At this point I have to assume you're just willfully being ignorant here? There are 1000 kWH in a MWH. So $.1186 per kWH = $118.60 per MWH. Solar is being sold completely unsubsidized in other countries without subsidies in arms lengths transactions for $13.50/MWH That's $.0135/kWH if you prefer to think in those. Again, last I checked $13.50 is significantly less than $118.60 and $.0135 is significantly less than $.1186. This is just basic second grade numbers math here, do you really not grasp it?
I have definately done the math on solar as well as natural gas because I had the idea of building my own electricity generation facilities for profit. The numbers were not viable. You are not including large costs in your calculations.
So first off, are you now tracking on the fact that the numbers I'm quoting are an order of magnitude lower than the numbers you're quoting? If you've got that, then I'm not clear on what "large costs" you're talking about. Solar farm operators are routinely signing arms length 20 year contracts to deliver power to utilities for sub $20/MWH in unsubsidized jurisdictions. All-in. There are no "large costs" that aren't accounted for in that unless you believe the solar farm operators are all morons who are going to go out of business? Again, you gotta let go of your decade old data, it's simply hopelessly out of date. And you gotta be able to comprehend a universe where your 10 year old research might not be accurate compared to the data being presented to you by someone who makes their living in this field today. In short, you have to believe you might be wrong, as utterly inconceivable for you that might be. I'm happy to admit that myself, but so far you've provided no data and based your entire assertion on 10 year old information and a lack of understanding of electricity to the point that you clearly didn't grasp the difference between a kWH and a MWH.
You dismiss that point too quickly and conveniently for States that are densely populated or where there is real and legitimate public opposition and conflicts with existing land use. You gloss over "red herrings" for convenience. So trivial that it doesn't matter. That's a mistake. Right now, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is considering a $3b plan to use the Hoover Dam for pumped storage. From a strict engineering perspective it makes sense. But I'm not sure that the good people of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming will feel the same way. In fact - municipalities downstream of the dam in Nevada and Arizona are already pushing back hard against the idea. It seems that disrupted water flows and miles of pipelines and pumping stations just to power Los Angeles strikes some folks the wrong way. The State of New York has an admirable goal of 50% renewable generation by 2030. If you look strictly at the numbers this would require about 1% of the State's land area. But State planners are running into some real and formidable conflict issues: more than half of the State is forest and woodland - much of it local, State, or Federally designated and protected; and farmland accounts for 25% of the New York's total land area. My point being is that there is far less flexibility and expediency for renewable projects than you admit and for which you so quickly gloss over. A common saying is that for renewable electricity, the site "chooses" the project, rather than the other way around. Unfortunately the best sun or wind resource locations are not necessarily located near demand centers or energy transmission infrastructure. Generally speaking, the public is in favor of renewable energy. Just not in their backyards and not at the expense of the ecosystem. Positive public perceptions turn negative in a hurry when farming communities are negatively impacted or even when they hate the aesthetics of a project. Some farmers will welcome a monthly check in exchange for a wind turbine being sited on their land, while others are going to hate the idea of 35 story high wind turbines being situated near their land. In Iowa and Kansas, wind projects have been stopped and dismantled over public opposition to the permitting process. San Bernardino County in California (the largest County in the US by area) passed a rather restrictive law that prohibits utility-oriented renewable energy projects - even in unincorporated rural zones. A 500 MW solar farm in Virginia is being opposed by locals on the basis of reduced property values and a ruined aesthetic - they've organized and hired attorneys. And political attitudes are not really polarized - Republican States like Texas, Oklahoma, and North Carolina are leaders in renewable energy. You also are avoiding the topic of transmission lines. States hold the power of eminent domain for transmission lines, and States require approvals from local jurisdictions. Some States have laws that are very restrictive for approving power line projects that transfer power outside the State - particularly in the NorthEast. The US has leased offshore land on the East Coast for wind development. But projects off of Nantucket Sound and Martha's Vineyard were fiercely opposed and defeated by wealthy homeowners. Proposed sites in other areas are smack dab in the middle of the best commercial fishing grounds on the East Coast. You just can't shrug off the local challenges of siting a project as an afterthought. The locals who aren't getting substantial monthly checks from a project or utility tend to resist the idea of 2000 acres of solar panels or a farm of 35 story high wind turbines in their communities.
I think Sig's point is there's plenty of unusable desert acreage in the SW and power line infrastructure can just move that electricity to the Midwest if need be. Legislation also goes a long way in "readjusting" people's attitudes.
