General Discussions:
Green Talk
Kids Eco Corner
Spam-Carbon Footprint
Natural Skin Care
Transportation:
Eco Roadside Assistance
Biodiesel/Clean Diesel
Carbon Offsets
Electric Bicycles
Electric Vehicles
Fuel Cell & Concept Vehicles
Hybrid Vehicles
Public Transportation
Clean Power Alternatives:
Batteries & Storage Devices
Geothermal & Ground Source Power
Hydro-Electric
Solar Power
Wind Power
Green Events:
Eco Chic Events
Green Hollywood
Garage:
Hazardous Material Storage/Disposal
Garden & Yard:
Green Garden & Yard
Compost
Recycling
Household:
Green Building
Energy Efficient Homes
Green Furniture
Retrofitting Older Homes
Stop Your Junk Mail
Want Us to Add a Forum?
click here
Solar Panels Cost of Ownership
WalMart ShmalMart. When they observe fair trade practices and exploited workers are paid fair wages for their labor,I might then consider shopping there. They are also in talks with car makers, selling phevs?
Until then, I will continue to support my local Mom and Pop stores and pay the higher prices to keep people alive rather funding outlandish corporate pay fee structures!

SOL-mart ?
WAL-MART just installed Solar panels on one of their stores. If WAL-MART does it you can bet it saves money.
Read the API article below
CHINO, Calif. (AP) - SunPower Corp. has finished installing the first of seven solar-power systems for Wal-Mart Stores Inc. at one of the retailer's California locations, the companies said Monday.
The 390-kilowatt system has been installed at a Sam's Club store in Chino. The seven systems will have a total annual generating capacity of 4.6 megawatts.
A one-megawatt plant running continuously at full capacity can power 778 households each year, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. There are 1,000 kilowatts in a megawatt. Solar technology has lower capacity since its power generation is constrained by availability of the sun.
Wal-Mart installed the SunPower system using the solar-product maker's Access program, which allows entities to purchase solar electricity through a long-term agreement instead of purchasing the systems to be installed.
Wal-Mart has plans to install solar panels at about 22 of its stores and distribution centers in Hawaii and California. It expects the stores to save on utility bills starting the first day of each system's operation and estimates the systems will reduce its annual greenhouse-gas emissions by 8,000 to 10,000 metric tons.
SunPower shares rose $1.31, or 1.8 percent, to $74.60 in premarket trading after closing Friday at $73.29. Wal-Mart shares closed at $48.09 Friday.
© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Went to the www.ottawa.ca/designlansdowne. meeting last night. The Frank Claire Stadium appears to face SE. Hope you can twist your panels a bit ct - or does it matter?
The National Capital Commission - another layer of Government that controls the Green Belt around/through Ottawa - is assisting the City some how. - They could just be concerned about dozers mucking up their senic driveway.
The whole thing looks promising. I like the way they are handling the planning. Whole process could be exemplary.
I suggested that the canopy over the stadium could be removed and sold to the Chinese so they could make battleships or something out of it and cover the seats with solar/thermal collectors - we'll have to see how that gets received.
Anyway I'll be busy for a few weeks. - Still not sure what URL will be for Athena site but will be linked to www.howtoboilafrog.com (that's a joke ct. Canadians are very concerned about endangered frogs. - We think it's the 2-4-D )

I used to live in Syracuse for 40 years , The annual snow fall was 110 inches but with global warming it seems to be half that. It gets lots of lake effect snow and very little sunshine. That's why I moved to Arizona and love every second of it. My home runs on grid tied solar now.
At work I also had to work in Watertown NY. They used to get over 200 inches a year. I have wind chill factors to -40 and it was not fun. I never got used to the cold and snow and ice on the roads. Farther norht there is still cold but much less snow. I also worked in Masenna and Potsdam.
Jim, the solar stacks
Paul
Chris Weissflog of Ottawa's ecogenenergy.ca (retailer of solar stuff) is working on some numbers.
Wait till he comes up with something before you contact him. He will confirm rebate numbers and knows that I have a U.S. manufacturer promising some good numbers on solar/thermal.
