The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Unproven technologies a poor power option > Comments

Unproven technologies a poor power option : Comments

By Martin Nicholson, published 1/8/2011

We've had renewable energy power for 40 years and it has yet to produce commercially competitive power. Will anything be different in 2050?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
I read an article this morning about the financials of the global
solar panel manufacturers. They are selling their panels for
between $1.40 - 1.80 per watt. Yet on a retail level, these
panels cost more like 10$ per watt.

Sounds to me like we need some serious competition there, for
clearly the production cost has little to do with the consumer
cost.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 1 August 2011 2:10:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Commercially competitive power"?

Talk about missing the point;

The appeal of renewable power is that once you buy the generator you pay not a cent more.

The only commercial competition I'm interested in are between manufacturers deflating their prices to chase my dollar.

Otherwise, it's the fact that there is NO commercial gains (read, transactions) in generating free energy that is why it is so good.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 2:28:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
King Hazza,

"The appeal of renewable power is that once you buy the generator you pay not a cent more."

You are kidding right. No maintenance, no upgrades, no control? This does not even cover the return on capital that the investors expect. Lots of small generators scattered over the country side cost far more to maintain and control than a few large generators.

90% of the cost of nuclear power is the cost of capital recovery, the cost of the uranium is minuscule, I would guess that the maintenance and running costs of a nuclear power station are much lower than the 1000s of small systems to provide the equivalent power.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 3:47:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
renewable energy have been largely unproven, until now there has been no incentive.
Solar sites will be manned by no more than a caretaker. They are very stable and cheap to run.
Without ongoing costs or fuel to produce power, this technology has been in operation for more than 50 years, and ongoing, so no one knows their lifespan.
A power sufficient house would be a good selling point, without doubt.
Posted by a597, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 4:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not at all Shadow.

As a Solar panel has no moving parts, there is simply nothing TO maintain- and a wind turbine has ONE moving part, making it a much lower maintenance or breakdown probability than generators that require multiple moving parts, high heat, and in many cases, fluid transfer (Nuclear being all three).

The investor (the person who buys an array of either devices for their own use) gets a return after a very short amount of time of not paying the incredibly steep monthly power bills (for my household, easily a few hundred on average). In fact, the devices start to pay for themselves after a year or two. Add to that granted dependence from a power company I would say that is a good deal indeed.

Comparing the un-altered prices of home-installed PV/Wind and (uranium/plutonium) nuclear would not actually place nuclear as a clear lead in any form, as nuclear is fundamentally more expensive.
PV panels are extremely simple devices and easy to manufacture, albeit with photosynthetic material added to the top of the panel. Wind turbines are essentially the exact same turbines present in a nuclear reactor, multiplied by a few hundred times as opposed to a dozen to substantiate the same output.
Outside manufacturing, transport and installation costs (which nuclear is more expensive due to extra measures needed), PV/Wind ceases to cost money or resources, while Nuclear power requires zoning, an outside water supply, a staff, administration costs, logistics for the isotopes going in and out of the reactor, a safe storage for spent rods (with security), higher insulation costs, insurance costs, decommission and decontamination costs, and of course, higher maintenance.
The balance would be if the costs of all these associated with a single reactor outweighed the one-off costs of constructing and installing the amount of panels or turbines to produce the same output.
Posted by King Hazza, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 6:05:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I do wish people would do some sums before they write such articles. There are plenty of proven technologies and they are economically viable today.

I have in front of me a quotation for the installation of 15 solar panels on my roof. I have had 9 panels for three years and so I know how much power is generated and I know how much power will be generated from the new panels. Most would agree that solar panels on the roof of a domestic house is not the most efficient way of generating power but my 15 panels will pay for themselves within 23 years with a price of 10 cents per kwh. We know that the price per kwh will rise above 10 cents over the next 23 years. We know that the panels will last much longer than 23 years.

All forms of renewable energy are economically viable today if we allow price increases to compensate for the so called opportunity cost implied in discounted cash flow analysis.

Large scale solar systems will pay for themselves within less than 10 years at today's prices. As the price of solar voltaics and solar thermal is dropping by at least 20% per doubling of capacity we know that at today's prices within 5 doubling of capacity the repayment time of renewables will be 5 years or less - a good investment even by the extractive industries standards.

Our society can increase its wealth through the deployment of wide scale renewable energy systems and the sooner we start the better.
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Monday, 8 August 2011 9:37:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy