Anyone who is advocating solar energy is not arguing for fossil fuel or coal fired plants. How many deaths are attributed to solar power?
That's fine. I can see you aren't ready to discuss viable alternatives to solar. This plant will render 3,000 acres nearly useless, destroying an ecosystem that supported dozens of plant species as well as thousands of rodents and birds as well as a few larger animals. Perhaps in the future you will change your mind. To eliminate fossil fuels from electricity production and make enough extra to cover an electric car for everyone and store enough for calm and cloudy days is going to take tens of thousands of these. Eventually you won't like what you see.
Perhaps over time projects like this will help environmentalists reconsider their stance on nuclear, the only carbon free energy source with little to no environmental impact.
Hmmmmm....what do they do with all that nuclear waste.
Search for "4th gen nuclear" and take it from there...
Solar cells take a huge amount of energy to manufacture. The majority of solar cells are made in China. China has cheap coal energy. Put these facts together.
On top of that, solar energy isn't a base load source. Use your computer when it's cloudy? Charge your electric car at night? Not solar.
No, but electric cars and solar mesh well. When solar supply grows, cars absorb the extra energy when it is available and stop using it when it is needed, potentially even giving power back. Smart grid formulas reduce or eliminate the need for idling power plants. There will always be base load other then solar, so it is not a matter of no solar, no power.
As you can see, industrial PV systems (basically anything over 1 MW) should be around $1.50. So this power plant is a complete rip-off.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well. This takes Apple out of the power business and puts them more in the financing business, something Apple has the capital to do. So unless someone would have sold power to Apple for less OR done the entire deal to them for less then it is a good for Apple.
DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL BODIES OF WATER TO COOL THE PLANT
VERY VERY EXPENSIVE
Stop advocating nuclear
Keep building solar
Most but not all nuclear advocates are advocating replacing COAL and OIL with nuclear. Solar is fine to add to the mix, but will not replace baseload coal. Nuclear can do that. So I am for both nuclear and solar.
In my ideal world, most buildings that can take solar would have it on the roofs that would otherwise be unused. While I am not against large scale solar farms, they do take up land. I am for this project but the best overall would be to have power made at the point of use reducing transmission losses and nuclear, wind, hydro and natural gas making up the difference.
Solar cells take a huge amount of energy to manufacture.
Not really. They pay back their energy in about three years out of an expected lifetime of 30 to 40 years. That's an energy payback of about 10x.
Originally Posted by konqerror
The majority of solar cells are made in China. China has cheap coal energy. Put these facts together.
Indeed, you should do this, but only along with the energy payback time, which means that the embedded CO2 is tiny.
Originally Posted by konqerror
On top of that, solar energy isn't a base load source. Use your computer when it's cloudy? Charge your electric car at night? Not solar.
You just said it's not a base load source, so your examples are kind of redundant. But that second one... seems like a gimme that you're talking about the device that makes solar into a baseload source.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well.
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
As you can see, industrial PV systems (basically anything over 1 MW) should be around $1.50. So this power plant is a complete rip-off.
Your numbers are totally off.
1) I have absolutely no idea why you would use the numbers from a private investment bank such as Lazard, when you can straight to the source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. You'll notice for example that, compared to a combined coal/gas plant (which would be the default technology of choice today), LCOE for solar PV -- without subsidies -- is 13% greater. With subsidies (of which I am not a big fan, but then we should get rid of all subsidies including those for fossil fuels), it's equal.
2) Your division of 848/280 is silly. It does not consider O&M and other costs.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well.
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
I don't think it is the panacea it is made out to be. Probably good for Apple to do due to the scale, but not for most people.
At the moment, the best solution appears to be lots of different forms of energy sources, with a big reliance on fossil fuels. Certainly not nuclear. And for those thinking that we'll soon be able to fire the nuclear waste into the sun, google it; it’s not going to happen.
1) I have absolutely no idea why you would use the numbers from a private investment bank such as Lazard, when you can straight to the source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. You'll notice for example that, compared to a combined coal/gas plant (which would be the default technology of choice today), LCOE for solar PV -- without subsidies -- is 13% greater. With subsidies (of which I am not a big fan, but then we should get rid of all subsidies including those for fossil fuels), it's equal.
2) Your division of 848/280 is silly. It does not consider O&M and other costs.
1) You're comparing LCoE to $/W. Duh.
2) My division of CAPEX by nameplate rating is precisely how the entire industry values installs. It's called "price per watt", and it's used by every power source to get a rough estimate of total CAPEX in comparison to other installs.
For instance, if one installer quotes you $275MM for a 250MW plant, and another quotes $250MM for 235, which is better? 1.1 vs. 1.06... the second one is the better deal.
1&2) You can multiply $/W by capacity factor (CF) to get a figure of merit for LCoE. That excludes fuel and O&M, but both are either zero or vanishing in this case.
I have a few MW of PV in the field, and a tiny bit more on my garage roof. And yourself?
I don't think it is the panacea it is made out to be. Probably good for Apple to do due to the scale, but not for most people.