Chris
ct
You almost have the outline I can work with. Need total dollars in for what a city like Ottawa can save over 10 years (promised by Gov.).
Perhaps if you can get Jim to be the "hole in one golfer" and send his new son Paul to U of Canada, I could be the token Canadian to present our package to Larry O'Brien, if you know what I mean?
Got to run off to work now, it's -23C and I'm installing a kitchen
chris.
Hey Chris,
I city... gee... could save millions... it's just a matter of scale. These are just back of the envelope numbers.
Ottawa is at ~50 deg north lat. That means that on average each m^2 of panel would capture almost 3kWh of total heat in a day (~950 BTU/sq ft/day), and we could only rate your panels at about 650W / m^2 -- these are the thermal numbers.
If you take the thermal to electric conversion at the PV equivalent of say 15% then you need to know the consumption to compute the area under panel required.
Google put your temp at -11F this am and that's where our system can best PV hands down. 85% of the total heat we collect is rejected. We can dump a good portion of that heat into a building for just the cost of the heat exchanger, with very little degradation of electrical output. It's another term you may know, "CHP" or Combined Heat & Power.
In the sun belt the thought of using the waste heat almost never comes up... but in the northern climes that warmth can be put to good use.
BTW the wind is bringing your -23C air right down my neck today :-O There's a low to the NE and high to the SW. Brrr!!!
Hi Chris,
Well a really quick (two significant digit estimate is about $2.2
million) say 6000 m^2 * 120W/m^2 = 720kW @ $3/W enough power for 250
homes...
I'd divide it into 3 independent sub-systems for increased
flexibility. Naturally, I'm only considering a grid-tied system and
net-metering.
There is one major factor that I've not evaluated yet... I've been to
Syracuse NY, so I know that the weather can do... What's the annual
snowfall? And do you get lake effect?
Hey Chris,
Yes, you heard correctly. I was demonstrating how jstack6 is saving a good deal by having locked in the cost of power at 17.1 cents per kWh for the balance of 20 years.
You have to understand that they did a lot of the work themselves, and that they really saved a lot more that a commercially installed system would have cost.
My system because of its much lower cost of installation will lock you in for ~10.1 cents for the same 20 years.
Remember, the major cost figures are:
Dollars per Watt -- The peak rating determines how much the system costs. The one time capital expense -- before incentives, rebates, etc...
Cents per kilowatt-hour -- The electric rate the buyer effectively locks in over the lifetime of the equipment, usually quoted as 20 years, but longer lives are expected.
O&M -- operation and maintenence -- can add anywhere from a fraction of a cent per kWh, for simple routine cleaning and an annual checkup, to several times the initial expense when _consumables_ like batteries, and fuel cell elements are required over the 20 year lifetimes.
Fuel -- Zero for solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, wave, etc... Minuscule for nuclear & "waste heat" applications. Most of the total lifetime cost for coal, oil, natural gas, diesel, fuel cells.
Yup, $0.42/kWh (or $420/MWh) for solar renewable. That's supposed to be the carrot to get folks to place orders for systems like mine... I'm still waiting for someone to wake up and smell the coffee. Oil closed >$100/bbl today... What is everyone waiting for?
Sorry, my math is terrible - its all those big numbers you guys use.
Did I hear .10 a kwh? The Ontario Power Corporation is paying Canadian industries and municipalities .42 a kwh for electricity produced from solar, and they offer grants of 25% up to $50,000 to set the thing up.
Google "Price of manure power hard to digest" to read news article and "Ecoenergy" for all the grant info.
Is that any help, or are you talking over my head?

CTYankee, You should sign up for this meeting.
Central Solar Power Forum
Understanding the Development Potential for
Utility-Scale Central Solar Power (CSP) in Arizona
January 10, 2008 Hyatt Regency
http://solar.nau.edu/csp/index.html

CTY,
Now your talking good stuff , concentrated solar is super for large scale energy plants. The LUZ plants out in California are very good. Like I said if we could just stop giving huge incentives to fossil fuel and nuclear it would be very clear.
