backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 66 comment(s) - last by andrinoaa.. on Jun 28 at 5:22 AM

The new photovoltaic solar plant stretches out along the waterfront in an industrial waste sector. It will be among the largest facilities of its type in the world, upon its completion.  (Source: Kansai Electric Power Co., Ltd. and Sharp Co., Ltd. )

The two completed plants will pump out a combined 28 MW.  (Source: Kansai Electric Power Co., Ltd. and Sharp Co., Ltd. )
New parks are anything but small

With solar energy peaking in the U.S. thanks to consumer interest and government promotion, Japan is looking to grow some solar power of its own.  Sakai, Kansai Electric Power Co., and Sharp Co. announced plans this week to unleash some "mega solar power", building two massive solar farms.

The new farms will be placed on the waterfront of Sakai, a major city in the Osaka province.  With 8 million citizens Osaka province is one of Japan's more populous provinces. 

Sharp is a strong supporter of solar power.  It manufacturers photo-voltaic (PV) solar cells, including those used in pocket electronics, like calculators.  It also produces so called "glowing glass", a pair of panels which capture solar light and reemit it indoors.  Sharp's solar experience also includes its smaller, but substantial, solar farm installation at its LCD TV Panel plant in Kameyama.  The plant features 5 MW of power production.

The first of the two new plants will be located in District No. 7-3, an industrial waste district.  When completed, it will pump out 10 MW of power to the region.  The second power plant is dubbed the "Sakai complex solar power generation facility".  A location has yet to be decided but it will produce 18 MW, bringing the plants combined production to 28 MW.

The plants will produce enough electricity to power much of the city and will help cut its CO2 emissions by 10,000 tons per year.  Production on the first plant will start soon, and both plants are expected to be online by 2010.

Looking towards the future, Sharp is planning to open its new thin-film silicon solar cell factory in March 2010.  The factory will be cutting edge and will produce cells implementing some of the most advanced technologies.  This will yield more efficient solar cells.

The new plants represent just one example of Sakai's growing environmental efforts.  The city is becoming a leader in Japan's green movement.

The new plants will be among the largest PV plants in the world.  Spain currently holds the top four largest operating plants, with the largest producing 23 MW.  If it were producing today, the 18 MW plant would be the fifth largest in the world, after the four 20+ MW plants in Spain. 

By the time they are completed, there will be a handful of new larger facilities, though.  A 62 MW plant is scheduled for completion by 2010 in Moura, Portugal and 40 MW plant will be completed in 2009 in Muldentalkreis, Germany.  The largest proposed plant on record is a 154 MW plant to possibly be built in Mildura/Swan Hill, Australia.

Photovoltaic power is popular for its easy cell production using existing chip-processing technology, which helps to alleviate the financial burden of the technology.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Doesn't make sense
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 10:04:45 AM , Rating: 2
In a nation where space is insanely valuable, to be using such a large amount of land to produce so little power, its just absurd. They could power the entire region probably with a nuclear reactor that fit in less space and put out FAR more power. And its not like water is an issue since its next to the freakin ocean. You just have to design it with salt water in mind. I'm sure its feasible.




RE: Doesn't make sense
By nah on 6/26/2008 10:13:18 AM , Rating: 3
Quite correct. AS much as I don't want to say it--nuclear is the way to go for nations where space is at a premium and water is widely available--unless you are a landlocked desert nation with limited water supplies or no access to even ocean water--it's a non issue.
Unfortunately developing nations don't have much incentive to pursue nuclear--India and China are probably exceptions here--since most of them have trouble raising capital or have no political will to do so---in which case solar power--even the highly expensive PV and not thermal kind --make sense. They are cheaper and less non polluting than candles/driftwood/other stuff which the very poor use for power.
Incidentally, anyone ( masher-obviously) know about the effects cooling has on the water--can it be used again or released back into the oceans ?


