase, that $0.04 becomes only about $0.049. $0.054 at 3%, $0.059 at 4%, and $0.065 at 5%. My $0.07 number would require a 5.76% annual increase, so it appears I may have been lowballing the price.

Just how expensive will solar actually be?

[coyotes_geek]

That 30 year payoff would assume that everyone worked for free, and there were no maintenance costs. It could be more like 60 years when you factor in all the operational costs. Who knows. Costs could exceed revenue, and it may never pay for itself.

O&M is going to turn a 30 year payoff into a 60 year payoff? For that to be the case O&M would have to be running running in the +$100mil/yr range. Sorry, I just don't see it.

[MannyIsGod]

Jesus Christ why do you have to always reach and constantly shift your position to fit what you want it to be? Why can't you just acknowledge this plant isn't all that bad at all? Is it so damaging to your myopic world view that you can't admit things and instead choose to constantly flip flop and squirm?

[RandomGuy]

If I assume a 2% annual increase, that $0.04 becomes only about $0.049.

factor @2%
1.02
1.0404
1.061208
1.08243216
1.104080803
1.126162419
1.148685668
1.171659381
1.195092569
1.21899442
1.243374308
1.268241795
1.29360663
1.319478763
1.345868338
1.372785705
1.400241419
1.428246248
1.456811173
1.485947396
1.515666344
1.545979671
1.576899264
1.608437249
1.640605994
1.673418114
1.706886477
1.741024206
1.77584469
1.811361584
1.847588816
1.884540592
1.922231404
1.960676032
1.999889553
2.039887344
2.080685091
2.122298792
2.164744768
2.208039664
total 61.61002284

average 1.540250571 >>>>>>61.61/40

1.54*.04=0.06...

Try 6 cents average over the period, before adjusting for other factors.
3% =7.7 cents.

Not sure how you are calculating your averages, but they are incorrect.

[RandomGuy]

Just how expensive will solar actually be?

"That depends" is the quick answer.

A MUCH better question:

"How expensive will solar actually be relative to alternatives?"

Given that it is certain that fossil fuel depletion and "peak production" will make such forms of fuel VERY expensive long before depletion, we need to collectively make some really good guesses now, because the power plants we build today will lock us into that form of power for 30+ years.

This Net Present Value is extremely dependent on assumptions one makes for conditions 20-40 years down the road.

[Wild Cobra]

O&M is going to turn a 30 year payoff into a 60 year payoff? For that to be the case O&M would have to be running running in the +$100mil/yr range. Sorry, I just don't see it.
I said it "could be." never said it will.

An average worker in such an industry makes over $100k in salary and benefits in California. The project will cover 7,025 acres, or 11 square miles. The parabolic reflectors will require daily cleaning to keep dust from reducing the thermal efficiency. How many people will it take, and at what cost of resources?

Now I can wag it at about 2500 or more employees performing daily maintenance. Since this isn't exactly a skilled job, let's assume they make $60k in salary and benefits. That amounts to about $150 million annual costs just for labor. What about the costs of the specialized cleaning equipment, supplies, fuel, etc.

I based the approximate 7025 acres at 2 manhours of labor a day per acre. I allotted each employee with 1904 annual hours. 2080 hours minus 4 weeks annual vacation - 16 hours average sick leave. Use your own numbers as you wish and ratio them with my 1904, pay, and man-hours per acre. Annual maintenance is 5,128,250 man-hours. At 1904 hours per man, that's 2693 employees.

I'm all ears for what you think the true costs will be.

[Wild Cobra]

Not sure how you are calculating your averages, but they are incorrect.
I was only taking the 2000 figures to 2010 electrical cost. I was not attempting to forecast the future costs with inflation, as they close to balance with the compounded interest.

[Wild Cobra]

"That depends" is the quick answer.

A MUCH better question:

"How expensive will solar actually be relative to alternatives?"

Given that it is certain that fossil fuel depletion and "peak production" will make such forms of fuel VERY expensive long before depletion, we need to collectively make some really good guesses now, because the power plants we build today will lock us into that form of power for 30+ years.

This Net Present Value is extremely dependent on assumptions one makes for conditions 20-40 years down the road.
I somewhat agree. However, I am an advocate of making such project when we know they will be cost effective compared to current methods. We don't know for fact when "peak production" really is.

[Wild Cobra]

ooops...

The actual solar cells will only take up 5950 acres. calculated labor force is now 2281.25 instead of 2693.41. Using 2,000 employees vs. 2,500 would be $120 million annual.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/images/blythe_solar_400x269.jpg

[RandomGuy]

I somewhat agree. However, I am an advocate of making such project when we know they will be cost effective compared to current methods. We don't know for fact when "peak production" really is.