As much as I used love exchanging insults with people who just don’t seem to get it, I now seek understanding of how exceptionally smart people can be so far apart on something that utilimately comes down simple, less than high school level, math. I have long noted that you and the posters who gave you likes in an earlier post of yours on this subject, Frederickforesight and Here4money, are also exceptionally smart. So where is the disconnect? Theory versus practice? Reliance on solar marketing brochures for one’s cost/benefit analysis? Emotionalism based on perceived attacks of political views that are often associated with alternative energy? I have done the math years ago and the numbers have not changed that much. Electricity from power companies is now a little more expensive, interest rates are down, but land and labor rates are higher. Solar cell efficiency has not that much changed from when I did my analysis for a startup business idea. I have an engineer friend who would quickly intellectually disembowel arguments that solar is remotely competitive or efficient to other energy sources. I can competently argue cost comparisions but my friend can argue from a scientific viewpoint why solar is currently unable to compete with other energy sources on a fundamential basis. Accounting for all costs, assuming market rates for electricity are received, and using generally accepted accounting principles, solar is about four times more expensive than conventional electricity. At this point, it seems to me the most important point is why thoughful and intelligent people such as ourselves are so apart on this issue. The numbers don’t lie. If you include all the numbers, that is, whether it is costs, subsidies, or whether one uses accounting slights of hand or not such as capitalizing revenue into perpetuity. There have been solar projects that have received grants and or guaranteed electricity purchase agreements above market cost that skews the true economic viability of thst project. The motivation behind at least some of these projects appear to involve the use of taxpayer money for certain politically connected alternative energy companies. Without the aforementioned “Programs”, solar would not stand on its own. Is this what the whole argument is really about? The distribution of taxpayer money into inefficient energy production for the benefit of politically connected businesses?
Believe me, I've been butt in chair in stakeholder meetings so I most certainly know land use issues at a visceral level. It's not trivial, but nor is it prohibitive. Engineers are stupid, we go find the optimal spot from a wind/transmission/irradiance perspective and don't think about soft things like feelings until we realize that hey, building an offshore wind farm off Cape Cod is a spectacularly stupid thing to propose! We're getting better, or more accurately developers are doing a better job hiring non-engineers to both make better choices initially and do a better job of community engagement. For sure we're going to run into people like the science teacher in NC who wrote a letter to the editor claiming that solar farms would steal all the sun from the county and all the plants would die (you can't make this shit up http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-...uck-up-all-the-suns-energy-151219?news=858024) and more legitimate land use concerns. But we also have millions of acres of brown fields from everything from strip mining to landfills on the East Coast and Midwest, many of which are close enough to transmission that no imminent domain is required. And lots of fallow farm land in the midwest that has fewer than 10 people within 5 miles of the project in the midwest. You can find a square mile where the neighbors won't object pretty easily in IL, I've seen the developers do it over and over. And West Coast BLM land is relatively easy to lease, no matter if you want to strip mine it or put a solar farm on it and transmission while again not trivial also doesn't require much eminent domain. Finally at some point we have to make some choices. For example, the East Coast fishery is worth $2B in economic value. Realistically if we powered the entire East Coast using offshore wind we'd impact significantly less than 10% of that fishery, so $200M. That's chump change versus the benefit it provides, hell the offshore wind industry could pay $400M/year to the impacted fisherman to sit on their ass and it would have minimal impact. In reality, Europe has been able to do significant offshore build with minimal to no impact on catches, so again that's a red herring (pun intended) at the end of the day as well. The land required to go renewable isn't trivial but it's nowhere near unachievable either. Just because it requires a little effort to get it right doesn't mean that you write off the whole thing as unrealistic and saddle everyone in the country with electric bills significantly higher than they need to be.
If you knew anything about WECC, SPP, and ERCOT you'd know how flimsy that statement is. We have disparate grids with weak interconnections. California, New England, and Texas all have had at some points in time negative pricing in the wholesale markets. It's somewhat rare but not unusual. Which should never happen.
But if Solar, doesn't produce more energy over it's life than it takes to build, install, dismantle and recycle then basically your just moving the energy increase from building the panels, then giving it back very slowly over 20years. I think the more Sun you get the faster than solar panels degrade, but I could be wrong on that. If your not making some free solar energy then just why bother ?? even if you can make a profit because Energy costs 5years in will likely be higher. Anyone done the maths recently ??
Solar does produce significantly more energy over it's life than it takes to build, install, dismantle and recycle. I just provided source documentation for that and you've provided none to show otherwise.