RE: Doesn't make sense
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/26/2008 10:33:20 AM , Rating: 5
Well, you'd be happy to know Japan is also a leader in nuclear efforts. Unlike the U.S., which only has one new construction proposal filed, Japan has been building many plants and has some of the world's most high tech designs.

Japan is a very strong advocate of alternative energy and seems especially fond of nuclear and solar. Its varied approach I would say is commendable, not a mistake. Diversifying alternative energy prevents overreliance on a specific alternative resource and allows for new applications of the respective field in other industries, and new ways to work the particular technology into wasteland or into an urban setting.

Water from nuclear plants is heated, the level of which depending on the plant design. For this reason the amount that can be released into rivers or lakes is limited and cooling ponds are often used. However the ocean is so vast, typically water could be released into it with little effect other than minor localized ones, in theory.

I think most of the commenters in this thread missed that the park is being built in an industrial waste sector. This is not a place where many people would want to regularly work, making it ideal for solar, which requires less maintenance and less ideal for nuclear, which requires lots of maintenance.

I agree that nuclear is generally a good technology to pursue, but don't equate being pronuclear to being antisolar. The two are simply not mutually exclusive.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By JustTom on 6/26/2008 11:01:58 AM , Rating: 1
While your point on these facilities being built on industrial waste sites is a good one it still begs the question: where is the industrial waste going to go now?


RE: Doesn't make sense
By omnicronx on 6/26/2008 12:09:14 PM , Rating: 5
I think people also forget that a nuclear facility on the ocean is not really a secure position. Here in Canada, they are required to have coastguard boats roaming up and down the coast constantly, and this is in the great lakes, not an ocean that's accessible to pretty much anyone.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By CyberHawk on 6/26/2008 1:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
I just wish that more of people like you would live in US.

Some are really looking too narrow, or they are saying things "because they think it is so".


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I just wish that more of people like you would live in US.
The rest of us are just dumb crackers.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:16:45 AM , Rating: 5
> "Incidentally, anyone ( masher-obviously) know about the effects cooling has on the water--can it be used again or released back into the oceans ? "

It can be released; it's wholly non-radioactive. For rivers, there may be problems with the temperature of the expelled water, but it's not an issue if you're exhausting directly into the ocean itself.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By MRwizard on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Doesn't make sense
By kenji4life on 6/27/2008 11:22:36 PM , Rating: 2
I will assume that you didn't mean to infer that Japan is a developing nation, or at least not in the traditional sense. Of course I think 99% of the people on this site already knows, but Japan is a world leader in technology, be it consumer, industrial, or transportation. It is also as Mr. Asher pointed out, one of the leading countries in the world in terms of Nuclear power.

It has been said already, but there are many benefits to building this solar array:

1. It is built on land that is not very feasible for other uses.
2. It can be used as a test of the latest technology, as well as to further research.
3. It may not be producing anywhere near as much as a nuclear plant, but it is plenty enough to power a large portion of the surrounding area.
4. There are no tall buildings, trees, or other obstructions which would further decrease the efficiency of solar power.
5. This can be used by the company as a promotional tool.
6. There probably will not be much debate about this, aside from the adamantly pro-nuclear crowd (at least the ones who think building anything anywhere but a nuclear plant is a waste of time, space and money, yeah you know who you are
7. We are harnessing a resource that is free and essentially limitless, despite the lack of efficiency. Refer to 1 and 2.
8. The more people build and develop the fore running solar technologies, the better the successive tries will usually be. Imagine if we had stopped building new cars once the first were built? Imagine the comedy of a world filled with 1886 Benz Motorwagons and 1900's Ford model T's.

What we saw as impossible just 10 or 20 years ago has become commonplace. Thousands of megabytes of data was a phenomenal amount in the early nineties, with the most die-hard computer users purchasing hard drives containing less than that much storage capacity, thinking they were set for years. Now most people ignore a 1GB SD card or USB memory stick, as the bargains are in the 2GB, 4GB, even 8GB models. Buildings today are so tall that clouds float by, and only 200 years ago such buildings only existed on mountains or were rare wonders.