At the moment, the best solution appears to be lots of different forms of energy sources, with a big reliance on fossil fuels. Certainly not nuclear. And for those thinking that we'll soon be able to fire the nuclear waste into the sun, google it; it’s not going to happen.
2) My division of CAPEX by nameplate rating is precisely how the entire industry values installs. It's called "price per watt", and it's used by every power source to get a rough estimate of total CAPEX in comparison to other installs.
LOL. If you think comparison of cost-per-unit capacity is how you make a rational financial decision, then:
1) Duh, to you.
2) Duh, to the industry.
Add: Also, you do not seem to understand that Apple's $840 investment million buys it 45% of the power produced by this facility for the next 15 years, and if this report is to be believed, 100% of the power from years 16-25 (which we did not know before). It is, therefore, utterly stupid to think that this just buys 'capacity.'
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
It remains a terrible deal.
Your numbers are screwed up, probably due to your incorrect source. So you can manage a huge solar farm this big for 25 years for a 'few million dollars total'???? It is going to be multiple millions each YEAR over the 25 years. Just a few employees will cost that, let alone the multitude of other costs.
The key, does the deal provide Apple power for less then the utility charges? It does.
If Apple had looked into their options and found that it made business sense to invest in solar WITHOUT the use of State of California tax rebates and incentives, I'd be much happier with this project.
Comments
Until something goes wrong. Then the worst possible environmental impact imaginable. Did you already forget about the Fukushima disaster?
I am sorry. Did I miss something? Did anyone die from Fukushima's radiation exposure?
Btw, do you know how many people died from the tsunami?
Perhaps over time projects like this will help environmentalists reconsider their stance on nuclear, the only carbon free energy source with little to no environmental impact.
Hmmmmm....what do they do with all that nuclear waste.
Search for "4th gen nuclear" and take it from there...
Solar cells take a huge amount of energy to manufacture. The majority of solar cells are made in China. China has cheap coal energy. Put these facts together.
On top of that, solar energy isn't a base load source. Use your computer when it's cloudy? Charge your electric car at night? Not solar.
No, but electric cars and solar mesh well. When solar supply grows, cars absorb the extra energy when it is available and stop using it when it is needed, potentially even giving power back. Smart grid formulas reduce or eliminate the need for idling power plants. There will always be base load other then solar, so it is not a matter of no solar, no power.
Nuclear IS NOT CLEAN.
NUCLEAR WASTE
NUCLEAR MELT DOWNS
DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL BODIES OF WATER TO COOL THE PLANT
VERY VERY EXPENSIVE
Stop advocating nuclear
Keep building solar
The $848 million solar power deal
Then you need the array size:
First Solar is constructing a 280-megawatt solar farm
Then you divide the dollars by the size:
848 / 280 ~= $3/Watt
Then you compare that number with the going rate for commercial systems, as found on page 11 of this document:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized Cost of Energy - Version 8.0.pdf
As you can see, industrial PV systems (basically anything over 1 MW) should be around $1.50. So this power plant is a complete rip-off.
It's still a terrible deal no matter what the terms all. Here is how to examine any buildout. First you need the dollar amount:
The $848 million solar power deal
Then you need the array size:
First Solar is constructing a 280-megawatt solar farm
Then you divide the dollars by the size:
848 / 280 ~= $3/Watt
Then you compare that number with the going rate for commercial systems, as found on page 11 of this document:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized Cost of Energy - Version 8.0.pdf
As you can see, industrial PV systems (basically anything over 1 MW) should be around $1.50. So this power plant is a complete rip-off.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well. This takes Apple out of the power business and puts them more in the financing business, something Apple has the capital to do. So unless someone would have sold power to Apple for less OR done the entire deal to them for less then it is a good for Apple.
This is amazing for Apple and the environment.
Nuclear IS NOT CLEAN.
NUCLEAR WASTE
NUCLEAR MELT DOWNS
DESTRUCTION OF LOCAL BODIES OF WATER TO COOL THE PLANT
VERY VERY EXPENSIVE
Stop advocating nuclear
Keep building solar
Most but not all nuclear advocates are advocating replacing COAL and OIL with nuclear. Solar is fine to add to the mix, but will not replace baseload coal. Nuclear can do that. So I am for both nuclear and solar.
In my ideal world, most buildings that can take solar would have it on the roofs that would otherwise be unused. While I am not against large scale solar farms, they do take up land. I am for this project but the best overall would be to have power made at the point of use reducing transmission losses and nuclear, wind, hydro and natural gas making up the difference.
Solar cells take a huge amount of energy to manufacture.
Not really. They pay back their energy in about three years out of an expected lifetime of 30 to 40 years. That's an energy payback of about 10x.
The majority of solar cells are made in China. China has cheap coal energy. Put these facts together.
Indeed, you should do this, but only along with the energy payback time, which means that the embedded CO2 is tiny.
On top of that, solar energy isn't a base load source. Use your computer when it's cloudy? Charge your electric car at night? Not solar.
