Chevy, gas-friendly to gas-freeDuke Energy to invest in mini solar power plants
Duke Energy on Thursday said it is seeking bids on a planned $100 million solar energy investment, a program to assess whether distributed rooftop solar panels can collectively function like a virtual power plant.
The utility said that next year it plans to start installing solar electric panels at 850 locations in North Carolina that would be capable of generating 16 megawatts of electricity, or enough to power about 2,600 homes.
Part of a distributed "solar power plant"?
(Credit: SolarCity)Like other utilities, Duke Energy is purchasing electricity from large-scale solar power plants, where hundreds of photovoltaic panels generate tens or hundreds of megawatts of electricity.
Duke's distributed energy plan amounts to a solar power plant, spread out over many locations.
The utility will install, own, and maintain the equipment and get all the electricity the panels generate. Consumers are paid a rental fee for allowing Duke to install the panels on their rooftops or land.
The goal of the program is to measure whether distributed energy can make a significant dent in the overall power generation mix, while offsetting power demand during peak times.
At 16 megawatts for $100 million, it's significantly more expensive than a traditional power plant, but the utility will use the pilot project to gather data, according to a Duke Energy representative. Longer term, thousands of panels on rooftops could be cheaper than building a new power plant, he said.
It's also much smaller: a nuclear power or coal plant can generate between 800 and 1,100 megawatts. One megawatt is enough to run a large retail outlet.
Duke chose North Carolina for the effort because utilities that operate in that state need to generate a fraction of their electricity from renewable sources, a policy called a renewable portfolio standard. It still needs approval from the state's regulatory agencies.
So far, both consumers and businesses have voiced interest in participating in the program, which would have the panels installed by 2010.
"There is an enormous number of people who really believe in renewable energy. It's not just the so-called green crowd," the Duke Energy representative said. "There are a lot of big believers."
Since homeowners or businesses are not paying for the panels, the electricity they generate will go straight into the grid and not offset Duke Energy customers' bills.
Another utility that plans on a similar distributed solar plant design is Southern California Edison, which said earlier this year that it plans to spend $875 million over five years to get electricity from over two square miles of flat commercial rooftops.
Martin LaMonica is a senior writer for CNET's Green Tech blog. He started at CNET News in 2002, covering IT and Web development. Before that, he was executive editor at IT publication InfoWorld. E-mail Martin.
In Canada, they have just announced a pilot program for solar water heaters to see installed up to 8,000 across the country for those home owners involved with the ecoENERGY Retrofit program. The Federal Government is kicking in an additional 4 figure grant on top of the already $1,000 Federal and (for most) Provincial grants. This will put solar water heaters similar in financial pabyback to tankless water heaters (that still consume non-renewable resources and emit directly / indirectly pollutants into the air).
Currently the only solar device that may be within the financial where-with-all of average home owners are solar space heating devices.
Dan
DailyHomeRenoTips.com
So, while a small test run of this size wont have a huge effect, it should have a noticeable one. I hope the numbers work out.
peak demand
lower transmission
$100,000,000 produces 16,000 kw = $6,250 per kw.
This is far more than nuclear. by factor of 2 to 3. ($2,000 to $3,000)
Also, solar power isn't "renewable." These photo voltaic cells are environmental hazard. They have be disposed, and there is cost associated with it. Also, I assume that the total cost is partly covered by government "grants" or "subsidizes." Also, their generability diminishes as these photocells get old.
So, instead of individual paying for the actual electricity cost from the coal/nuclear/oil power plant at the market rate, they have someone else pay for the cost up front and they let users pay additional fee on top of that and call it economical, hiding the actual cost making the consumer feel good about using solar panel.
This is like a buying an environmentally friendly computers for $3,000 instead of $1,000. Force someone else pay for the $2,000 and make the consumers pay for $1,000. These consumers would have been fine with original regular $1,000. But for the low marginal benefit of unknown/known environmental safety they made someone else pay for $2,000. If someone earned $10 per hour, that person has to give up 100 hours or over 4 days of his life in order for someone else to have this environmentally friendly computer. What will populist/collectivest/socialists/communists minds of the past who are reincarnated as today's environmentalists force other people to give up their life/time that can never be recovered so they can feel good about their environmental purchase?
This is like buying an organic food for 3 times of the cost. This is like having roll of sushi (2oz actual tuna) for $12 when you can get the actual sushi grade sushi for $2 at the any high or low end supermarket. Making other people pay $10, 1 hour.
This is like buying $250 environmentally friendly jean instead of $50 comfortable jean from any local jean store at the mall. Make other people pay for $200, hiding the true cost. 20 hours or almost whole day.
The worst part is that people who buy into these things think that they are doing something when in actuality they are not doing anything... nothing, nada... zip...
Lot of people of answer to doing things and caring about things is... making other people pay for something that they think they are doing.... while they feel good about what they are consuming. their caring requires no action, no real cost, and no real adjustments to their life style. But they make other people pay for their none action... forcing other people to pay...
Isn't this great....
Some benefits of solar generation of electricity (in addition to those mentioned by hador_nyc) are:
- from a global perspective, much lower carbon footprint than conventional power sources. Global warming is caused by human activity, and it will cost a lot less to prevent its effects by acting as soon as possible (including through the reduction of emissions, at some moderate cost), than to deal with it in the future.
- from the perspective of the utility, the cost ratio to conventional sources (currently at a factor of 2-3) will decrease over the lifetime of the photovoltaic cells. The utility is making an investment to offset expected cost increases for fossil fuels. The cost of a kWh of solar-generated power is never going to be higher than it is today.
- oil and uranium reserves are decreasing. The sun will still be shining for another ~5.5 billion years.
- from a strategic perspective, most reserves of conventional fuels are in the possession of non-democratic governments (Gulf states, Russia,...) and there is no guarantee of access (and of the price of those resources) in the future.
This is not about feeling good. It's about investing in energy security.
If anyone wants more information on global energy reserves, bp ("beyond petroleum") publishes yearly statistics (available freely on their website at bp.com). They are extremely illuminating...
i don't disagree with your point about solar subsidies; i just want all the subsidies accounted for.
This can only come from an idiot!