I hope that I live to see the day that a solar panel easily fits the roof of my house, sitting on perhaps only the south side, will provide enough power for all of the amazing technology that also exists at that time. Who knows, perhaps with shrinking switches and circuits and new innovation, a house filled with marvelous inventions may only consume a fraction of the power that it does today. We have already taken steps forward with light bulbs, more efficient appliances and power supplies, and more energy efficient construction.

You do not have to be an environmentalist to think that doing more with less is a "bright" idea.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By AnnihilatorX on 6/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Doesn't make sense
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 10:27:10 AM , Rating: 3
If you reprocess the waste back into fuel, the waste is minimal. Get a clue.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/26/2008 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
But radioactive waste is a huge problem.

No, it's not. Radioactive waste can be reprocessed continuously and reused as fuel in reactors to continue to produce power. The "leftover" that can't be used is not a problem to run and can be safely run through a vitrification process.

quote:
Those waste persist in enviornment for millenia.

Vitrification, it really is a great thing. The material is pretty harmless, and can be safely stored. Otherwise you can bleed out the radiation and produce tank armor, or bullet tips (See: M1A1 Abrams Armor Plating, or A-10 Avenger Ammunition).

quote:
It's not as easy as dig a hole underground and store them, especiall in Japan which is prone to earthquakes.

For a nomial fee I'm sure that the USA would be happy to store Japan's nuclear "waste", that way we can use it later when we come up with new ways to use the super hard material.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By JustTom on 6/26/2008 11:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with everything you said till this:
quote:
For a nomial fee I'm sure that the USA would be happy to store Japan's nuclear "waste", that way we can use it later when we come up with new ways to use the super hard material.


The U.S. doesn't even have the will to store its own nuclear waste let alone another nation's.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Oregonian2 on 6/26/2008 1:57:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The U.S. doesn't even have the will to store its own nuclear waste let alone another nation's.


Actually, I think we already are although I forget just what other country or countries we're storing for. It's not like the Nuclear waste isn't being stored now -- it's just being stored in back yards currently while we continue to debate whether buried a few miles under a stable Nevada mountain is safer than where it is now (duh).


RE: Doesn't make sense
By monkeyman1140 on 6/26/2008 11:08:17 AM , Rating: 1
Reprocessing nuclear fuel creates even more radioactive waste...bummer.

DU is not harmless. If you have been in the military, you most likely have been told or have been given manuals that tell you in combat to avoid getting near destroyed vehicles like tanks and APC's because they either have DU armor, contain DU-tipped ammo, or have been destroyed by DU weaponry.

The only true depleted uranium that is harmless is called lead. DU becomes lead in about 2.4 billion years.

Low level radioactive waste is the achilles heel of nuclear power. They chug out tons of radioactive water which by volume is massive compared to the rather compact but still substantial high level waste such as spent fuel. Those plans for hollowed out mountains don't have the capacity for all the radioactive water, just for the spent fuel and solid waste.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:21:04 AM , Rating: 5
> "DU is not harmless."

It is by any rational definition of the term. While nothing in this worly is totally harmless, DU is *less* harmful than the natural uranium in the ground itself, uranium found all over the world. It's still a heavy metal, obviously, so chemically its about as toxic as lead.

If you think DU is dangerous, I suggest you try running your geiger counter (you do have one, don't you?) over some bananas at your local supermarket. You'll be surprised at the results.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 12:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah what was it I heard about bananas?


RE: Doesn't make sense
By barjebus on 6/26/2008 11:54:03 AM , Rating: 3
Monkey, do some serious reading about DU before you spout the common refrain regarding it.

DU as a solid is almost completely harmless. The only reason why military manuals warn you about DU is that as soon as it combusts and becomes gaseous or explodes into tiny flecks, it can be inhaled or ingested. Once ingested, those radioactive particles almost never go away for many many years, and remain radioactive for that time.

