In this page I address Solar photovoltaic systems and other general solar subjects.

• Photovoltaic Cells

• Get rich quick

In a general statement, the News Paper  Hartford Courant, of Connecticut, reports the following:

Technologies such as solar power are still expensive. At 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, producing electricity from solar power simply can't compete with natural gas, experts said.

Also an article in Energy Biz stated the following:

The price of a grid-connected residential solar system is roughly 25 cents per kWh compared to 2 cents per kWh in 1980.

My comment: These are  true statements that you will not see often.

Wall Street and Developers Gather to Explore Solar Investment Opportunities in Phoenix, AZ

Santa Cruz, CA -- September 09, 2008 (News Release) With analysts predicting a $51 billion market for the solar industry by 2015, coupled with declining manufacturing costs, the industry’s upward momentum is giving way to a very bright future. Solar investors need to have an understanding of both these technological developments and investment opportunities when making their next big deal.

Financial Research Associates hosts an elite gathering of developers and investors October 20-21 in Phoenix, AZ for its 3rd Annual Investing in Solar. The first day is dedicated to the solar technologies, hearing directly from the cutting edge developers of CSP, PV and large scale utility projects. The second day will give access to the top investors and financiers from around the country. Combined, attendees will walk away the knowledge and skills to find and make their next big deal.

Dedicated to bringing together investors and developers, the fee to attend for qualified small developers is an affordable $995

My comments: Well here we go again. About100 speakers will now tell us about the great virtues of the solar.  This includes many speakers none of whom have ever made a kilowatt hour from solar systems. The National Renewable Energy Labratory people will expound on the virtues of economics of solar systems.  Most of which will be phony numbers.  And we will again spend another 20 years, proving the systems do not work and are uneconomic.  What goes around comes around, as the saying goes.  There will be many financial backers that will soon learn the hard way that solar systems simply do not provide economical energy.

What will not be stated are some of the performance numbers of solar energy systems that only provide a 20% capacity factor and many of these will not function.  And they will eventfully end up with a lot of junk in the desert, which they will walk away from.

If you want a good demonstration of this go, visit Daggett California, and look at the 10 MWe solar tower power  system that after 20 years of effort never worked.

Let us hope that after these solar demonstrations, we will at least have nuclear power, which does work ,is economical, and operates with capacity factors of a greater than 90%.  What more could anyone asks for?

The Massachusetts's Institute of Technology have received a substantial grant to improve solar energy systems from a cost and performance standpoint. Solar plants have capacity factors  of only 15% and the cost of energy from such systems is about 25 cents per kWh.

MIT is funded by an initial gift of $10 million by the Chesonis Family Foundation. And more funds will be forth coming from other sources to make solar power a viable, near-term energy source.

My comment: This is throwing good money after bad. But it at least it admits that solar is not yet viable from a cost and performance standpoint. I do not think it will ever be.

in 1975 many organizations tried solar systems in the California Mojave desert. Tower power flopped totally and the parabolic panel folks went bankrupt. Now we some new organizations trying it again. I don't know who will bankroll these organizations, but I feel for those who will pay for such shaky ventures. 

Try As I may I cannot find any performance data about solar and other renewable energy systems.  I think we need a President that requires the NREL and the DOE to post some real data and real results about solar PV and solar concentrating system and many other items we tax payers support. There is no information released about results the DOE and NREL get for the billions of dollars we pay these organizations.  I do not think the NREL's 800 or so personnel achieve anything.

DOE Seeks to Invest up to $60 Million for Advanced Concentrating Solar Power Technologies

Apr 30, 2008 -- Energy Department Documents and Publications/ContentWorks U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Clarence "Bud" Albright today announced the issuance of the Solar Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for up to $60 million in funding over five years (Fiscal Years 2008-2012), which includes $10 million in FY 2008 appropriations and $10 million in the FY 2009 Budget request, to support the development of low-cost Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technology.

"Harnessing the natural and abundant power of the sun and more cost-effectively converting it into energy is an important component of our comprehensive strategy to commercialize and deploy advanced clean, alternative technologies that will allow us to become less reliant on foreign oil," Albright said. "The Administration's investment in solar technology will not only bolster innovation, but will help meet the President's goal of making solar power cost-competitive with conventional sources of electricity over the next seven years."

My comments: We have had solar concentrating aluminum mirrors in the desert since 1980. I wonder what one can do to  parabolic  shaped concentrators that  seem to be the best.  Concentrating solar plants will never be economical because they have to shutdown daily. To provide enough solar concentrating reflectors and heat storage liquids to operate 24 hours a day would be too expansive. Also the reflectors must be power washed every 10 days in the desert. They will probably use enough water to cause the fuel less system to be equal to the cost of fuel. 

