frflyer

Interview with Akeena Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon

I do agree with John Peterson that vehicle weight is a limiting factor in EVs and PHEVs. I'm no auto engineer, but reducing vehicle weight should be a top priority IMHO.

One other issue is the comparison in the article of solar thermal and PV costs in large solar installations by Mr Cinamon. I'm sure he's right that ongoing operations and maintenance cost for CSP are higher than for PV. However that doesn't consider the added benefit of dispatchable power day and night from CSP with heat storage, nor the much lower cost of that storage, compared with batteries. Dispatchable power will command the highest electricity prices because of it's value to grid balancing and the ability to generate power in the evening when demand is still relatively high.
And the NREL says that heat storage costs will be completely offset by the added value of the power generated. The NREL pilot plants in the Mojave had heat storage that worked successfully to provide So Cal with power up to 10pm. And that was just using the existing oil heat transfer liquid, not molten salt.

Also, CSP has economy of scale from increasing the size of installations, because of the limited fixed costs of the main generating plant, while adding solar collectors has diminishing oveall costs/kW of capacity. In the end, both PV and CSP will be able to provide cheap clean energy, and fairly soon.

Interview with Akeena Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon

billp37

First Solar's earnings report was impressive, but shouldn't be compared with Akeena, which is an installer.

Calling John Peterson an alt energy shill is stretching it a bit. Cmon bill. Anyone who reads his articles knows that isn't true. He has stated numerous times that he is for using all the tools in the box that will solve the energy problem. To be honest, I have wondered if you are a coal industry shill however.

And I don't believe one man's opinion on PHEVs is going to torpedo or "nuke" the whole alt energy sector. There are issues with the introduction of PHEVs but there are a lot of smart people who think they will work out in the end. Even John says as much, although with guarded optimism.
Much depends on oil and gasoline prices in the future, for one thing.
Perhaps the advanced lead batteries that John advocates are part of the solution.
There are still too many advantages of having an unlimited range(verses the limited range of pure EVs), and with the ability to charge at home or work, with $1 of electricity to go 40 miles or so.

Solar Stocks Look Ripe

Chris
"ENER has been around for a long time, and has done nothing of substance to date."

While I agree that it hasn't been the best stock to own, and that they seem to constantly struggle to hit on the right business model to achieve profitablility, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say they haven't done much. They invented the NiHM battery, the phase change technology for memory devices that is being adopted in the industry, developed thin film solar and a manufacturing process for it, been a pioneer in amorphous metal technology, as well as programs to develop fuel cells, hydrogen tanks that are low pressure amorphous metal, created what I believe is the first x-ray mirror some years ago. It's thin film nano structure is smooth to the atom. I've been watching them since at least the early 90s, before they went public anyway. They were delisted once, and went public again.

From Long Shots to Big Shots: Small Cap Renewable Energy Stocks

billb37

I went to your site and read at least some of it.
I found the following statement.

"The wildest claim is that all of the energy needs of the entire United States could be replaced by a concentrating solar plant (CSP) that covered only 100 square miles."

This is not true.

No one said solar thermal plants could power the whole country with 100 square miles of land. 100 miles by 100 miles is what was claimed, or 92 by 92 actually.

That's 10,000 square miles not 100 square miles.

Your information is off by two orders of magnitude.

And that is still less land than now used for coal mining and coal plants. Coal produces 50% of U.S. kWhs.
And coal ruins the land it uses. The billion gallon spill of toxic fly ash coal sludge in Tennessee on Christmass eve is an example.
That's nearly 100 times bigger than the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Another spill in Kentucky in 2000 leaked 300 million gallons, with a sludge plume spreading 75 miles to the Ohio river. There are 1300 such coal sludge ponds in the U.S. Most of them leak constantly because they are not lined containment ponds.
This sludge contains all the nasty toxins that are removed by scrubbers. Arsenic, mercury etc.

Coal burning is the single biggest cause of global warming.

There is no such thing as clean coal. Maybe in the future we will develop methods to use coal intelligently. Fine, but that doesn't help us now.

When people talk about using all our oil or gas or coal reserves for fuel, don't they wonder what we will then make products from that are now made from oil and gas? Why burn them all up when they could provide raw materials for needed products long into the future. They would last far longer if we don't use them all for fuel.