So, unless you think that we're going to be smashing our depleted uranium waste and venting it to the atmosphere in the center of every city, your point is moot/incorrect.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By ziggo on 6/26/2008 7:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
They are not even radioactive (relativly, technically everything is radioactive). Its just basically heavy metal, and just like any other heavy metal, it is toxic. It also happens to be pyroforic which makes it a great weapon, but as long as you are not ingesting it you are in good shape. I worked at a plant where DU slugs were made, you had to make sure that you wore the proper protection from inhalation/ingestion, but there was no danger from radioactivity.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By tallcool1 on 6/26/2008 10:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the land part. Too much land used to only make 28MW?
Another alternative to Nuclear, would be to put in a combined cycle gas turbine plant. I am not sure what Japan's natural gas resources are though. If available, that would put out 20 times the megawatts in roughly the same amount of space.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2008 10:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
Had the first same thought...what a waste of valuable space. I'm for cleaner energy but this seems like a turn in the wrong direction.
If they wanting to go with solar power. Then why not put as many panels on the roof tops of the already existing buildings?


RE: Doesn't make sense
By jajig on 6/26/2008 10:32:07 AM , Rating: 3
I believe that is where they have their golf courses.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2008 11:05:39 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, my bad....forgot about roof top golf.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By AntiM on 6/26/2008 10:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
The plants are being built in an industrial waste area. I would imagine that the land would otherwise go unused.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By daschneider on 6/26/2008 10:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
The article says it will be built in "an industrial waste district". I understood that to mean this land isn't fit for much else so I don't see the land issue being a big deal.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Zoomer on 6/26/2008 8:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
I have a strong, strong feeling that this would be more valuable as a test build project for new techniques, and later on as a sales tool.

If it is really built on reclaimed land, keep in mind that newly reclaimed land is usually left aside to let it settle for a couple of decades.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By rikulus on 6/26/2008 10:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
Well, presumably this "industrial waste sector" land isn't quite as valuable as other areas in Japan. I can see an advantage for solar over nuclear in Japan being that they already produce solar panels in country, and with nuclear they would presumably need to import uranium (correct me if I'm wrong), and potentially need to export nuclear waste as others have mentioned. Solar would seem to be less reliant on other countries than nuclear.

I've also noticed many people on this site seem to think building nuclear facilities on the coast seems to be a great idea in terms of abundant salt water availability for cooling. I wont speculate on the feasibility of using corrosive salt water to cool a nuclear plant, but a coastal site would seem far more open to security issues.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
> " I wont speculate on the feasibility of using corrosive salt water to cool a nuclear plant"

Japan already has several nuclear plants that use sea water for cooling, such as Kashi-Kari, which produces some 8,200 MW.

Counting the differing availability factors between nuclear (~90%) and solar (~30%), that plant will produce nearly 900 times as much power as this new solar facility.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By Smartless on 6/26/2008 2:50:23 PM , Rating: 2
Out of curiosity, what's the consumption rate of uranium versus the supply? I'm sure a good supply of uranium must be like gold but I mean it can't be limitless right? I know I may get voted down but I'd rather learn something for it.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 3:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "Out of curiosity, what's the consumption rate of uranium versus the supply?"

If you look at known stockpiles, then its less than a century....but that's highly misleading. By that measure, in 1920, we had less than 10 years of oil in the world. We essentially stopped prospecting for uranium almost as soon as we began, because we found so much more than we needed, and the budding nuclear power industry was essentially shut down in the 1970s, greatly restricting demand. Even a highly conservative estimate of the amount of uranium ore in the entire world gives us a few thousnad years of use.

Also, one has to realize that the US uses a "once-through" fuel cycle. If it simply switched to reprocessing, we'd get up to 100X as much energy out of the fuel....and we'd generate far less nuclear waste as well.

Still further, uranium is hardly the only element we can use for nuclear power. Thorium can also be used...and its three times as prevalent as uranium.