:bang

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

It is generally agreed that we are rapidly approaching, if not past peak oil. Peak coal, and peak natural gas will follow in short order. It is also generally agreed that price increases will hit long before final depletion.

[RandomGuy]

ooops...

The actual solar cells will only take up 5950 acres. calculated labor force is now 2281.25 instead of 2693.41. Using 2,000 employees vs. 2,500 would be $120 million annual.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/images/blythe_solar_400x269.jpg

Try "oops, if I had bothered looking up the press release, I would have noticed the company says it will create 295 jobs on a permanent basis".

:p:

[Wild Cobra]

:bang

--snip of the insanely repeated words---

You cannot always wait until you have perfect information before making decisions.

It is generally agreed that we are rapidly approaching, if not past peak oil. Peak coal, and peak natural gas will follow in short order. It is also generally agreed that price increases will hit long before final depletion.
In geological terms, a thousand years is short order.

I seems we are on the decline for oil. Not coal or natural gas though. It will still be decades before a resource we use for electricity will become too costly without "Cap and Tax."

Isn't one definition of insanity doing, or repeating the same thing over and over, expecting a different result?

[coyotes_geek]

I said it "could be." never said it will.

An average worker in such an industry makes over $100k in salary and benefits in California. The project will cover 7,025 acres, or 11 square miles. The parabolic reflectors will require daily cleaning to keep dust from reducing the thermal efficiency. How many people will it take, and at what cost of resources?

Now I can wag it at about 2500 or more employees performing daily maintenance. Since this isn't exactly a skilled job, let's assume they make $60k in salary and benefits. That amounts to about $150 million annual costs just for labor. What about the costs of the specialized cleaning equipment, supplies, fuel, etc.

I based the approximate 7025 acres at 2 manhours of labor a day per acre. I allotted each employee with 1904 annual hours. 2080 hours minus 4 weeks annual vacation - 16 hours average sick leave. Use your own numbers as you wish and ratio them with my 1904, pay, and man-hours per acre. Annual maintenance is 5,128,250 man-hours. At 1904 hours per man, that's 2693 employees.

I'm all ears for what you think the true costs will be.

A snippet from a story about a solar plant in Arizona. 4,000 acre site, 340MW capacity and they're predicting that they'll only need 100 employees. That's 0.29 employees per MW. For 1,000MW, that's 290.


If approved and funded, the project could generate an estimated 1,500 jobs during the construction phase, and require 100 employees when operational.

http://cleantechnica.com/2009/05/13/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-340mw-planned-for-arizona/

For comparison, coal requires 0.18 employees per MW. I'll buy that solar will require more employees given the larger land area required for the site. A jump from 0.18 to 0.29 sounds reasonable. A jump from 0.18 to 2.5 does not.


According to Singh & Fehrs' 2001 analysis of Energy Information Administration data, the average coal-fired power plant - per megawatt of peak capacity - employs 0.18 people in operations & maintenance on a permanent basis.[11]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_and_jobs_in_the_United_States

[Wild Cobra]

Try "oops, if I had bothered looking up the press release, I would have noticed the company says it will create 295 jobs on a permanent basis".

:p:
Then their output will suffer.

What is the daily dust level in the winds at that desert anyway?

If I assume 280 of those jobs to be typical maintenance for the farm, and 150 to be management and other higher pay jobs, how does $28 million annual labor cost sound? What will the spare parts, supplies, fuel, cleaning equipment, etc. cost? Those are costs I really don't care to guess.

Another though...

Is there any contracted work not factored in? The another possibility.... Normally a manufacturer will supply a labor force while the warranty is in effect that will have to be replaced by more permanent employees later.

We have seen time and again that costs are far more than estimated.

[RandomGuy]

However, I am an advocate of making such project when we know they will be cost effective compared to current methods.

The magic of NPV helps enormously.

If one assumes increases in fossil fuels at a rate a bit faster than inflation over the next 40 years (a VERY conservative assumption) we can probably make some fair guesses.

A less conservative assumption would be short term prices at a bit past overall inflation, with larger increases as time progresses.

Costs of construction for plants will simply follow inflation. Solar/wind operating costs seem to be fairly dependent on build costs, so it is safe to assume that solar/wind cost increases will stay roughly in line with inflation.

It is possible to build a reasonable model based on this, and simply add up the revenues/expenses for all periods in the future and see how things really stack up, and then see how sensitive that is to the variables, and get a fair answer.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll buy that solar will require more employees given the larger land area required for the site. A jump from 0.18 to 0.29 sounds reasonable. A jump from 0.18 to 2.5 does not.
Like I said, I was WAG'n it.

I have a hard time believing that number though. I think they will run into far larger costs than most anticipate.

The dust, if not regularly cleaned off, will diminish the power production capacity by a large amount. Now just how much labor is needed, hard to say. I though I was being generous at 2 man-hours per acre.

