It is going to be rather difficult to produce a thousand watts per square meter when that is more solar radiation than what shines on Arizona and Nevada on average.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Solar Maps
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
Posted on 11/01/2007 8:47:24 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
Careful. Go out there with too many facts on China and you will be pounced on.
That's 1.6 billion dollars per year. That's about 1000 programmers, at $100K per year salary, each. Not really all that many..
Read the article about the costs to the Chinese oil companies -- it says they lose $200 / tonne (A tonne of diesel?)
About 300 gallons in a tonne (metric ton, about 2205 pounds). So supposedly they're subsidizing $0.67 per gallon. I think that's a bit high, given that the price for diesel I saw yesterday outside of Minhang (a district of Shanghai) was $0.64 per liter ($2.40 per gallon). I don't think diesel runs $3.00 per gallon without taxes...
A thousand watts per square meter...
'Tis true! Solar can average 1000W per square meter, IF:
You get 100% conversion
You can get full sunlight (not filtered, not cloudy)
Realistically, you get around 10% conversion, and you get 6 hours a day of decent output. Meaning you get around 600-800 Whr per day, per square meter. Given the typical American home uses about 35 kWhr per day, so you'd need around 60 square meters of solar panels to collect the energy needed.
Given that decent panels run around $300/square meter, were talking about an $18,000 investment in panels, not including inverters, batteries, switchover boxes, etc. I'd expect to see a cost around $30,000 to convert to solar.
Around my US home (Snohomish County, Washington), power is $0.08 per kWhr. About $2.80 per day for a typical American home (about right, I spend around $65/month average on power). That's about a 30 year term to simply break even, not including the time value of money...
Solar really isn't viable for general power generation yet. Heating? Sure, passive solar heat is great. But for power generation, we need a serious 4 or 5X increase in panel efficiency on a BIG scale - with the costs held constant or dropped - to see it as a viable source.
“A thousand watts per square meter...”
That is at 100% efficiency. We can only get about 15% at the moment, and that only during part of the day.
It is viable in some locations. If you want to go a 1/4 mile off the power grid, for example, the costs of putting in a power line make solar worth while in many areas of the Southwest.
I think your 5x-6x figure is rather high. Increase the watt/dollar ratio 2x and solar would be viable over half the country. We have already dropped the watt/dollar ratio from thousands to about 5. It doesn’t seem that a drop to 2 or 2 1/2 would be impossible.
Oh, and the other factor is your relative cheap power, in the North West, where cloudy weather and lots of rain make hydroelectric generation cheap and solar expensive. We pay about .12 a kilowatt/hour here, and many places it is much more. That is a 50% relative increase that makes solar as much more attractive.
Nearly every distribution and transmission line in the world is built with Aluminum and has been for many decades.
It is going to be rather difficult to produce a thousand watts per square meter when that is more solar radiation than what shines on Arizona and Nevada on average.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Solar Maps
http://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html
They are already doing so...albeit a non-shooting war so far.
They are doing everything they can to take international oil sources off the market. Clearly trying to tie those sources up for China exclusively, and thence are trying to strangle the West which depends on open market access.
Let's review the math.
1.6 billion dollars ==> 1.6 x 1000 = 1600 dollars
x 1000 = 1.6 million dollars
x 1000 = 1.6 billion dollars
which is 1.6 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
or, 1.6 x 1000 x 1000 x 1000
or, 1.6 x 1000 x (10 x 100) x 1000
or 1.6 x (1000 x 10) x (100 x 1000)
or, 1.6 x 10,000 x (100,000)
or 16,000 programmers at $100,000 each.
Which is a lot more than 1000 programmers.
EVERY YEAR FOR TEN YEARS --> 160,000 programmers.
You must be an IT executive, right? ;-)
Cheers!
First, there is the issue that if China subsidizes its industries below cost, they will gain market share - which sounds good in the short term, but it will mean that those industries will grow larger, and require larger subsidies over time. Second, there is the problem, already discovered by Socialists in the United States and in Europe, that once a group becomes accustomed to sucking on the government teat, they are *very* reluctant to let go again. This means that the subsidies may become a permanent drain on the government coffers - "too big to fail" is not just seen in America. (And, by the way, once other people hear about how good a living one can make mooching off of the government, they will demand "their share" too. Abraham Lincoln said that a nation could not endure half slave and half free, but it applies to socialist and capitalist economies too.)
Thanks very much for the compliment...to what do I owe the honor?
Cheers!
Believe it or not, I did an FR engine search for “sand”, and this one was in the list. :’)
Well, not really. The earth’s distance from the sun allows it to have around 1366 W/M2 ABOVE the atmosphere. This sounds like a lot but one has to factor in many conditions.
On average, approximately half of this insolation is scattered, reflected, or absorbed by clouds and other phenomena. Furthermore, location, latitude, time of year, and local conditions must also be taken into consideration. The amount must also be divided in half to account for night. Lastly, conversion losses from DC to AC, storage drain, and transmission losses must be factored in.
Conversely, the conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic cells must be considered. These currently range from 5-25%. This should exceed 50% within the next three years, pending recent developments.
For example, Phoenix, AZ can expect around 6600 Watts per square meter per day on average throughout the year. This translates into an average of 550 Watts per sq meter every hour of daylight. OTOH, Chicago only averages 3100 Watts per sq meter per day throughout the year (258 watts per hour).
Now let`s look back at this poor doctor. His panels probably didn`t produce more than 1000 watts per day. If he had a small refrigerator, like a 4 cubit foot unit, that alone sucks up 1000 watts per day. No wonder he was screwed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.