Long before we run out of ore, I'm sure we'll be able to extract directly from far larger sources such as sea water, deep-crust deposits, or even from mining the asteroid belt. But that's really irrelevant, given its several thousand years in the future.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By ziggo on 6/26/2008 7:57:28 PM , Rating: 2
I wish it was rarer, my stocks in the uranium buisness haven't done that well over the past year.

Its alright though, I am in for the long term.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 12:16:02 PM , Rating: 3
What extra security vulnerabilities does a plant being on the coast add? I really don't think we have to worry about a crack amphibious terrorist assualt force.


RE: Doesn't make sense
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 1:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
assault*


RE: Doesn't make sense
By drunkenmastermind on 6/26/2008 7:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
Look in the concept pictures and you will see that the solar parks are built on re-claimed land, not in the middle of the Osaka. Re-claimed land is man made, land that did not exist, made of rubbish and dirt.


More lies... damn lies... and statistics
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 12:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
The plants will produce enough electricity to power much of the city

So what powers the city at night then? You know... when all the lights are supposed to be on?

I expect this to be rated down like the comment in the Delaware windfarm thread by idiots that do not understand the problems in matching an inherently variable and uncontrollable supply to an inherently variable and uncontrollable demand.




By Bruneauinfo on 6/26/2008 5:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
typically people use more power during the day when they are working. so solar power will help offset the load on the grid during the day.


By majBUZZ on 6/27/2008 2:06:14 AM , Rating: 2
They have a system where during the day air is compressed and stored , then at night it is released to power generators.

Check this out
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-...


By psychobriggsy on 6/26/2008 11:55:12 AM , Rating: 4
Those aren't pictures of solar plants. It's a picture of commercial zones in Sim City.
Poor planning too, the middle ones are too far away from the roads.

Still, good that someone's installing solar power plants, but surely if they're by the sea they should be putting in wind farms on the sea bed as well? That's prime office space they're using up! Or very expensive residential housing by a marina.




It's Good Even if it's Dumb
By foxtrot9 on 6/26/2008 4:53:44 PM , Rating: 2
The more people that spend money to adopt these technologies the quicker they will become cheaper for everyone else




RE: It's Good Even if it's Dumb
By Andy35W on 6/27/2008 2:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The more people that spend money to adopt these technologies the quicker they will become cheaper for everyone else


Exactly, also you won't have to spend $5.9billion decommissioning as you would with nuclear, neither will the waste have to be looked after for the next 10 000 years.


Haha!
By JonnyDough on 6/26/2008 8:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
With the sea levels on the rise due to the melting ice caps I wonder if they'll even get it completed before they have to start moving it to higher ground.




RE: Haha!
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 10:55:03 PM , Rating: 2
At an expected rise of some 30 cm per century, I don't think they have much to worry about.


Subsidies
By Army1156 on 6/26/2008 10:05:31 AM , Rating: 2
Does Japan's government provide subsidies for projects like this? Or is it just left to the market in Japan?




Why PV?
By Suomynona on 6/26/2008 12:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that concentrated solar power was supposed to be more efficient (and less expensive) than PV. Is there any particular reason they chose PV?




GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By monkeyman1140 on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:00:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "So whats wrong with solar?"

Go buy some solar panels for your house and find out. In addition to the truly staggering cost and the headache of keeping vast expanses of fragile material clean and protected from weather damage, you'll find they don't generate power at night, or in rainy/cloudy conditions, and little power in the early mornings and late evenings.


By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 12:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
God will shine a flashlight on them like he does during the day according to his thread title.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By PitViper007 on 6/26/2008 12:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it's funny you should mention solar panels for the house, as I was just looking at them for mine. GOOD GOD!!! Talk about expensive! Even taking into consideration that I could sell electricity back to the grid, I would have my house paid off before I'd pay off the solar panels! If and when they get the efficiency of solar power up to a higher level (~30% just does NOT cut it) and bring the price WAY down, I will consider it. Until then, I'll stay on mass produced electricity, coal powered in my area.