What about replacing the parabolic reflectors ad they lose their luster from the winds blowing sand, and effectively sand-blasting them.

I see nothing but huge maintenance costs. Being a maintenance technician for more than 30 years now, I think I have some understanding of various concepts involved here. I'll bet the low advertised employee numbers are probably to make labor happy by requiring more than other operations, and tax payers not concerned by low-balling what the true ongoing operational cost will be.

Oh well...

It's a done deal, and time will tell.

[RandomGuy]

For comparison, coal requires 0.18 employees per MW.

Hmm. Seems incomplete.

Compute tons of fuel used per Mwh.

Add employees need to mine/transport per ton of input.

Might need to add employees needed to process/manage waste ash as well, depending on whether that is counted as a "power plant" employee.

[coyotes_geek]

Like I said, I was WAG'n it.

I have a hard time believing that number though. I think they will run into far larger costs than most anticipate.

The dust, if not regularly cleaned off, will diminish the power production capacity by a large amount. Now just how much labor is needed, hard to say. I though I was being generous at 2 man-hours per acre.

What about replacing the parabolic reflectors ad they lose their luster from the winds blowing sand, and effectively sand-blasting them.

I see nothing but huge maintenance costs. Being a maintenance technician for more than 30 years now, I think I have some understanding of various concepts involved here. I'll bet the low advertised employee numbers are probably to make labor happy by requiring more than other operations, and tax payers not concerned by low-balling what the true ongoing operational cost will be.

Oh well...

It's a done deal, and time will tell.

Given the political and economic climate of today, the last thing in the world I can envision is someone deliberately underestimating the number of green jobs that a project would create.

[RandomGuy]

Then their output will suffer.

What is the daily dust level in the winds at that desert anyway?

If I assume 280 of those jobs to be typical maintenance for the farm, and 150 to be management and other higher pay jobs, how does $28 million annual labor cost sound? What will the spare parts, supplies, fuel, cleaning equipment, etc. cost? Those are costs I really don't care to guess.

Another though...

Is there any contracted work not factored in? The another possibility.... Normally a manufacturer will supply a labor force while the warranty is in effect that will have to be replaced by more permanent employees later.

We have seen time and again that costs are far more than estimated.

28m annual labor sounds in the ballpark. It is also about .5% of construction cost.

Seems like 1-2% of build costs as annual operating costs is a reasonable figure.

[coyotes_geek]

Hmm. Seems incomplete.

Compute tons of fuel used per Mwh.

Add employees need to mine/transport per ton of input.

Might need to add employees needed to process/manage waste ash as well, depending on whether that is counted as a "power plant" employee.

I was only looking for the "apples to apples" comparison for employees required to O&M the power plant facility itself. No arguement here that if you want to bring in coal's production and transport chains into the equation that number goes up.

[RandomGuy]

I seems we are on the decline for oil. Not coal or natural gas though. It will still be decades before a resource we use for electricity will become too costly without "Cap and Tax."

Further, the price of oil will directly impact the price of electricity.

The price of oil will drive demand for coal and gas, increasing demand for them, as we start winding down our oil supplies.

Once again, the physical impossibility of increasing coal/gas production by some % every year will rear its ugly head.

Let's assume that present and future predicted reserves of say, gas, will last for 100 years at current production rates.

Then assume that production goes up by 3% per year.

That 100 years gets cut to 46, and at year 47 production goes to ZERO.

This is simplifying it a bit, but it does show how assuming things in the future will be the same as in the past can bite one in the ass, if one does not pay attention to the math.

[RandomGuy]

I was only looking for the "apples to apples" comparison for employees required to O&M the power plant facility itself. No arguement here that if you want to bring in coal's production and transport chains into the equation that number goes up.

Sorry. Just being a bit thorough. The topic interests me, obviously. :)

[boutons_deux]

Sure, TLC costs of coal is value of land, injuries/deaths from by strip or other mining,
transport to the the generating plant,
the cost/deaths due to methyl mercury and CO2 pollution,
water inputs to the plant,
cost of transporting and storing coal ash.

Coal is only "clean" when the coal industry lies about it. Same with nuclear.

And the same TLC approach should be taken with solar-voltaic and solar-thermal.

[RandomGuy]

Sure, TLC costs of coal is value of land, injuries/deaths from by strip or other mining,
transport to the the generating plant,
the cost/deaths due to methyl mercury and CO2 pollution,
water inputs to the plant,
cost of transporting and storing coal ash.

Coal is only "clean" when the coal industry lies about it. Same with nuclear.

And the same TLC approach should be taken with solar-voltaic and solar-thermal.

Yup. Coal has a LOT of hidden costs. Not the least of which is mercury in seafood. icky.

You also missed the nastiness of the mine trailings.

http://c1.planetsave.com/files/2009/03/coalmine.jpg

Given the snits over water going on, I can't see a lot of support for fucking up more water tables with this shit.

