The Solar Energy Fraud

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_solar_energy_fraud.html
August 14, 2017 The Solar Energy Fraud
By Norman Rogers
Solar energy is not always a fraud. If you live off the electric grid, and you have a reasonable amount of sunshine, solar power, backed up by batteries, can be a good option for getting a modest amount of electricity. It will not be cheap electricity.
Solar is good for powering equipment in remote locations. It is excellent for powering spacecraft. It is good for direct heating of swimming pools. Passive solar in the form of buildings designed to utilize sunshine for warmth and light can save energy.
But, do not think that it is advisable to put solar electricity panels on your roof. Do not think that it is a good idea for your local utility to build large solar generating farms. Political influence has created subsidies and mandates that prop up the solar industry. The money is extracted from taxpayers and utility customers. The solar industry positions itself as doing a public service by preventing climate change. Even if you believe the climate change theories, the solar industry is a negligible force against climate change.
Utility scale solar in the sunniest climates can generate electricity for about 7 cents per kilowatt hour (KWh). Outside of the sunny south the cost is about 9 cents per KWh. Most of the cost is capital cost, amortized over the life of the plant. Government subsides often cut the price in half for users of solar electricity.
Residential rooftop solar, under the best conditions, may generate electricity for about 15 cents per KWh. Usually the cost will be
lives in a sunny climate.
A fundamental error is to suppose that if solar could generate electricity at a cost equal to conventional generators it would be competitive. The leading type of conventional generator is combined cycle natural gas. These plants can generate electricity at a cost approaching 3.6 cents per KWh, or 2 to 3 times cheaper than solar. In order to be competitive, solar has to generate power not just cheaper than the alternative, but, as will be explained, cheaper than the fuel consumed by the alternative.
Solar is undependable. It does not work on cloudy days or at night. It stops working if a cloud passes in front of the sun. Yuma, Arizona, is the sunniest city in the U.S. Even in Yuma, there are 50 cloudy days and 365 dark nights a year.
Adding solar to the electric grid does not displace conventional generating plants. Those plants are still there. They just work a little less, sitting idle when solar is working. The only money solar saves is the fuel that would have been consumed by the plants that are idle because solar is generating electricity. Natural gas plants, or coal plants, consume 2-3 cents worth of fuel per KWh. Nuclear plants consume 0.4 cent per KWh and
solar has to compete with natural gas plants, the dominant alternative to solar. Unless the total cost of utility-scale solar is about 3 cents per KWh, instead of 7 to 9 cents, it is not going to be competitive with gas. The less-efficient gas plants consume about 3 cents worth of fuel per KWh of electricity produced.
Residential rooftop solar electricity costs 15 cents, and usually considerably more, per KWh. The electricity generated displaces power from the grid. If the solar power generated exceeds household consumption, the electricity is exported into the grid. Some electric meters may actually run backwards if electricity is being exported. In other cases the metering will measure both grid and solar electricity and payments will be made according to a prearranged formula.
If markets were not distorted by political influence, rooftop solar would hardly ever be competitive. But political subsidies and artificially high electricity prices make rooftop solar competitive in many places. For example, in California, many owners of large homes are charged over 40 cents
competitive for those owners of large houses.
Just as in utility scale installations, the true value of rooftop solar electricity is the cost of fuel consumption avoided when the solar is operating. The result is that the utility is often effectively forced to pay retail rates, typically about 13 cents per KWh, for electricity whose true value is about 3 cents per KWh. The owner of the rooftop solar also loses money unless his retail rate is in excess of the 15-cent, or more, cost per KWh.
The organization, Environment America, has published a report: Shining Rewards The Value of Rooftop Solar Power for Consumers and Society. This report reviews 11 other reports by solar advocates and utilities that attempt to calculate the value of rooftop solar to society. The 11 reports assign a value from a low of 3.5 cents per KWh to a high of 33 cents per KWh. This wide variation in the value of solar surely indicates that solid accounting methodology is absent. All the reports by advocates of rooftop solar found that the value of the electricity to society was greater than the current retail price of electricity. The three reports from utilities found the opposite.
How do the advocates of solar assign a value to society? It is a rather nebulous idea that rooftop solar has a value separate and greater than its actual economic value. A favorite trick is assigning a social value to CO2 emissions avoided. This is a highly speculative and subjective benefit. Another trick is to assume that new grid investment can be avoided or deferred because the solar is present. But on cloudy days, to say nothing of night, solar is not present, so how can investment in grid infrastructure be avoided?
The point of these studies is to make a case that the economic waste of solar is justified. Once one starts claiming that a dubious climate disaster
ideology, the door is opened to justifying any green foolishness one can imagine.
climate disaster. The exact nature of the climate disaster keeps shifting. It was global warming and that morphed into extreme weather. Global warming did not work out because the globe stopped warming 18 years ago. Extreme weather is a better disaster, because nature is always providing extreme weather that can be blamed on CO2. The recent California drought that turned into the California flood is a perfect example.
If the believers in the climate cult were logical, they would be promoting nuclear power. Nuclear power is reliable, does not emit CO2, and has great prospects for technological advance. Some of the cultists are promoting nuclear power, but most have an anti-nuclear phobia left over from the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1970s and '80s. Most of the cultists are promoting solar and wind power, even though these forms of power can never dominate the power grid and provide reliable and economic electricity.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 14 Aug 2017 13:55:15 -0700, raykeller@looser_losers.com wrote:

Nuclear plants don't work while they are down to change fuel rods?