By OxBow on 6/26/2008 12:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's why we live in a "Civil" society. So that we can share the costs.

I looked at the prices for solar cells on my house also and, egad, it seems like their pricing themselves out of the market. I live in South Texas and have a very large, south facing, unshaded roof that would be ideal for some solar cells. However, there's no way I could ever aford it at todays prices. $6k to $10k I could see as reasonable, not $30k to $60k that they were qouting.

That's what makes this project in Japan sensible. They have land that can't be used for anything else. They won't build factories, warehouses or residential units on an industrial waste landfill, but the spot is fine for a passive solar array. They'll get an economy of scale in such an installation that makes it obviously much cheaper, not to mention the manufacturer of the cells is doing the install and is local, so the transportation costs and middle men are minimized.

Right now my power service provider is Green Mountain Energy. They only buy power from renewable, green supplies (windfarms mostly). As such, I can at least feel a little better about my electric bill when it goes to conservation projects. It's slightly more expensive than the other local providers (and yes, I know it's all from the same grid, so the juice in my house is partially powered by coal, nuclear and natural gas, also) but for me that's worth it.

Who knows, however, what's coming down the pike. There's been a lot of work lately on new tech to produce cheaper solar cells. If they can get the prices down on individual panels, and maybe get them organized into simple DIY kits, I might still get solar on my house. But like I said, it's got to be priced reasonably.


By OxBow on 6/26/2008 12:38:18 PM , Rating: 1
That's why we live in a "Civil" society. So that we can share the costs.

I looked at the prices for solar cells on my house also and, egad, it seems like their pricing themselves out of the market. I live in South Texas and have a very large, south facing, unshaded roof that would be ideal for some solar cells. However, there's no way I could ever aford it at todays prices. $6k to $10k I could see as reasonable, not $30k to $60k that they were qouting.

That's what makes this project in Japan sensible. They have land that can't be used for anything else. They won't build factories, warehouses or residential units on an industrial waste landfill, but the spot is fine for a passive solar array. They'll get an economy of scale in such an installation that makes it obviously much cheaper, not to mention the manufacturer of the cells is doing the install and is local, so the transportation costs and middle men are minimized.

Right now my power service provider is Green Mountain Energy. They only buy power from renewable, green supplies (windfarms mostly). As such, I can at least feel a little better about my electric bill when it goes to conservation projects. It's slightly more expensive than the other local providers (and yes, I know it's all from the same grid, so the juice in my house is partially powered by coal, nuclear and natural gas, also) but for me that's worth it.

Who knows, however, what's coming down the pike. There's been a lot of work lately on new tech to produce cheaper solar cells. If they can get the prices down on individual panels, and maybe get them organized into simple DIY kits, I might still get solar on my house. But like I said, it's got to be priced reasonably.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By OxBow on 6/26/2008 12:38:22 PM , Rating: 1
That's why we live in a "Civil" society. So that we can share the costs.

I looked at the prices for solar cells on my house also and, egad, it seems like their pricing themselves out of the market. I live in South Texas and have a very large, south facing, unshaded roof that would be ideal for some solar cells. However, there's no way I could ever aford it at todays prices. $6k to $10k I could see as reasonable, not $30k to $60k that they were qouting.

That's what makes this project in Japan sensible. They have land that can't be used for anything else. They won't build factories, warehouses or residential units on an industrial waste landfill, but the spot is fine for a passive solar array. They'll get an economy of scale in such an installation that makes it obviously much cheaper, not to mention the manufacturer of the cells is doing the install and is local, so the transportation costs and middle men are minimized.

Right now my power service provider is Green Mountain Energy. They only buy power from renewable, green supplies (windfarms mostly). As such, I can at least feel a little better about my electric bill when it goes to conservation projects. It's slightly more expensive than the other local providers (and yes, I know it's all from the same grid, so the juice in my house is partially powered by coal, nuclear and natural gas, also) but for me that's worth it.