Solar's Warm, But Not Hot - Barron's

CLH to see how much oil costs us in subsidies and other hiddden costs, go here:
www.setamericafree.org...
Their estimate is $84 billion/year for oil and gas industry tax credits and subsidies. Add over $100 billion annually for military potection of oil shipments and hundreds of billions in other hidden costs like health care, environmental degradation, damage to infrastucture, builings etc from polution, for a whopping $800 billion in total hidden costs. If you paid for all that at the pump, gasoline would now be $12 a gallon.

And then add several hundreds of $billions in contributions to our trade deficit. (It was over $300 billion at $60 a barrel.)
And then factor in the loss of life, both Americans and Iraqis, as a result of the war.
Congress is debating whether to give $6 billion for solar wind and geothermal combined. Less than one tenth what the oil companies get. The top five oil companies netted $123 billion last year.
Here is a reasonable proposal for energy;
www.setamericafree.org...
A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security
which can be implemented now, with current technology.

The internet and high speed information highway was subsidized over 35 years or so, spending more public money than we would spend if we followed the suggestions of another proposal, published by
Scientific American- A Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

An In-Depth Look at Solar Stocks

A few comments.
Thin film is less expensive to make as you say, and less effecient than normal silicon based cells. The point that is often missed is that they both have their markets. Where square footage is an issue, like on your rooftop, the normal silicon cells with their higher efficiency are the way to go. This assumes you are looking for the most watts per square foot. In less space constrained applications, like where you are using on the ground acreage for a large solar installation, thin film makes more sense, with it's lower cost. I don't see either one knocking the other out of the box.
I would also advise against underestimating how much solar power can contribute to our energy needs. Between PV installations on rooftops etc, which provides some needed "distributed energy", and solar power plants in the southwest and their centralized power, solar can be a majority power source and do so economically.

How many are using apples to apples comparisons when they compare wind or solar with conventional power supplies? Are the hidden costs of coal, gas and oil being considered? How about the hidden costs of nuclear? According to Set America Free.org,
the hidden costs of oil and gas in the U.S. amount to over $800 billion annually, which includes over $80 billion in tax credits and subsidies to the oil and gas industry. On top of that, oil is contributing well over $300 billion annually to our trade deficit. Then there are the wars in the middle east, with their losss of life, America's prestige in the world and all the other problems in the mideast, Venezuala etc. Have you read the proposal at Scientific American that promises to attain 69% solar energy in the U.S. by 2050, just using solar power plants in the southwest? Have you seen the proposals by Set America Free?
Wind industry people say we could have 20% wind power by 2030 or so. Denmark already has 20% wind power. Somehow the supposed problems with "intermittency" with solar and wind aren't stopping other countries, like Denmark and Germany. Parts of Germany and Denmark have 40% wind power. There is an overwhelming amount of dis-information out there, trying to downplay the potential of alternative energy, particularly solar and wind. All it takes is the political will to do what is right. That is where 90% of the hype is coming from, so the next time you hear about the hype of solar, take it with a grain of salt. In many sunny parts of the country, which also happen to have high electric rates, like California, solar is already at grid parity. According to Ausra, one of the solar thermal companies, they could power the whole country, at competitive rates, using less land than now used for coal mining.

"Like nuclear plants, coal plants tie up great gobs of capital during their extended construction periods. For the sponsors of such projects, the shifting sands of economic uncertainty can spell financial disaster, as many a utility learned the hard way during nuclear's fiscal meltdown."

"In contrast, solar, wind, and conservation all have shorter lead times, a fiscal advantage not sufficiently appreciated, especially in uncertain economic environments like the present. So in addition to loving these options for being "green," planners can also love them for being "just in time."
gristmill.grist.org/st...

There is a pdf, which you can download, called "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy",
which shows why nuclear is not the best choice.
Here are some links:

www.setamericafree.org...
A Blueprint For U.S. Energy Security

www.setamericafree.org...

Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

www.pluginpartners.org/

www.eoearth.org/articl...

www.ausra.com/

www.esolar.com/

www.brightsourceenergy.../

Solar Symbiosis: Making a Clean Break

Just wanted to comment on electric cars. I think they already have a market in city or in town delivery vehicles, taxi cabs, job trucks for farms etc, where the range is already sufficient.

For the time being, we should be encouraging Detroit to build (PHEVs) plub in hybrids. With no range problems, people will be less discouraged from buying them. The average American driver would get 100mpg overall, and would hardly use the gas engine for their daily commute. Overnight charge would cost $1 at current power prices. Even now, the grid is cleaner than burning gasoline. This would give electric cars time to improve their range and maybe time for charging stations to be built. Phoenix Motorcars utility pickup with a battery from AltairNano can be charged in 10 minutes with a 440 volt charger.

Solar Symbiosis: Making a Clean Break

I agree with your arguments for solar. Let's not forget the huge potential of solar thermal power plants. Hopefully we will have some companies going public in this area soon.

Same for wind, I wish there were more oppurtunities for investing in wind power. Where are the big wind companies in America, like Vestas in Europe?

As far as subsidies for alternative energy, let's not worry about that, until we stop the subsidies for coal, oil, gas and nuclear, which are huge by comparison. So far the public money allocated for renewables are a drop in the bucket.

Is Solar Power Inherently Deflationary?

I'm not so sure nuclear is such a hot idea. It has far more problems than solar ever will have.

"We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for "energy independence," reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years."

"A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to "total meltdown" even without direct damage to the containment structure."

Don't tell the terrorists.

"Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects."

"The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident."

"Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund."
That's just one state.

"Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants."

Again, that's just one state.

"Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources."


www.cleanwisconsin.org...

www.eoearth.org/articl...

Is Solar Power Inherently Deflationary?

If we were to take a meaningful steps toward developing solar power plants in the southwest, solar will really shine.
Check out this proposal in Scientific American, on how to convert the U.S. electric grid to solar in this century.

Scientific American A Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

How we can have 65% solar grid by 2050 and nearly 100% by 2100, spending much less in public money over 30-35 years, than we now spend just on oil and gas subsidies in five years. When you consider the other $700 billion or so annually in hidden costs of oil, solar really really make sense.
Just imagine what that is doing to our economy. The most expensive option we have is to continue doing what we are doing.

Green Wombat has several articles on progress with solar thermal power plants in California.
blogs.business2.com/gr.../

According to Ausra, one of the solar thermal companies:

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

But no one at FOX news challenged the talking head who claimed that solar couldn't propel a small sailboat, never mind contribute meaningfully to our energy needs.

www.setamericafree.org...
www.monitor.net/monito...
www.progress.org/2003/...
www.eoearth.org/articl...

Beware of the Solar Stock Fad

There are are a few things you are overlooking. The real price of petroleum is what no one wants to talk about. It's been estimated that gasoline would now cost about $12 per gallon, if all the hidden costs of oil were included. The annual hidden costs of oil have been estimated at over $800 billion annually. Tax credits and subsidies to oil and gas are over $80 billion annually. The military cost of protecting our oil shipments is estimated at over $100 billion annually. These numbers don't count the enormous costs of the war in Iraq.
I would bet that solar is cheaper right now, if the real costs of fossil fuels were included. I know, most conventional power plants are gas or coal, not oil. But hear me out.

You mentioned covering Nevada with solar panels. We have the technology right now to do better than that.
Here's an article from Scientific American, describing how we could have 65% solar grid by 2050 and nearly 100% solar by 2100. The public money spent over about 20 years to achieve this is about 1/4 what we now give oil companies in subsidies, and about 1/40 the total hidden costs of oil.

Scientific America Solar Grand Plan
www.sciam.com/article....

I know of seven solar thermal companies already operating in the U.S. Green Wombat website has several articles about what is already happening in California.
blogs.business2.com/gr.../

Here's what one of these companies, Ausra has to say.

"Solar thermal power plants such as Ausra's generate electricity by driving steam turbines with sunshine. Ausra's solar concentrators boil water with focused sunlight, and produce electricity at prices directly competitive with gas- and coal-fired electric power."

"Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines."

Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods."

Too much disinformation, too many naysayers. We just need political will to do what's right.