A futurist name Ray Kurzweil says   "The world energy crisis will be resolved within 20 years (2027) once cheap, high-efficiency solar panels can be synthesized by nanomachines and produced for mass use."

Yes! nanomachines will make every thing cheaper if we can figure out what a nanomachine is. And the solar panels will be more efficient and will not need to be spay washed every week. The dust will not blow in the desert then.

 PG&E tells me that the annual usage of electrical energy varies, but 10,000 kWh is a good number for residential homes with a 2.3 kWe solar PV system on their roof top. Thus  the solar PV system would supply about 3,022 kWe/10,000 = 30% of the homeowners electric energy.

Financial data over 30 years of a  2.3 kWe capacity solar PV system installed on a residential home

Also remember that the solar cells on the roof must be washed frequently to maintain performance. From the looks of the home in the picture, washing is not an easy job. It could well be hazardous to climb on the roofs to power wash the solar cells. Over a thirty year period there will be many accidents.

And you the tax payer paid over a third of the cost ($8,000) to try to jump start a system that has never been economical for 25 years. The capital cost will have to come down a factor of six to be economical.

Who does not benefit from the tax subsidies?

Many residents of the State of California live in apartments and some  in smaller homes and have  lower incomes so the tax breaks and reduced interest payments are not available to those in low tax brackets and do not itemize on the long form. To me the subsidies are not fair to many taxpayers in the state.

The entire cost analysis did not include any maintenance or repairs. Over the 30 years the roof may need to be replaced, the system must be removed and replaced. I talked to a supplier of solar systems and they told me they do not install PV systems on ceramic roof tops. In my townhouse association we have ceramic roofing and if a homeowner should choose solar PV's on their roofs the association would not be responsible to repair or replace the roofs when the lifetime of the roofs warrant replacement. 

Also remember that the solar cells on the roof must be washed frequently to maintain performance. From the looks of the home in the picture, washing is not an easy job. It could well be hazardous to climb on the roofs to power wash the solar cells. Over a thirty year period there will be many accidents.

And you the tax payer paid over a third of the cost ($8,000) to try to jump start a system that has never been economical for 25 years. The capital cost will have to come down a factor of six to be economical.

Also remember that the solar cells on the roof must be washed frequently to maintain performance. From the looks of the home in the picture, washing is not an easy job. It could well be hazardous to climb on the roofs to power wash the solar cells. Over a thirty year period there will be many accidents.

And you the tax payer paid over a third of the cost ($8,000) to try to jump start a system that has never been economical for 25 years. The capital cost will have to come down a factor of six to be economical.

Who does not benefit from the tax subsidies?

Many residents of the State of California live in apartments and some  in smaller homes and have  lower incomes so the tax breaks and reduced interest payments are not available to those in low tax brackets and do not itemize on the long form. To me the subsidies are not fair to many taxpayers in the state.

The entire cost analysis did not include any maintenance or repairs. Over the 30 years the roof may need to be replaced, the system must be removed and replaced. I talked to a supplier of solar systems and they told me they do not install PV systems on ceramic roof tops. In my townhouse association we have ceramic roofing and if a homeowner should choose solar PV's on their roofs the association would not be responsible to repair or replace the roofs when the lifetime of the roofs warrant replacement. 

Daily Performance of a typical solar PV system.

Winter Time

The day was January 14, 2005. Location, close to San Jose, CA. The system started to produce energy by 8:00 AM . It peaked at about 1:00 PM and stopped at 4:15 PM. It was a very sunny day. The system produced a total of 5 kWh. The avoided cost of electricity to the home owner this day is $0.0798 cents per kWh x 5 kWh = $0.039. Not enough money to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks. The system's energy production on a cloudy rainy day is nil.

 It just seems to me that solar PV's can not be a significant contributor of electric energy. In my home we used 31 kWh that day. Even on the best winter day the solar contribution in my home would have been only 16% of the total.

Daily Performance of a typical solar PV system.

Summer Time

The date is August 3, 2005

A sunny day, very little cloud cover.

The amount of energy generated is 12 kWh. More than twice the winter amount of generated energy. At 7.98 cents per kWh of avoided energy this would save the home owner is:

 0.0798 cents per kWh x 12 kWh = 96 cents

During July the generated energy from this system was about 18 kWh. One can see the difference that the daytimes of the year makes. Still the total energy generated is quite small for the capacity and cost of the installation. It is apparent that solar PV systems will not be significant players in the energy picture. Before State subsidies the cost of the system is about $60,000.

Under  Love & money, in the Wall Street Journal, Jeff D. Opdyke wrote an article entitled  "The (Too High) Price of Being Green."  in it he said:

•  Laura, a friend in Baltimore, says her husband has long been fixated on solar  energy. But no matter where they have lived, the economics have never worked out.