[Wild Cobra]

I found the numbers stated by the final commission decision of the project (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-009/CEC-800-2010-009-CMF.PDF). their calculations are less than my 25% rated. On page 78, they put the 1,000 megawatt plant at 2,100,000 mega-watt hours net annual electricity. That becomes 239.73 megawatts, or just below 24% efficiency. I calculated at 25%. Didn't see too much else useful in that one. Several pieces of material are at:

Solar Millennium Blythe Power Plant Documents Page (http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/documents/index.html)

[boutons_deux]

"mercury in seafood."

... very often completely "natural" in the top predators, as mercury accumulates in all the stuff down the pyramid. eg, tuna from the Mediterranean is often very full of mercury due to the undersea hot springs around Italy's earthquake zone saturated with all kinds of nasty metals.

methyl mercury found in nearly every river and lake and their fish in USA is NOT natural and comes exclusively from coal-fired plants.

[RandomGuy]

I found the numbers stated by the final commission decision of the project (http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CEC-800-2010-009/CEC-800-2010-009-CMF.PDF). their calculations are less than my 25% rated. On page 78, they put the 1,000 megawatt plant at 2,100,000 mega-watt hours net annual electricity. That becomes 239.73 megawatts, or just below 24% efficiency. I calculated at 25%. Didn't see too much else useful in that one. Several pieces of material are at:

Solar Millennium Blythe Power Plant Documents Page (http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/documents/index.html)

I also found the information on pg 89. Nifty.

You made a mistake there as well, actually.

You divided the generating capacity by 24hrs of operation to get your figure.

A better baseline generation capacity would be to divide that by 12, or essentially multiply that by two for 479 Mw average peak production.

This kind of project would simply provide additional peak production, with production spiking at the time of peak demand. It would, in essence, displace natural gas generating capacity.

Using that metric it is best to compare costs/alternatives for this type of power plant with that form of power generation.

[RandomGuy]

Then their output will suffer [since they only have, according to my estimate, 280 employees for maintenance, when I my previous calculations say they need 2,000+]

"their output will suffer"?

You really want to go there?

Their output will suffer because they disagree with your estimate as to how much labor is required?

They do this for a living and the entities building it have revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars to billions of dollars per year.

I take it you have extensive experience at managing parabolic solar power stations to be able to place your judgment over theirs?

[RandomGuy]

[It] seems we are on the decline for oil. Not coal or natural gas though. It will still be decades before a resource we use for electricity will become too costly without "Cap and Tax."



Further, the price of oil will directly impact the price of electricity.

The price of oil will drive demand for coal and gas, increasing demand for them, as we start winding down our oil supplies.

Once again, the physical impossibility of increasing coal/gas production by some % every year will rear its ugly head.

Let's assume that present and future predicted reserves of say, gas, will last for 100 years at current production rates.

Then assume that production goes up by 3% per year.

That 100 years gets cut to 46, and at year 47 production goes to ZERO.

This is simplifying it a bit, but it does show how assuming things in the future will be the same as in the past can bite one in the ass, if one does not pay attention to the math.

Of course my response here does not reflect reality.

Reality is that as the cheaper sources of natural gas are used up, what is left gets progressively harder to get at. This leads such things to have the same bell-shaped production curve as oil.

In the above scenario, you would not be able to increase production 3% every year, and you really would get much more than 47 years out of it, and that is precisely the point I keep making.

Long before you get to ultimate exhaustion, you will get a massive run up in price simply due to supply/demand imbalances, as you get to the tail end of that production curve. One saving grace that allows for a more "plateau'ed" curve is technology that allows greater production over time, but that can only do so much to delay the inevitable.

If you go back to the California exchange report, they spend a great deal of time talking about natural gas prices, which spiked in 2009 at prices 3 times above normal for a few months, mirroring recent spikes in oil and coal.

[Wild Cobra]

I also found the information on pg 89. Nifty.

You made a mistake there as well, actually.

You divided the generating capacity by 24hrs of operation to get your figure.

A better baseline generation capacity would be to divide that by 12, or essentially multiply that by two for 479 Mw average peak production.

This kind of project would simply provide additional peak production, with production spiking at the time of peak demand. It would, in essence, displace natural gas generating capacity.

Using that metric it is best to compare costs/alternatives for this type of power plant with that form of power generation.
Actually, the 1000 megawatts is the peak capacity, at high noon and a clear sky. What I did was divide the annual 2,100,000 megawatts by 265 days then by 24 hrs.

The parabolics are fixed in that they will only point south. The do point up or down to stay aligned to the sun however. They will point up higher in tghe summer, and close to the horizon in the winter. They will get maximum solar power near noon. 50% power 60 degrees away, or about 8 AM and 4 PM.