PUC May Energize Governor's Solar Plan(CA's gas power plants to go solar?)

[papau]

Well no - this just cuts the need to build more gas power plants - Butis the money better spent developing truly cost-efficient photo-voltaic systems, rather than subsidizing solar panel installation? Tomorrow the first of the two votes (the one to inject $300 million into an existing, nonresidential solar-subsidy program) will be followed a month later by commission approval of a plan that provides funding for business and residential installations, and also earmarks 10% of the money toward installing solar systems in low-income housing.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar14dec14,0,958823.story?track=tottext

CALIFORNIA AND THE WEST
PUC May Energize Governor's Solar Plan
Commissioners hope to generate enough power over 11 years to end need to build gas-fired plants.
By Marc Lifsher
Times Staff Writer

December 14, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's stalled campaign to put solar energy panels on a million California rooftops could start moving again this week with the help of state regulators.

The California Public Utilities Commission released details Tuesday of its $3.2-billion plan to generate enough solar power over the next 11 years to eliminate the need to build six natural-gas-fired power plants.

The commission is expected to approve the plan at its regular meeting Thursday, resurrecting a key Schwarzenegger initiative that ran afoul of partisan sniping in the Legislature this year.

"The PUC's anticipated action will go a long way toward meeting the people's demands for clean and reliable energy at all times," said Darrel Ng, a Schwarzenegger spokesman.<snip>

Edison estimates that its average residential customer, with monthly usage of 550 kilowatt hours, would pay about 55 cents more a month to help finance subsidies for the new solar system. Industrial, commercial and institutional users would pay proportionately more.

The PUC's plan, which would increase the state's total solar output from 101 megawatts now to 3,000 megawatts by 2017, is expected to provide less than 5% of the state's electricity needs when fully in place.<snip>

[NNadir]

1. Solar energy is actually suited to a certain Southern California niche.

California is one of the places where solar technology can assist with global warming.

Many gas fired plants are peak loading devices. Moreover much of this capacity is required when air conditioning demand peaks - precisely the moment at which it is likely to be sunny.

That said, I don't think that publicly subsidizing PV is necessarily cost effective, since the technology remains marginal and very expensive. A much better technology is represented by plants like this one:

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm

Note that if this plant performs as expected and delivers 1,047 gigawatt-hours of electricity, it will generate at 0.10/kw-hr, over $100M in revenue per year.

Several large thermal solar power plants currently operate in California, and have done so for a number of years. Although the companies that built them did not all do so well, they have all continued to operate profitably under new ownership. In short, they work.

As always I am happy when rich people buy themselves PV systems and stick them on their roofs. To the extent they do so, and don't burn natural gas in peak load plants, they are helping the environment. That said, because of their high cost, I think government money could be better spent, and I don't think massive subsidies give much energy/buck. Many people may buy these things for use in questionable places as window dressing. The Southern California coast for instance, where often the morning sun is occluded by the marine layer might yield less than one would think.

[papau]

2. I saw the plans for the two plants - I wonder if they'll be really built?

I hope so.

:-)

[NNadir]

3. With natural gas prices so high - if they stay high - I see no reason they

wouldn't be built.

Natural gas prices have their greatest effect exactly in the zone where these plants operate, power peaking. If these plants cannot succeed in this environment, they will never succeed anywhere.

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Since when did "Reason" figure in energy policy? nt

[NNadir]

5. Good point. I've personally experienced what you say. n/t

[AZCat]

7. It's not the number of plants that is the bottleneck...

it's the pipeline capacity running into California. California in 2003 produced about 337 Bcf (billion cubic feet), and imported net about 1,900 Bcf. The pipeline capacity expansion dropped significantly in 2004 and looks to continue the trend into the end of 2005. Only one pipeline expansion was finished (that I know of) in 2004 - the El Paso Natural Gas expansion from Texas to California which added 140 Mcf/day capacity.

We'll see what happens in the future but while I like the ability of NG plants to handle peak loads I just don't know if they will continue to be as reliable if they can't get fuel. Our summertime peak loads here in Southern Arizona are double the normal load - that's a lot of NG capacity needed.

[skids]

6. cheaper solar.

"Is the money better spent developing truly cost-efficient photo-voltaic systems, rather than subsidizing solar panel installation?"

The counter to that is "would money given for a bunch of PHds to come up with yet another potential low-cost solar technology and never get it to mass production be better spent than spending on deployment now?"

To break the endless catch 22 of "we don't want to scale up solar technology X to mass production because solar technology Y may come along and make it obselete" this is what should be done:

Take a big chunk of change. Put it aside in an account. Make a purchase bid for solar panels at $1/watt under the market price. If noone fills the bid in the first year, re-issue it. Keep the price the same. When someone finally responds to the bid, build your solar plant. Then take another chunk of change, do the same thing, but bid $1.10/Watt under the market price. Eventually you reach the spot where monocrystal panel manufacturers just cannot limbo that low, and a smaller venture fills the bid using your chunk of change as capital for assembly line construction. Then you have cheaper solar panels.

As an aside. looks like the first "technology X" beyond the thin-film stuff will be string ribbon -- Evergreen's building a line in a German factory.