• Concerning hybrid cars, it's hard to justify $25,000 for a Prius when you can buy a Honda Civic for $15,000 that gets similar gas mileage.

Here are two news excerpts of solar PV projects soon to be constructed. See my comments below.

.Largest U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Begins Construction at Nellis Air Force Base

Construction on the largest solar photovoltaic system ever to be built in North America began today at Nellis Air Force Base.

. The Nellis solar energy system will generate in excess of 25 million kilowatt-hours of clean electricity annually and supply more than 25 percent of the power used at the base. Occupying 140 acres of land leased from the Air Force at the western edge of the base, this ground-mounted solar system will employ an advanced tracking system, designed and deployed by PowerLight, to follow the sun.

Approximately 70,000 solar panels and the patented PowerLight PowerTracker(R) will capture up to 30 percent more energy than an equivalent ground-mounted fixed-tilt system. Rated at approximately 15 megawatts (MW), the array will generate the power of a rooftop solar system with a rating of approximately 18 MWe

MMA Renewable Ventures will finance, own and operate the landmark system and sell the power to Nellis under the terms of a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

An 82-acre tract in south central Colorado will be the site for one of the largest photovoltaic power plants in the United States. Dignitaries including Colorado Governor Bill Ritter, U.S. Senator Ken Salazar, and executives from SunEdison and Xcel Energy spoke at today's groundbreaking ceremony for the 8.22-megawatt Alamosa Photovoltaic Solar Plant. The solar plant is financed and will be built and maintained by SunEdison, North America's leading solar energy services provider. Xcel Energy will buy the solar power generated by the Alamosa plant, which is scheduled for completion by early 2008.

The Alamosa Photovoltaic Solar Plant is an 8.22-megawatt (MW) facility that covers roughly 80 acres of land in Alamosa and San Luis Valley in Colorado. When completed, the facility will generate 17,000 MW hours annually,.

A NEWS RELEASE

A Hunterdon home goes hydrogen. House is first to be all solar powered

Oct 21 - McClatchy-Tribune Business News Formerly Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Leonard N. Fleming The Philadelphia Inquirer

Some thought he was crazy and would blow himself up in failure. But Michael Stritzki was determined to someday operate his home in rural Hunterdon County on hydrogen created by the sun.

Yesterday, in a rain-soaked moment of triumph with nearly 100 supporters on his multi-acre property, Stritzki made history when his two-story home became the first in the nation to be powered solely by solar and hydrogen energy.

The intricate, $500,000 Hopewell Project  was almost five years in the making.

My Comment: Mr. Strizki is likely to get a surprise when he see how little energy he gets through the winter months. But everyone should have a $500,000 home energy system. How would you like an annual  $36,000 bill over 30 years to pay for it? And that does not include maintenance. 

Here is an eternal waste of money

Agency proposes a boost for solar

Nov 17 - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Leslie Berkman The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif. In a move toward reaching Gov. Schwarzenegger's goal of a million solar rooftops within a decade, a state agency Tuesday released a proposal to add $300 million in rebates next year for businesses that install solar electric systems.

If the California Public Utilities Commission gives final approval of the plan, there will be a $342 million rebates pot for new commercial solar installations next year, compared to about $80 million spent in 2005, to make the technology more cost-effective. (My comment: I don't see how throwing more money at it will make it more cost effective.)

PUC spokeswoman Susan Carothers said Wednesday that the agency was still trying to determine what impact enlargement of the rebate program will have on electric rates. (I can tell her the answer is absolutely none. The amount of electric  energy they will get from $342 million subsidies is nil.)

The commission also said it intends soon to adopt "a separate and more -- elaborate program," calling for California Solar Initiative to provide broader incentives for the development of solar technology in the state. It said the staffs of the PUC and California Energy Commission will develop a proposal and present it to the PUC board.

While increasing the fund of rebate money, the PUC proposes to reduce the size of each rebate. Each application of more than 30 kilowatts would be reduced to $2.80 a watt from the current $3.50 a watt. (As they reduce the rebates they will find a greatly reduced commitment to solar PV systems. As it is now configured for commercial solar PV systems, the subsides  and income tax reductions essentially pay the total cost of the systems. But not all is lost. The subsidized  systems will show just how badly the PV  systems perform. See the next write-up about commercial PV systems.)

Commercial Solar photovoltaic Systems

Commercial PV systems receive greater financial advantages over residential system. The systems on a commercial building are subject a depreciation write-off on the capital cost Let's examine the financial of such a system.

A commercial enterprise bought a  solar Photovoltaic (PV) electric system. It was designed for their 20,000 square feet flat roof building in San Jose. This system included 532 flat roof PV tiles and two 30kW commercial inverters. A total of 68.256 kilowatts (kWe) of peak power generating capability is provided (based on manufacturer output ratings).

