----- Original Message ----- From: "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 6:51 AM Subject: Re: cars, air L3er
> On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 11:42:23PM -0600, Dan Minette wrote: > > Are you sure, > > > > at > > > > http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004691.html > > > > I obtained the following historical trend > > > > 1989 7034.4 MWh > > 1990 9379.2 MWh > > 1991 9379.2 MWh > > 1992 8793 MWh > > 1993 9086.1 MWh > > 1994 10551.6 MWh > > 1995 9672.3 MWh > > 1996 10258.5 MWh > > 1997 9672.3 MWh > > 1998 9086.1 MWh > > 1999 13482.6 MWh > > 2000 14948.1 MWh > > 2001 17586 MWh > > 2002 2931 MWh > > > > > > 2002 is very low because it is just for the first quarter. However, there > > That includes only "grid-connected" electricity, so I imagine it is an > underestimate, since solar and wind should be more economical in remote > locations far from the grid, right? I don't think its that simple. The way I read the footnotes is that only the wind power is limited to grid connections; the solar includes off grid. That makes sense, because solar is close to equal to wind, and I know of significantly more wind on the grid than solar. Further, I haven't heard much of off-grid wind generation of electricity. Efficient wind energy requires the right location, while off-grid usually refers to preselected locations. So, the numbers for wind generated electricity on grid is probably the lions share of total wind generation. An additional problem with wind powered off grid is the fact that, for the contenental US, there is a significant risk of many low wind days in a row; while there is not a risk of total darkness many days in a row. Thus, for remote locations where the main cost is not fuel but the trip in, solar has advantages. > Also, is wind energy generation steady from quarter to quarter, or is it > higher, for example, in the spring and fall? In other words, is it valid > to just multiply Q1 by 4 to get the annual value? > > And it DID double from 1998 to 2001, maybe that is what he was talking > about? It almost doubled, but it had fallen from 97 to 98. 2001 is less than twice of the average from 90-94. I'll agree that multiplying by 4 probably isn't valid; I don't think wind and solar use really fell that much, but I only claimed that it was not consistant with a big jump. Plus, looking at California wind energy, I recall virtually no new systems that are coming online in '02. > > Actually, yes. Let us look at solar costs from: > > > > http://www.solarbuzz.com/StatsCosts.htm > > > > A wonderful graph, showing a factor of 4 reduction in 17 years is given. > > According to the graph, the costs were $6000 per kWp in 98, and to reduce > > to about $4000 in 2001. But, in reality, the costs were $8000-$10000 per > > kWp in 2001. So, the factor of 4 was really a factor of 2. Plus, they > > give the month by month trend over the last 2 1/3 years elsewhere at the > > website: showing a slight rise in prices over that time. > > I wonder if the title of that graph is wrong. Maybe it should be > "module" prices rather than system prices? They quote for MODULES, > $27/Wp in 1982 and the graph shows $19000 (per KWp ?) in 1984. If > the graph really were system cost per KWp, than the $27/Wp for > MODULES in 1982 corresponds to about $54,000 to $67,000 per KWp > system cost in 1982, and the price dropped to $19,000 by 1984? That > seems unlikely. Also, the text quotes $4/Wp module cost "today" > (2001?), which corresponds to $4000/KWp, which is about what the graph > shows. Strangely, the last actual data point on the graph looks like > 1996, the rest is extrapolation? I don't think that graph is reliable, > it seems to have mistakes and be out of date. Which is my point. That's part of the problem with the industry, there is a lot of PR data floating about. I'm not arguing that conventional energy companies do not have PR relations going, but the price of gas is well known, its not fabricated. The historical oil price is a transparent figure, while the price of solar, alas, often involves proctonumerology. Look at the module price shown at http://www.solarbuzz.com/ModulePrices.htm Its steady at $6.00 per Wp for the last 2.4 years. There is no indication that the technology is dropping in price significantly. >From what I've read in Physics Today, it is going to be very hard to squeeze out added efficiencies. Everything that I see indicates that we need to do a lot of fundamental research before there is a breakthrough. So, money should be spent on basic solid state physics, not applications of present technology, IMHO. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