Your concept and case is must clearer now. SEGS is the top choice for centralised power. In AZ one major utility ,APS just built a new SEGS at it's Saguaro plant. http://www.aps.com/_files/renewable/SP017SaguaroSolarTrough.pdf
Don't forget to add the massive amount of water nuclear uses and the cost of imported uranium for refueling that has skyrocketed. After 20 years most are unstable like Palo Verde our local 3 reactors and got put on the watch list, has all 3 shut down this summer etc, etc . Studies I have read show the real cost of nuclear at 50 cents a kwh. , Solar PV is 10-15 cents.
the solar stacks

You did say,
It's also very confusing when it comes to quoting a "money per energy" ratio. The lifetime of most plants is quoted as 25 years. The planners knew
that the plants would need to go 40years to make a profit. So if you're
patient a huge front load isn't a problem, Every US nuke has been paid
for... That's why the current energy cost is so low. We've sat on our
nuclear hands for 25 years...How stupid is that?
I say this is wrong information you are spreading. You are also saying PV is very expensive , when it can be owned VS renting your dirty power and paying forever. Anyone can add a great system on a loan and pay only dollars a month. Anyone can be more efficient at almost no cost. The ROI on solar PV is 8%, and that's before net-metering, read home power issue 100.
I'm not sure what your selling since you won't say. I don't see good facts on the current best choices from you. I read only bad info spun in a negative light which is not good.
the solar stacks
confusion:
The price of a system is quoted in $/Watt; that's a capital cost for the hardware. Your system is rated at 2500W and you spent $12,500 or $4.80/Watt. That's less than the retail price of an installed system, that's why I concluded that you did some of the work yourselves. Kudos!
The price for energy is quoted in $/kWh; that's got a time component. A system can generate only a finite amount of energy over its 'quoted' 20 year lifetime. That lets us compute a projected cost of energy for a fixed period of time.
If your system makes 10kWh per day (2500W times 4 hours) times 365 days per year for 20 years then it will have generated 73,000 kWh. Divide the $12,500 by the 73,000 kWh and you get $0.171/kWh... That's your cost of energy for 20 years. Seventeen cents per kilowatt hour...
The good news is that 20 years from the date you installed the system you'll still be "paying" the same price for your electricity. Who knows what your neighbors will be paying? Maybe .35, .40, a $1.00 per kWh...
Now the whole ROI thing gets really complicated because everyone has a different situation; taxes, incentives, rebates, availability of capital, lifestyle, expected inflation, yada yada yada. That's why I look at the "worst case" for my own product line.
And I have mentioned we're doing concentrating solar-thermal electric power. I haven't named the company, only the process. It's a scaled down version of the Solar-One, SEGS, and Saguaro type of facilities in the Nevada desert. Parabolic troughs collect/concentrate sunlight, makes steam, turns a generator, makes electricity.
We're focusing our attention on commercial buildings, I want to do residential but the reality is it's hard to be cost effective on a system that small. Each trough is 20+ feet long, and one bi-panel covers ~320 sq ft.
Our target price is $3/W installed for systems in the 50kW to 500kW range. If you do the same math as I did above that works out to $0.102/kWh
$600,000 / ( 200kW * 4hr/d * 365d/y * 20yr) = 0.10273$/kWh (a dime)
------------
For a $6B nuke generating 600MW for 40 years the raw cost of energy based on capital equipment is:
6B$ / 600MW * 24h * 365d/y * 40yr = $0.0285$/kWh (less than 3 cents)
Naturally the O&M is higher, and there is fuel & cleanup to consider... but I'm trying to keep it apples to apples.
This as the other huge part of the confusion. A coal plant costs even less to build, but considerably more to operate. So much more that most of the price of coal electricity is the cost of the coal.
You have to believe me when I say I'm all for solar power, and If I had the means, I'd give my right arm to remove coal & oil burners and replace them with solar, but the money people just won't swallow that pill. The other issue is that solar operates 4 maybe 6 hours per day... Storage is still way too expensive.
One more piece of bad news... My computations for solar are considered too optimistic by some. Go to the SolarBuzz website and look at their comprehensive estimates for the cost of solar electricity... It's enough to make you cry, $0.40, $0.50 or more / kWh...