Who knows, however, what's coming down the pike. There's been a lot of work lately on new tech to produce cheaper solar cells. If they can get the prices down on individual panels, and maybe get them organized into simple DIY kits, I might still get solar on my house. But like I said, it's got to be priced reasonably.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2008 4:37:23 PM , Rating: 3
just need to post once dude. :)

If you can not afford it...nor can your neighbors. Solar panels have been out for decades, I remember a girl in my grammar school class who's family had some put onto their house in the late 70's. They should be much cheaper now, but this industry has not seen economies of scale. Guessing because there is probably just a couple of families or businesses that actually produce the panels and refuse to let the price drop so product cost can come down for the average person to look into adding to their home. They never read up on Henry Ford and his model T idea.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By juserbogus on 6/26/2008 2:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think you "too expensive" guys need to do some current research... with a quick google search I found complete on -grid 2.1kw systems (self installed) for under $12,000. the only real maintenance is cleaning the panels which if you get rain you should only have to do once a year (not a big deal). For less than $15k total you can get batteries but if you're on the grid why (requires more maint, unless you're looking for redundancy). Since the avg house uses about 1kw, this system should result in reverse charges much of the year.

these prices don't include the current 30% fed tax credit ($2k max) or the 25% WI tax credit I'd get. my roi is 4.5 years for on grid system.


By juserbogus on 6/26/2008 2:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
"reverse charges much of the year"... for the the 15k off grid system...


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 3:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
> "with a quick google search I found complete on -grid 2.1kw systems (self installed) for under $12,000"

That 2.1 kW system will only generate that figure in strong daylight on a clear day. The average figure will be closer to 700 watts (for a place like Phoenix) or under 500 watts (for a place like Seattle). That's nowhere near large enough to run a house.

Worse, it'll generate nothing whatsoever at night. To get round-the-clock power will require batteries...and batteries capable of running a house for 12 hours are going to cost far more than $12,000.

Worse, if you're talking cheaper batteries such as NiMH or Lead acid, the coulometric charging efficiency is going to run around 66%...meaning a third of the power you generate is just going to be wasted heating the batteries. That means your array needs to be sized 1/3 larger to compensate.

That extra heat will make cooling your home far harder....so you'll have to store the batteries in an area outside the insulated portion of the home. For most homeowners, that means an addition or a separate building. Also, batteries wear out far faster than do solar panels.

You'll also need a large inverter to convert the electricity to AC. This isn't terribly expensive, but does add a couple thousand to the cost...and its something else to be maintained.

Add it all up, and you'll see why, even with the federal subsidies, even the most fanatical environmentalists think twice about installing solar panels.


By lemonadesoda on 6/26/2008 5:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think anyone is advocating REPLACING ALL energy sources with solar.

Solar is there as an alternative, and if it can be used to assist "day-demand" (random google examples: http://www.ree.es/ingles/operacion/detalle_curva_d... http://www.state.mn.us/mn/externalDocs/Commerce/Re... http://www.p2pays.org/ref/15/14375.pdf ) then it will mean that conventional power plants (oil, gas, coal) can be run more efficiently over a 24hr basis. It doesnt matter there is no night power with solar... our existing powerstations are still up and running and have plenty of capacity for night-time.

Related to the time-demand curve is price. Electricity is more expensive in the day than at night. So if you want to compare power efficiency, multiply that by a "price" so you measure energy "value". Under that measure you wouldnt discount solar so steeply.

I'm all for solar. But there is also no doubt, today it is economically horribly inefficient (at today's infrastructure costs).

