AW: [ RadSafe ] cost per kilowatt ratio

[Jeff Terry]

Hi Jack,

I don't see solar as being viable any time soon, wind either. I do  
think that both could be used more effectively. You give a very good  
example of a situation where solar may vary well be your best option.  
There are certainly other places where solar and wind power are  
viable and should be used.

In Chicago, solar is at best a pipe dream as 80% of our days on  
average are cloudy (http://www.city-data.com/city/Chicago- 
Illinois.html). Sometimes I wonder why I live here, oh yeah, a job or  
something like that.

Not in the least is that a few national solar plant farms like that  
location in New Mexico would be the biggest terrorist targets in  
history.

Nuclear will certainly be the best option over the next century. My  
prognostication skills get poorer and poorer as we go farther out in  
time, though.

I believe that nuclear electricity generation will also end up being  
subsidized to some extent by hydrogen generation for automobile use.  
There are current materials issues to be worked out but hydrogen  
sales should subsidize the cost of electricity production as well.  
This may be a pipe dream but who knows.

Jeff


On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:36 PM, Jack Topper wrote:

> Hello Jeff,
>
>
>
> Welcome to the list.
>
>
>
> I looked with interest at the site you posted regarding Stirling  
> engines and solar power.  I realize that your post was somewhat in  
> opposition to J.Salzman's post regarding cost per kilowatt, but  
> thought I might do a back-of-the-envelope calculation myself.
>
>
>
> Assumptions:
>
>
>
> -         25 kilowatts of production from one of these solar  
> devices; (probably not realistic, since the device “peaks” at 30kW  
> presumably between the hours of 1000 and 1400, but perhaps not a  
> bad average…)
>
> -         8 hours per day production at 25kw average(assuming 365  
> days per year, no clouds)
>
> -         $150,000 per unit (their quoted price for the prototype,  
> but perhaps the best number to use until the technology is proven  
> and production actually brings the price to something less, if  
> indeed it is successful and becomes cheaper)
>
>
>
> Compare to a single nuclear power plant unit: (many utilities  
> operate multiple units at a single site, but we’ll only consider  
> one reactor)
>
>
>
> -         1100MW electrical output (365 days per year, clouds or  
> no, and a relatively common reactor size in the U.S.)
>
>
>
> At 25kW, it will take 44,000 of the solar devices to equal the  
> power output of the reactor; and since the solar units will only  
> produce power effectively for about 8 hours per day, it will take 3  
> times as many units to “total” 1100MW over a 24-hour period, or  
> roughly 132,000 solar units. Factoring in the cost per unit, one  
> would need to write a check for $19.8 Billion, or enough to build  
> at least six of the 1100MW reactors.  That cost says nothing of the  
> amount of land required – two reactors only require about 160 acres  
> – and the environmental impact of the solar arrays depriving the  
> earth beneath them of sunlight over hundreds of square miles.   
> Hmmmm… should I spend $19.8 Billion and get 1100MW from solar, or  
> spend the same amount and get 6600MW from nuclear?  Seems pretty  
> clear to me…
>
>
>
> Also, the idea of a single location for a national power source,  
> i.e., New Mexico is totally unrealistic because the losses in  
> transmission to the extremes of the continental U.S. would be  
> prohibitive.  This means that they would have to be built all over  
> the country, but would be less efficient due to reduced sunlight.   
> Can you imagine how big the array would need to be in the Seattle  
> area, or Maine or anywhere else where it rains much?
>
>
>
> I’m sorry, but it looks to me like the economics of solar just  
> aren’t there for large scale generation and distribution.  There is  
> only so much solar energy per square mile, even if (impossible) you  
> could convert 100% of it directly to electrical energy and suffer  
> no losses whatsoever.
>
>
>
> All that said, I’m nevertheless a fan of solar power, and may well  
> elect to use it myself on a 20 acre parcel I have in Montana, where  
> it’s going to cost me something like $70,000 just to bring power to  
> the property – if I decide to tie into the grid – and that’s just  
> to get to the point of allowing Montana Power to send me monthly  
> utility bills!  I think it’ll be cheaper for me to stay off-the- 
> grid and use a combination of wind, solar and diesel generators in  
> the long run.  That’s one good scenario where economics favors  
> IPP’s (Independent Power Producers)
>
>
>
> (I seriously doubt I’ve said anything here that you don’t already  
> know, just wanted to kick in my two cents…)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack D. Topper
>
> Radiation Detection Company
>
> 408-842-2700 x232 (office)
>
> 408-847-2988 (fax)
>
> 408-888-0905 (cell)
>
>
>
>