The only negative light I'm trying to cast is that the investor community is mostly stuck in neutral when it comes to looking at the long term picture. They want to know the here and now, they want to make their profit and get out. The look you in the eye and say: "I could take the money I'd spend on your system, put it in the bank, and pay the electric bill forever." And in the current economic climate they are correct... shortsighted, but correct.
We both know better! I'm trying to get folks outside of the green community to notice that there is some real benefit to thinking long term.
Whether you like the nuclear issue or not, the economics favor it. Could the subsidies be better applied? I think so! The law says the utilities don't have to figure in the cost of 10,000 years of storage for nuclear waste so they don't do it.
There is so much to be done, and economics are the driving force.

You state: that I'm here to plug my business... in a gradual sort of way. Eventually I'll even get around to telling folks the name of the company... But in the mean time, I'm here to build a little credibility.....p u
I say, So far you have none. You don't understand the real cost of nuclear and thousands of years of deadly waste, the huge amount of water use. The same for coal and natual gas power plants !
the solar stacks
jstack6,
Did I say something to offend you? I think what you are doing is a great thing... If you've got some axe to grind with the nuclear, coal and natural gas industries... well, I suppose this is the place to vent your spleen.
This is an open forum, and I could have come in here like "Mark" whatsisname, trying to con the ignorant and desperate out of their hard earned dollars on some foolish pipe dream!
I tried to be a little more respectful by not being a walking-talking billboard.
You've obviously got some issues with decisions made 40+ years ago. I think I agree with you, I simply stated some simple facts about what the costs are today, in real 2007 dollars.

In answer I would and do ! I buy 8 blocks every moths of clean renewable energy from my power company and never use it. It herlps them and you breath easier.
I also give to a fund to plant trees by the same power company to replant the forest fires areas.
I also give to my church and have put 8 kids through college, Only 2 were mine.
Some people care, some only could green pictures of dead presidents on paper, Dollars $$$
your question was
Anyway, I'm certain what you've accomplished is something you're proud of, and you should be. You've clearly beat the curve in most aspects. But let me ask you this. Could you or would you do what you did for a stranger for what you spent? I'm certain we both know the answer to that.the solar stacks
My hat is off to you!
Clearly you've done more that a dozen ordinary folks, probably more! You've made a decision to sacrifice, and I just can't think of a higher compliment.
I didn't mean to impugn your generosity, only to point out that it would be impossible for you to subsidize the almost unlimited demand for energy systems at $4.80/Watt... You could help neighbors, friends, etc. but you wouldn't be able to created a sustainable business.
You could offer up your entire accumulated wealth & resources and be sucked dry by those folks that only care about what the world owes them.
Sorry, I don't know what a "block" of renewable energy referred to... The negotiable and traded unit of Renewable Energy Credit aka "Green Tags" or "SREC" refer to a Megawatt-Hour and typically trade in the $200 range.
If you're buying 8 of those per month, then the financial savings of your 2500W solar panel are clearly irrelevant when compared to your dedication to do what is right!
Unfortunately very few people have the means to budget $20,000/year to environmental causes, for causes' sake. My goal is to make available a system that will enable regular folks to achieve the benefits of clean solar energy, and put a little $$$ in their pocket each month.

CT yankee,
Did you compare it to the cost of Nuclear used in your area, or the 50% coal used in most of the USA. One miner death is payback for me to pick a smarter choice. The air pollution on top of that and we all win. Then add in the water use for coal or Nuclear and it's a real win.
Did you know nuclear cost us 50 cents a kwh ? Do you know the real cost of coal ? Do you live near huge trasmission lines and transformers ?
My little 2.5 kw system cost me about 12K back when I added it in 2001 witrh no incentives and no net-metering. Now I have net-metering. Since I installed it and became a smarter energy user with solar screens to block the summer heat, solar hot water and efficeint lights and appliances I have no electric bill 6 months of the year. The other months I pay 20-30 a month.
My system has already paid for itself in dollars. I also help reduce Global Warming. My system is priceless.
ar solar stacks
Hi there solar stacks,
I hope you didn't misunderstand my point. First, I think that what you're doing is wonderful. You've clearly made a conscious decision to change your behavior and have shown the courage to stick to your convictions.