This last link is interesting: http://www.gas.or.jp/english/letter/images/02/pdf/... A quick read indicated that in Japan, half the power used by Japanese consumers is for hot water. Strategically, we should be a little more clever in the use of hot water and how its energy value is recycled.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By juserbogus on 6/26/2008 6:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
the inverter was included... the $12k on-grid system included a Fronius IG 3000.

no batteries; like you pointing out, too much maintenance.... use the grid as your battery since you generally sell back for the same as cost. you only want batteries if you can't depend on the utility.

ok, so lets go with a 3.15kw systems for $17668 minus the WI cash back and the fed credit: 17668-25%-2000=$11,251 with that I should generate between 3677 and 4200kw per year in Madison,wi based on a number of sites. Madison avg 4.29 hours of sun per meter per day.

here's an example http://solar.hmtech.info/


By Zoomer on 6/26/2008 8:45:34 PM , Rating: 2
Think of it this way:

That system wouldn't be able to power a Core 2 Quad @ 4Ghz with dual 4870x2s and its cooling system. ;)


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By Keeir on 6/26/2008 9:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a great example, but the real cost of the (exmple) system was 25,000 dollars. That would significantly increase the payback period. (Government Money is not FREE money. We all have to pay it back)

4200 kilowatt hours? Yeah, given your numbers that seems reasonable. At today's rates of around 10 cents per kilowatt hour, thats around 420 dollars a year in savings. Since your rates are probably higher, lets be generous and say 500 dollars a year. At 500 dollars a year, it takes based on simple payback 22.5 years to payback your initial investment of 11,251 and 35.7 years to payback actual costs.

Was this with or without installation for you?

That example from Southern California has a much greater utilization factor (I imagine) and also appears to be on a very energy efficient home.

Note: I am not saying not to get solar. Solar -CAN- make sense for individuals given thier location and situation with tax credits. However, for soceity in general, it doesn't appear to make economic sense to be using solar panels when the costs are still higher than the consumer rate of power.


By headbox on 6/27/2008 5:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
Only 1/3rd of Govt. money comes from the IRS. So saying "we" have to pay for it is not a correct statement.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 10:53:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "with that I should generate between 3677 and 4200kw per year in Madison"

That takes your payback period to 23 and a half years, assuming a 12c/ Kw-h electricity cost..and if you don't have to spend a single penny on maintenance during that period. And that's WITH the government rebates.

Of course, the actual payback will be even worse, as output is going to decline over that period. Plus, you won't use the entire output during the day, meaning your surplus will have to be sold back to the utility at a lower rate.

See now why so few people install these systems? If all you want is hot water, a solar system can pay off. But trying to power your home from one is a losing proposition.


By andrinoaa on 6/28/2008 5:22:03 AM , Rating: 2
Masher2, you Glow Boy. Please factor in the RISING costs of current supply. Once you have paid for the infrustructure, your outlays are minimal for the life of the gear. AND it doesn't stop producing power after 23yrs. It may be down to 80% but it is still FREE!!!!
PS what was the cost of storage for nuclear wastes for a few hundred years? What you haven't worked it out yet? I thought it was for free!! lol
PS Maybe the Japanese DON't want nuclear problems anymore!?!?
Why are you a "solar drainer"? Does it stop you from glowing? lol


By Bruneauinfo on 6/26/2008 5:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
if your grid offers to pay for excess power that's great. but it is not that way everywhere yet.

i'm guessing the hope is that if these large solar projects continue it will help drive down the price of solar or generate research that improves the efficiency.


RE: GOD USES SOLAR ENERGY TO POWER THE PLANET
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 6:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
A coworker has a 7.5kW solar array to power his 3700 sq ft house. He says he gets around 70-75% roughly from it. It cost $50k before the credits and stuff and $30k with them credits. My wife and I have been looking into them for years. They're just not cheap. Besides, it takes more to get these up and running than buying a bunch of parts. There's this thing called a labor, where a bunch of people knowledgeable about these things come out and do the work for you including properly sizing your system, buying the proper parts, etc.


By juserbogus on 6/26/2008 6:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
in WI an assessment costs about $400 which %60 is refunding back to us. So, the only thing left is the actual installation which is not bad if you are comfortable cutting holes in your house which I am. the actual tie in to the grid is the only place where I need to pay for labor. of course many people are not able to do this themselves...


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki