what about Solar in the pickens plan ?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by stanley kul on July 9, 2008 at 2:34pm

please join the solar power group so we can get our arms around the whole picture

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Ashman on July 9, 2008 at 7:24pm

I spoke with a Texas oil guy today and he said Pickens is trying to keep or up wind energy subsidies so he can directly benefit, otherwise, it's not profitable for him. Said he invested in huge chunk of land that wasn't going to be profitable for the original purpose so he switched gears to go for wind to make it profitable, but he needs subsidies to recoup the investment. So 'the plan' appears to be more about getting government money. Pretty depressing when you think about it. Yeah, it's a good thing, but it doesn't solve our problem as much as it solves his.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John on July 9, 2008 at 7:35pm

I think new construction is the answer to the solar puzzle. It seems to me that contractors could acquire the materials cheaper than a home or business owner. If a contractor is building a housing development of 250 homes, an order for solar panels on 250 homes would get a huge discount, as would the order for batteries and inverter. The cost of ownership if included in a new building would be lower, enabling more businesses and consumers to get off the grid with a renewable energy source. As supply increases on the grid, it becomes cheaper for those who cannot afford the investment.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SCOTT ZUNIGA on July 9, 2008 at 9:48pm

Yes, I do. The thing is right now the coast is to high for mass production, but they are trying to fix this problem, hopefuly soon. You are right the roofs are doing noyhing but heating my atic. I know right now if you do have solar power, you can sell the energy that you dont use to your local energy co.That is a true fact.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by BryanR on July 9, 2008 at 11:29pm

Solar Towers may provide a commercial scale for electricity generation. SolarMission Technologies (being acquired by EnviroMission) plans to build a solar tower in Australia that will produce 200MW of electricity which would power 200,000 homes.

They also are studying weather patterns at 4 sites in southwestern US for a solar tower.

"According to a recent History Channel program 630 Solar Towers would power every home in the U.S. making America energy independent. The construction cost would be over 500 billion, roughly half the cost of the Iraq war."

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=392429

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dr. Paul A. Curto on September 12, 2008 at 3:18pm

http://www.goldenstateenergy.com/about4.html

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Craig Harrigan on July 10, 2008 at 4:10am

Its amazing to me how many people are running out to buy a Prius but complain about the cost of solar system. You still have to put gas in a Prius.

You can buy a 10 year Treasury at 4% currently or you can buy a solar system that pays better then a 7% return on your investment, if electric rates go higher your breakeven goes to less then 10 years.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by William (Bill) Nolan on July 10, 2008 at 4:40am

From what I understand solar energy doesn't live up to the hype, but it is getting close. The main problem with Solar energy is the light needs to get magnified to increase its output, this in turns heats up the units and melts them when magnified more than 5 times. I don't remember the exact company but there is one out there that has found a way to cool the units so they can magnify up to 20 times and get much more energy. I am all for using the sun since it isn't going anywhere and will be more consistent and widely available than wind. I like Pickens plan because at least to me it sounds possible and more immediate.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by John Glenn on July 10, 2008 at 4:48am

How about $50,000 ??? That's what Harry Homeowner needs to have a proper solar system installed in their home. By the time you reap any benefit from the investment, you're long gone. The only one that will benefit (until they make it more affordable) are the suppliers. This is typical of our ambulance chasing society... "I can make a buck off somebody else's concerns..."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark on July 10, 2008 at 5:10am

I like solar since Connecticut does not have enough inland wind speed to produce electricity. So lets build on every alternative we can the good ones will rise and the poor ones fall away. If we can just apply the same model thats used in determining whether we use HD or Blueray, Beta Max or VHS, We will have many viable ways to produce power

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Greg D on July 10, 2008 at 6:05am

Concentrating solar is a viable option in the southwest us. Concentrating solar offers efficiencies in the 30% range compared to 10-12% for silicon panels. Several plants are already being constructed and many more projected. http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/concentrating-solar-to-reach...

As far as rooftop installations, I have one in Colorado. http://www.coseia.org/V-Tour-Home-6.html Over 25 years I expect the system to produce 166634 kWhr of power. Given the market installed price was $ 39,126, this amounts to a real cost of $.23/kWhr. This is roughly twice the CURRENT market price. The average cost of power over 25 years may very well be more than $.23/kWhr. My cost per kWhr after the subsidies and rebates is $.09/kWhr (so really the rebates are already too much). As production and technology improve, the cost of silicon solar will (continue) to drop. As grid costs rise the subsidy free break even point of silicon compared to current market prices isn't too far off. The advantages of silicon at that point are that they are distributed points of generation and don't require any grid infrastructure to support.

So, I do think there is a role for solar power, particularly in the western US and Mexico. Undoubtedly, the Pickens Plan will embrace some aspect of solar power.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by SMC on July 10, 2008 at 6:16am

I was doing some pricing on home systems for this over the weekend, and the conclusion I came to was that wind is currently cheaper, plus wind can generate any time of the day, plus what if your rooftop isn't oriented at the best angle for sun, etc.

Solar is great, but for a home owner, it's a huge investment that won't pay off in the remotely near-term. It's like a 10-20 year investment. A few states have rebates and other programs that make this more practical, but not mine.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last