Unfortunately, most folks aren't like that. They make a New Years' Resolution, and by Jan 15 it's same-ol' same old habits.
Without getting too morbid, the miner death will be caught up to by guys falling off roofs, or being crushed by an improperly mounted array... It's just part of the equation.
Coal pollutes! You're 100% correct. PV factories require huge volumes of Chlorine, Phosphine, Silanes, water, heat, etc... Less to be sure, but look at the ratios.
Nuclear power *might * cost more to build today, what with all the insane regulations on the industry... However as one who keeps an eye on the rates, $35-$38 per megawatt-hour ($0.035-$0.038/kWh) is the going rate.
It's also very confusing when it comes to quoting a "money per energy" ratio. The lifetime of most plants is quoted as 25 years. The planners knew
that the plants would need to go 40years to make a profit. So if you're
patient a huge front load isn't a problem, Every US nuke has been paid
for... That's why the current energy cost is so low. We've sat on our
nuclear hands for 25 years...How stupid is that?
The 15 fold difference you're citing is what I call a fear-factor talking point. The only reason that number comes up is because building a reactor today has become the moral equivalent of... well you get my drift.
Back to the good stuff. In 2001 you were able to buy/build a 2500W system for $4.80/W Again, that's cool. But you were dedicated & committed to the goal. How many of your friends & neighbors were astonished by your dedication? (that's still a good thing) I'm still willing to bet you subsidised the cost by doing a lot of the labor yourselves.
The other thing you did which is probably the greater contributor to success was to make your home passively efficient. No BTU is cheaper than the one you conserve.
I'm here to plug my business... in a gradual sort of way. Eventually I'll even get around to telling folks the name of the company... But in the mean time, I'm here to build a little credibility, to see who's out there and what they've done, to smash a few myths too. I need to find out the spectrum of attitudes and commitment out there. It's easy to preach to the choir, but not very productive.
I see the challenges to the economy as the forces that will ultimately determine who we as a society do. People are creatures of habit. The only way I'm going to appeal to them is to offer a device that's set-it and forget-it reliable. I also have to be very conscious of the prices & costs.
When most people hear that a new coal plant will save them or cost them their first reaction is... anybody... NIMBY!
They don't care if their electric rate goes from $150 to $350... They whine and they pay it. In six months they've forgotten it was $150. There's my battlefield, that's who I'm fighting... That's who I'm fighting for? Too?
Anyway, I'm certain what you've accomplished is something you're proud of, and you should be. You've clearly beat the curve in most aspects. But let me ask you this. Could you or would you do what you did for a stranger for what you spent? I'm certain we both know the answer to that.
Don't get me wrong. I still want to do the right thing. There are enough SOB out there who will do of say anything to make a dime... I'm not one of them. I designed a system to be environmentally friendly, easy to use, clean, zero emission, long lived.
The Light is Green!
I was just doing the math on this again this week. Actually I was analyzing my panels for CO2, but I came up with a roundabout number for *just the panels* excluding the BOS, installation and everything else of about $1/W(electric) at 56 deg North latitude and 12% efficiency.
Next I computed how much energy a panel of a given rating would produce in an average year, and that computes to a dollar value like this:
I assume the cost of electricity is $166/MWh (or 16 2/3 cents per kWh) then the payback on the panels was 5 years 8hr 6min or there about. That's based on nothing else than the avoided cost of the energy.
Now it's time for the shocking comparison. My panels are CSP not PV, a PV panel todat costs $4.83
per Watt http://www.solarbuzz.com/ 14 dec 2007. If you just multiply my 5years / $1/W by 4.83$/W you can see that your newborn will be graduating college when the panels recover their cost in energy.
OK, OK, these are simplified straight line computations not real world estimates. Incentives for PV skew the computations that comparison, are difficult if not meaningless.
Is PV a good idea? Yes! You don't have to ask me twice. Do you have to be wealthy to sign on? Yup, you do... Will a PV module wear out on 20 years? Not entirely... It won't do what it did when it was new figure 2-3% degradation per year. But, the $$$ value it'll produce will almost certainly be more then than it is today, figure 6% per year!
I'm just trying to get folks to realize that the other solution to solar is a giant step ahead of the currently accepted expensive paradigm of PV.
The Light is Green!
Did you catch Living with Ed this past week. He visited the home of Larry Hagman. The former Dallas star told Ed he had spend over $750,000 on Solar panels. He's still connected to the grid. Last year he was paid $300,000 by the state because he sells power back to them. I'd say his system is paying for itself very quickly since it's only a few years old. Hagman said all he spent on power last year was a whopping $13.00. That's it.
That is the problem, the normal Joe or Harry cannot afford the solar panels to generate the power to save the money on electricity. We are part of a locally owned electric coop. How does one get their home synchronized with the community in selling power back to the coop? It seems to me that if our coop invested in the Pacwind wind generators, and put some water wheels on the big rivers going through our community, they could feasibly generate their own power and would no longer be dependent upon the dams and nuclear power sources.
We have recently built a new home and have installed solar panels which are tied into the grid. Our electric provider installed two meters, one which tells how much we used and the other tells them how much we have generated. The system was approx $10,000 less this year than last year when we first started looking into it. We are the first people in our county, in Jackson, Tennessee, to grid tie. We are also using compact flourecent bulbs and installed soybean spray in insulation. Last month our 4000 sqare foot home used $50 less energy than our 1000 square foot cabin which was set at much lower thermostat setting . We are just normal people, a school teacher and an ultrasound technologist, trying to do better for the environment and ourselves. If you are interested in talking to our installers I could give them your name and information and you could talk to them yourself.
Hi newatbeinggreen,
So what can you tell us about the system? Base price? Incentivized price (what you really paid after all the rebates & credits)? The rated capacity in kW? How much energy it actually produced in kW*Hr?
I'd also ask what you've been paying for energy. And what they're paying you for energy. The rates not the actual $$$? Don't be surprised when the rates are different. How different would be helpful for folks considering a system.
I outlined the steps in another post on how you can calculate your electric rate from solar for the next 20 years.
I wish you good luck with your system!

another idea.
You don't have to pay a lot of money for solar panels and a big system. You can start by using shade off eves of your home, using the air conditioning at a more moderate temperature, same for heat.
A passive solar screen that block the suns heat on a south ,east or west window is only about 10-20 dollars. I remove them in winter to gain that solar heat. It saves much more than expensive active systems. I even stapled a radiant batteries in my attic, it blocks the heat in summer and even hold in heat in winter. very lost cost.
It doesn't cost much to be a smarter energy user. Our clothes line is another great example. We never use the dryer.
the solar stacks

bookworm, You should do more reading about free solar systems for your home. I have heard of at least 2 companies that do this. You only pay them for the energy you use each month and they give you a 20 year rate the same as you pay today, with no increases even as your power company gets an increase each year.
Check out http://renu.citizenre.com/index.php?c=1167514753
the solar stacks

Solar pays off very well. Most system in California are totaly paid for and making money after 7 years or less. Panels are warrentied for 25 years , inverters 10.
If you do simple passive energy it pays off 4 to 8 times fatser so shade trees , awnings, insulation and other passive solar is great.
I combine both and made money in just a few years all tax free in savings with no subsidies and no net-metering. Now I have net-metering.
Todays solar panels use less silicon and make more energy than it took to make them in as little as 1 year. Solar panels also don't use water or create any pollution. The energy to run them is free (sun light).
This is quite the opposite with nuclear and coal. Below is a great article from thje G8 summit. It was posted on NPR.
MARK HERTSGAARD: The catch is that Britain will not subsidize nuclear power. Private investors alone must pay to build and eventually dismantle any new nuclear plants. They also must help pay to dispose of radioactive waste.
This no-subsidy pledge amounts to a revolution in nuclear economics. Not one of the 440 nuclear plants now operating worldwide was built without sizable public subsidies.
Governments have subsidized nukes both directly — through R&D funding and cheap insurance — and indirectly, by allowing electric companies to pass billion dollar cost overruns onto consumers. The US government has historically spent 10 times more on nuclear subsidies than it has for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources.