You really crank your AC and run a ton of lights at 3 am do you? In most places, solar output matches peak-load. You build the solar capacity to supply the difference between day and night. It's very costly to build a conventional plant sized for the peak day load and then let it sit at low capacity all night. The plant costs money whether you are running it or not.

The generators have a life time. Any time they are not running is time before they have to be replaced.

How much when you factor in the disastrous effects on the aquifers from fracking?

How much when you factor in the never ending problem of what to do with spent fuel rods?
There you go. Build lots of dams and electricity will be flat out free for everyone. Ray-o-nomics.

Mostly sold by small time dealers. They mark up the equipment unconscionably and then prohibit you from having storage so they get to be the broker between you and the grid forever. If you sell your house, you have to find a buyer willing to accept the deal you made with the solar guy. Do you think there might be a better model?

True, the solar con-men could not make their sale without tax breaks and controls on what the utility must pay for your energy. As with all good flim-flam schemes, those breaks will go away as soon as they get big enough to hurt government income and the homeowner will find themselves at the short end of a life time contract. Do you think there might be a better model?

Sometimes the power companies say it's cheaper than building new conventional plants. See above re: base and peak load.
The flaw in this pitch is that your old technologies are only cheaper as long as they are already existing and you don't have to build new ones. How long since a new nuclear plant went up?
The fuel cost to operate an existing solar system is ZERO. Might be a hole in your analysis.
A cost of a new conventional plant and a new solar plant is what you need to compare. The framework is how to supply new energy to an expanding market. Do that and your "fuel only - the plant is paid for and free" analysis collapses.
Heck the local water company will pay me handsomely to remove a swamp cooler and replace it with refrigeration. They are flat out against the wall finding new water sources to supply a growing population.

If the value is 3 cents, why doesn't the power company charge me that. It's ludicrous to pretend production cost is only fuel and then go on to pretend production cost is the same as retail. You compare operating cost of existing systems with installation cost of new systems. You have very liberal ideas on the economics of commerce.

Or different service areas, with different solar insolation, and different peak-solar to peak-demand timing, and different regional fuel costs. All costs are equal to everyone ??? Another liberal idea.

Wow. The salesman told me his Gizmodic-7 was the best and Brand X was junk. That's a surprise.

Here we go off the liberal deep end. Nothing to do with dollars and cents, nothing to do with cost and markets. Ray wants to build a better society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/14/2017 3:08 PM, Winston Smith wrote:

Your solar system costs money 12 hours of darkness every day and runs inefficiently for about half of the remaining 12 hours, unless it's cloudy or winter.

And you still pay depreciation and insurance and salaries and business costs and distribution maintenance and new installations and and and whether you generate electricity not.
If you're willing to have rolling power outages because the grid can't supply the peak load on cloudy days, solar may be just the thing for you. Go live in a third-world country for a while and see how you like it.
The only money solar saves is the fuel that

What do you do with the waste from solar cell production? Or battery replacement?

First thing you have to do is kill off all the tree huggers that want to decommission dams.

I'm listening...

Maintenance, distribution, regulation, fees...

I don't think we have any rational options other than some form of nuclear for the long term. AS long as we're not investing in making nuclear safer and reigning in regulatory blockages, we're losing ground. "Just say no..." is not a reasonable strategy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What is the cost to build a solar system from the raw dirt to the delivery of finished solar panels to your site. I never see that mentioned.....and building solar panels is NOT green. Lots of blood sweat and acids are used just to manufacture them.
I agree..solar can be a good thing for some people. For others...not so good.
Here in my area..they are pushing solar HARD! Id have to say that at least 20% of homes already have solar panels on their roofs and they have been installed in the past 5 or so years. Now Ive seen many of the installatioins...a shit ton of panels on the north sides of homes. The fucking north side. With a moderately steep roof. Who the hell benefits from that? Sure isnt the home owner. And when you ask the home owner how big the battery bank is...they look at you blankly and say..."batteries"? When I ask them..how do you store your power...they say..."store?".
There were a number of tax advantages to installing what turned out to be largely worthless (to the home owner) solar..but most of them have expired and folks are now dealing with leaking roofs and solar arrays that might make the house look "cool and green"...but serve absolutely zero purpose.
Its been an interesting scam of sorts around here..and the few that will talk about it..look both ways before commenting.
This is very interesting...considering most of our power is generated locally via gas fired generation plants..using natural gas from our very big local oilfields.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

He never said they were green.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 15 Aug 2017 22:26:32 -0400, "Scout"

I didnt indicate that he had.
However...the buzzword in the solar biz..is "its gotta be good..its Green!!!"
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
typed in misc.survivalism the following:

    So is copper arsenate. Green.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/15/2017 2:44 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

Who cares? You'll never have money for one.

No, you haven't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/4/2018 4:16 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:

panels on the north side of the house. Not that anyone expected there would be.
You haven't seen any houses with solar panels on the north sides of the house. Glad we have that settled.
No "cull", no "list", no "those who keep the list", no "264mph motorcycle ride", and no "solar panels on the north side of the house." All bullshit, every word of it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/5/2018 10:47 AM, Gunner Asch wrote:

You didn't see any houses with solar panels on the north side of the house. That's settled.
You always get caught lying, and always *easily* caught.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rb> > rb> > That has got to be racist...Some group surely has been left out. rb> > Quick issue them a Demonstration Permit. rb> rb> It was just on the radio that they are going to take down a rb> Confederate rb> monument in Helena. Since we're a little light on former slaves it rb> was rb> the Natives that protested. I can't wait for them to get on a rb> role. rb> We'll have to take down every monument except those for Sitting rb> Bull. rb>
Nothign to do With the Topic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.