This system actually provides about  100,000 kWh (e) per year --

Commercial PV System Investment Summary

The capacity factor of this system is:100,000 kWh / 68.256kWe x 8760 hours per year x 100  = 16.7%. This means that the system only generates about 17% of its  ultimate capacity in a given year. Expensive renewable systems will never be economical with these low capacity factors no matter how much the government subsidizes them.  And the sun will never shine any brighter no matter how much government research is done on PV cells. Nuclear power plants have average capacity factors of about 90%, which means that they produce five times the energy output compared to renewable solar PV systems. This is a huge nuclear power plant economic advantage over renewable energy systems.

As a tax payer how do you like paying 51% of the capital cost for the renewable system? And they still do not provide economical electric energy. The only reason that the State and Federal government can pay such subsidies is because not many solar systems are sold. And it is unlikely that any would be sold if the subsidies are discontinued. Would not it be better to spend such money on more important places such as schools?

Moreover. I believe that these commercial companies can write off the remaining cost over 5 years so these deductions pay even more for cost of the system.

Moreover, the manufacturer probably did not tell the buyer that they will have to frequently climb up on the roof and wash the surface of the panels. Solar photons do not go through dirt.

The description of Dirt and Dust situation below was taken from the California Energy Commission's Web Site:

Dirt and dust can accumulate on the solar module surface, blocking some of the sunlight and reducing output. Much of California has a rainy season and a dry season. Although typical dirt and dust is cleaned off during every rainy season, it is more realistic to estimate system output taking into account the reduction due to dust buildup in the dry season. A typical annual dust reduction factor to use is 93% or 0.93. So the "100-watt module," operating with some accumulated dust may operate on average at about 79 Watts

      (85 Watts x 0.93 = 79 Watts).

I think the CEC is underestimating the degradation of performance if the panels are not washed. My deck and hot tub cover must be power washed frequently or the dirt forms a total thick covering of about 1/32 of an inch. This dirt will not wash off in normal rain. The surface area of the example system is about the size of 1/2 of a football field. And it is not advisable to step on the panels.  Being on the roof can be hazardous as well as incurring some expense. and a lot of water will be needed over the lifetime of the PV systems.

As it now stands the actual cost per kWh from a PV system that is not subsidized by the government is about 45 cents per kWh. A little higher than the 14 cents we now pay for electrical energy delivered to our home meters. And we do not have to climb on the roof and wash panels frequently.

Solar PV's in Pittsburgh. PA

INDIANOLA, Pa., Aug 17, 2005 /PRNewswire

PA DEP Secretary Inaugurates Energy Harvest Project in Pittsburgh; Renewable Energy Project Reduces Energy Costs, Cuts Pollution Emissions

On behalf of PA Governor Edward G. Rendell, Environmental Protection Secretary Kathleen A. McGinty today flipped the ceremonial switch to power up a five-kilowatt solar facility at the Indiana Township Municipal Plaza in Allegheny County. The project was funded in part by a $64,000 Pennsylvania Energy Harvest grant.

"This project typifies the ingenuity and innovation being put into practice to refocus our priorities on indigenous energy resources and ensure investments in clean, efficient energy made right here in Pennsylvania," McGinty said.

My comments: This project is certainly indigenous.  I wonder how a solar PV panel works under snow? It does snow frequently in Pittsburgh. Also the partial price of $64,000 for a 5 kWe system is enormous, being over $12,800 per kWe. At that price the cost of electrical energy is about 60 cents per kWh. They will not notice a reduction in cost.

The Solar Energy Industry Association (SEIA) is asking for more government financial subsidies

Currently, there are no federal tax incentives for homeowners to have solar on their homes," said Rhone Resch, SEIA president. "With the incentives in this Roadmap, we would see a dramatic expansion in US solar markets, with installed capacity of 200 gigawatts in the U.S. by 2030."

 Solar photovoltaics use semiconductors, usually electronic- grade silicon, to directly transform the sun's energy into electric current. The proposed Roadmap would lower retail solar electricity prices from the current rate of 18 to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour to 5.7 cents/kWh in 10 years, making solar the least-cost retail option. Solar would provide half of all new electricity generation by 2025 under

My comments: This is the first time I have seen a solar industry representative admit that the real cost of solar from PV's is as high as 18 to 25 cents per kWh. I think it is more like 45 cents per kWh, but even 25 cents per kWh is a terribly high cost for electrical energy. Consider that current nuclear power plants produce energy for about 2 cents per kWh.

However, I don't see how the cost of solar PV's will come down to 5.7 cents per kWh. Solar PV's have been under development for some 30 years and the cost has not really come down much. The sun will never shine any brighter or longer each day.

Although Arizona receives the most solar energy of any state in the union, officials there do not think that solar is a significant economical source of energy. They do not offer subsidies as of this writing. I visit Tucso