In a recent Forbes article, the most glaring parameter is
that the sun doesn’t always shine…a standard availability being 20-30%. So, if you compare that solar production
strictly against a base-load generator with a 70-80% capacity, you come up with
a very big negative for solar, as well as other renewable.
What is missing in this cost analysis is the “true” value of
the electricity…other than just a price
per KWH. Solar is peak demand
KWHs…especially valuable and most probably more than cost effective and
competitive on hot summer days when air-conditioning demand is at its
highest. There is usually no
distinction between cost/kwh during the day and night when demand is low, and when
a lot of costly generators are turned off.
As with so many aspects of the environment/climate change, the “true”
costs and implications are marginalized.
Another strike against solar PV is the life expectancy of
the panels itself. For many years, a 20
year life was used…I guess today it is 25 years. The argument was/is that there is not enough actual use history
to extend that timeframe, even though those panels may work for 50, 60, ??
years. A nuclear power plant has a
license for 40 years, and most industrial facilities have a 30-40 year life
expectancy. So, if you depreciate,
spread cost out over that life-expectancy timeframe, whatever economic gimmick you use, etc...solar is at a big
disadvantage.
One last point I usually make in my arguments is that the
real cost of nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste disposal is
extremely understated. Here at the
Humboldt Bay Reactor which we are decommissioning, the cost is in excess of
$0.12/kwh for the electricity it produced in its 14 year run. The cost of dry storage of the fuel is about
$12 million /yr until 2020…and after that, who knows what.
I know this is all so complex, and I am not an economist,
but for all these years I have felt slighted by the “powers that be” in all my
activism for sustainable, renewable energy.
No comments:
Post a Comment