Nevertheless, nuclear power remains forbiddingly expensive. A recent MIT study calculated that in the United States nuclear costs 50 percent more per kilowatt hour than natural gas. And it costs vastly more than the least polluting form of electricity: energy efficiency.
Investors know this. That's why nuclear power survives today only in countries like Russia, China and France, where state-controlled electricity systems can ignore market forces.
If G8 leaders want to honor last year's pledge to fight climate change, they need to understand that going nuclear would actually make things worse.
Because nuclear power is so expensive, it delivers seven times fewer greenhouse reductions per dollar invested than boosting energy efficiency does. Some say, why not have both? But in the real world, capital is scarce. To divert it to nuclear power when efficiency can work so much faster would delay our transition to a low-carbon economy when, in fact, we need to accelerate it.
Sorry, but I have to disagree on the cost of operating a nuclear plant. The simple fact is that when buyers are able to freely choose the power they are going to buy the nuclear power consisyently comes in at ~ $35/MWh... That's dirt cheap by todays standards.
Back in 2001 when I got started the "brass ring" was $50/MWh for new generation. That's because the notion of building a new nuke at that time was the equivalent of opening a "Californian Fried Condor" shop... It was simply taboo.
Coal was king, and $50 was the rate. We were flirting with $86/MWh for solar but couldn't get folks to believe it, because: "If it was doable at that price, someone else would be doing it." Gotta admire that kind of logic.
Well, the reason you don't hear a lot about the current price of nuclear power is because the contracts for it have all been bought up for the forseeable future. Some of these plants have sold all of their power through 2015 and have options into the 2030's...
What this means is that if you are trying to "buy" nuclear energy today, you're looking at a brokered rate, so a lot of the cost is for the middleman markup, not the real cost of energy.
The days of shutting down a nuclear construction project with a $0.25 cent stamp are gone. We need more nuclear power, because it's a virtually unlimited source of on-demand energy. But I will argue that nuclear plants should replace; oil fired first, coal fired second, and gas fired third. Then I want solar plants and distributed concentrating solar to nibble away at the nuclear and hydro plants so that the solar plants power society during the day, and the nuclear plants only operate at night... Yes, that's a bit fanciful, but it's a goal to strive for.
New Forum Topics
- wind power electricty
- The Involved vs. The Apathetic -- odds anyone?
- green unintended consequences
- Homemade Laundry Powder
- Food Prices Up - A Result of Biofuels?
- Free Earth Fix - Ed's Book
- I would love to learn how to add solar panels to my home to run my electricity....HOW? WHERE?
- Burning-off methane at water treatment plants
- E-Bicycle in Arizona
- NEW Modern Barn-Style Green Manufactured Home by Nichoel Farris, American Home Sales, displayed at Auburn Home Show May 16
- Are Modular Homes Green?
- Electric Vehicles all over the WORLD
- electric cars
- electric cars
- Solar & wind powered home
- Solar Power in Texas
- Huge Antarctic ice chunk collapses
- A story about my EV hero , send him a note of thanks
- leaks in your home, Windows, Inflector fix
- Holigent
Active Forum Topics
- The Involved vs. The Apathetic -- odds anyone?
- PHEV plug-in hybrids
- Electric Vehicles all over the WORLD
- Automotive X-Prize
- green unintended consequences
- wind power electricty
- Food Prices Up - A Result of Biofuels?
- E-Bicycle in Arizona
- Cost of Solar Cells
- I would love to learn how to add solar panels to my home to run my electricity....HOW? WHERE?
- Fool cells
- Global Warming - I love that it's finally getting the attention it deserves
- Solar Stocks are hot
- Free Earth Fix - Ed's Book
- Green Building Benefits

I heard an interesting statistic the other day and was wondering if it was true. I heard that with the current cost of solar panels that by the time they actually pay for themselves and you start actually saving money that they would already be in a stage of either starting to wear out or already be worn out (the solar cells) and that you wouldn't have any savings in the end. Is this true or a bunch of hogwash? Maybe this is based on science of the old style cells? Do the newer designed solar cells actually lose their effectiveness and if so after how many years typically? Thanks for your help.