You just said it's not a base load source, so your examples are kind of redundant. But that second one... seems like a gimme that you're talking about the device that makes solar into a baseload source.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well.
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
It remains a terrible deal.
It's still a terrible deal no matter what the terms all. Here is how to examine any buildout. First you need the dollar amount:
The $848 million solar power deal
Then you need the array size:
First Solar is constructing a 280-megawatt solar farm
Then you divide the dollars by the size:
848 / 280 ~= $3/Watt
Then you compare that number with the going rate for commercial systems, as found on page 11 of this document:
http://www.lazard.com/PDF/Levelized Cost of Energy - Version 8.0.pdf
As you can see, industrial PV systems (basically anything over 1 MW) should be around $1.50. So this power plant is a complete rip-off.
Your numbers are totally off.
1) I have absolutely no idea why you would use the numbers from a private investment bank such as Lazard, when you can straight to the source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. You'll notice for example that, compared to a combined coal/gas plant (which would be the default technology of choice today), LCOE for solar PV -- without subsidies -- is 13% greater. With subsidies (of which I am not a big fan, but then we should get rid of all subsidies including those for fossil fuels), it's equal.
2) Your division of 848/280 is silly. It does not consider O&M and other costs.
You realize that this includes management? Basically Apple gets the power at a lower price then they would have paid otherwise AND owns the equipment in the end. Sure, Apple could buy the plant which would cost more then $1.50 installed with land, but then they would have to run it for 25 years as well.
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
It remains a terrible deal.
Nonsense. See above.
What is the total carbon cost of solar?
I don't think it is the panacea it is made out to be. Probably good for Apple to do due to the scale, but not for most people.
At the moment, the best solution appears to be lots of different forms of energy sources, with a big reliance on fossil fuels. Certainly not nuclear. And for those thinking that we'll soon be able to fire the nuclear waste into the sun, google it; it’s not going to happen.
Your numbers are totally off.
1) I have absolutely no idea why you would use the numbers from a private investment bank such as Lazard, when you can straight to the source: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm. You'll notice for example that, compared to a combined coal/gas plant (which would be the default technology of choice today), LCOE for solar PV -- without subsidies -- is 13% greater. With subsidies (of which I am not a big fan, but then we should get rid of all subsidies including those for fossil fuels), it's equal.
2) Your division of 848/280 is silly. It does not consider O&M and other costs.
1) You're comparing LCoE to $/W. Duh.
2) My division of CAPEX by nameplate rating is precisely how the entire industry values installs. It's called "price per watt", and it's used by every power source to get a rough estimate of total CAPEX in comparison to other installs.
For instance, if one installer quotes you $275MM for a 250MW plant, and another quotes $250MM for 235, which is better? 1.1 vs. 1.06... the second one is the better deal.
1&2) You can multiply $/W by capacity factor (CF) to get a figure of merit for LCoE. That excludes fuel and O&M, but both are either zero or vanishing in this case.
I have a few MW of PV in the field, and a tiny bit more on my garage roof. And yourself?
What is the total carbon cost of solar?
I don't think it is the panacea it is made out to be. Probably good for Apple to do due to the scale, but not for most people.
At the moment, the best solution appears to be lots of different forms of energy sources, with a big reliance on fossil fuels. Certainly not nuclear. And for those thinking that we'll soon be able to fire the nuclear waste into the sun, google it; it’s not going to happen.
The life cycle carbon impacts for solar are substantially less than that for fossil fuels. http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/sustain_lca_results.html
(Nuclear does best on that score, though.)
What is the total carbon cost of solar?
http://bit.ly/1xGqGdm
1) You're comparing LCoE to $/W. Duh.
2) My division of CAPEX by nameplate rating is precisely how the entire industry values installs. It's called "price per watt", and it's used by every power source to get a rough estimate of total CAPEX in comparison to other installs.
LOL. If you think comparison of cost-per-unit capacity is how you make a rational financial decision, then:
1) Duh, to you.
2) Duh, to the industry.
Add: Also, you do not seem to understand that Apple's $840 investment million buys it 45% of the power produced by this facility for the next 15 years, and if this report is to be believed, 100% of the power from years 16-25 (which we did not know before). It is, therefore, utterly stupid to think that this just buys 'capacity.'
What is the total carbon cost of solar?
http://bit.ly/1xGqGdm
That's certainly a better answer than presenting us with bogus numbers...
Which, if you care to look in THE VERY DOCUMENT I QUOTED, lists O&M costs on solar at about 0.25 cents/kWp/year, which means that the total management costs are a few million dollars in total.
It remains a terrible deal.
Your numbers are screwed up, probably due to your incorrect source. So you can manage a huge solar farm this big for 25 years for a 'few million dollars total'???? It is going to be multiple millions each YEAR over the 25 years. Just a few employees will cost that, let alone the multitude of other costs.
The key, does the deal provide Apple power for less then the utility charges? It does.
If Apple had looked into their options and found that it made business sense to invest in solar WITHOUT the use of State of California tax rebates and incentives, I'd be much happier with this project.