Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Multi-MW Solar PV Plants: More Problem Than Solution

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
July 6, 2011
>> There is thus no 'scale advantage' in large PV solar plants.

I'm a big fan of DG but I find that hard to believe.. and if I surf over to solarbuzz and look at "system costs" surveys that they have been publishing for years now: industrial systems are always significantly cheaper than commercial (per kwh) which are always significantly cheaper than residential.

However, the biggest positive I see is that those huge industrial sized solar farms are helping to grow the industry. Which I believe is the highest priority at the moment.
No image available
Comment
2 of 18
Anonymous
July 6, 2011
Once again, someone exhibiting little or no knowledge of the land use requirements for energy production brings up the ludicrous claims of the "large space" and "environmental issues" that might be associated with solar installations. Using 2010 figures for USA energy demand, the area of land required by solar PV to power the entire nation is something less than one percent of the land now occupied by the fossil fuel industry to produce the same power output. For fossil fuels, it is not only the "footprint" of a power plant. Fossil-fuel land requirements include all land disturbed for mining, roadways, transmission, pipelines, railroads, water supplies, waste disposal, storage, processing, and retailing.

For a fossil fuel power plant to continue its operations, mining the fuel that supplies the plant must also continue day-by-day in perpetuity. This means many millions of acres of new lands each year must be converted to well pads, roads, pipeline right-of-ways, and related uses. For example, the natural gas industry in the USA plans to drill several hundred thousand new gas wells in 2011, and perhaps every year thereafter for so long as current and increasing demands for natural gas continue. Each well pad requires two to six acres of land to be scraped level with all preexisting vegetation, soil and other life dependent upon that plot obliterated. Each well pad also requires access roads plus gas and water pipelines to collection systems. A conservative estimate of land use demand for these systems in the USA is about one thousand (1,000) square miles of new lands per year. This number is for natural gas well fields only, and does not include ongoing land uses for coal and oil based energy production, or for other natural gas requirements.

Even at maximum build-out to accommodate all electricity demands projected for the USA for the remainder of this century, solar power land use could never be more than a tiny fraction of fossil fuels land use.
Comment
3 of 18
July 6, 2011
To Billtoe: The economies of scale which show up on the books is the ability of industrial companies to buy huge orders from solar manufacturers, which come at cheaper prices per kW. It is the economy of scale of MANUFACTURING panels, which gets passed on to the industrial buyer. The article is talking about economies of scale of production (post PV purchase), and backs his points up quite well.

If utilities would use their buying power to purchase many MW's worth of solar panels but then locate those panels in smaller, 500 kW chunks on existing un-used property, they would produce far more (and more useful) electricity than they currently do by locating them all in the same location. Thus, take advantage of the scales of economy on the manufacturing side but not lose the inefficiencies of scale on the production side.
No image available
Comment
4 of 18
Anonymous
July 6, 2011
As noted by many, solar power need not be located "remotely" and it need not be located on previously undisturbed lands. A wide variety of alternatives can be envisioned by looking at a superposition of land-use, existing transmission corridor, and solar insolation maps that are widely available at a variety of scales.

However, it is far more economical to construct ground-mounted solar arrays than to incur the substantial labor costs of installing solar power on rooftops. Yes, there are economies of scale related to building mid-size and large-scale solar power plants of various types. Yes, solar power in an appropriate mix of utility-scale and distributed generation is well on its way to becoming the world's primary source of energy by mid-century. But no, we are not going to enhance the growth of solar power by consistently attacking solar power for impacts that are, at best, tens of thousands of times less than the impacts of fossil fuel for equivalent amounts of power.
Comment
5 of 18
July 7, 2011
The reason DG gets dogged is because the utilities and the embedded corporate interests lose their "power" over the average citizen.
The status quo does not like getting hit in the pocketbook...
Comment
6 of 18
July 7, 2011
This is an old and not very convincing argument.
Technical transmission losses are typically in the range of 5 to 8% in well constructed and run networks. In the last few years the USA has run at a bit under 6%. Of course in India, the comparable metric is 23% but that can hardly be trusted as there isn't really a grid as we know it. There are other transmission losses of and administrative and operational nature that might also be considered transmission losses. Be that as it may, all large power generators experience the same losses - give or take their resiliance to dispatch variation.
On the other hand, local generators experience transmission losses too. Local generators can do nothing to compensate power factor. To some extent local feeds are like pushing a rope (it's a technical problem not a conspiracy): pushing power back up line reverses the line losses which pushes the local voltage up and even, as some have reported, out of spec so that the inverter must shut down for safety reasons.
One thing that goes missing in this argument is that solar power supply and demand timelines are not perfectly aligned and the ideal thing to do is to time shift solar power by several hours - that takes a grid.
Small scale solar has a few problems: it's not too convenient to put trackers on a residential roof or even to orient fixed panels in an optimum direction. Shadow losses are frequendly a problem, particularly on comercial buildings where HVAC, elevator shafts, stacks, antennas, etc all create shadow problems. Also, the micro-climate on rooftops typically makes modules operate at an elevated temperature as compared to a free standing installation. Maintenance is sketchy or non-existant.
Free standing module arrays on trackers that are maintained and cleaned dilligently, will vastly outperform roof top systems more than compensating for any extra transmission losses.
Comment
7 of 18
July 7, 2011
Let's also dispense with the land use argument. In my neighborhood, medium scale operators who are also farmers operate free standing arrays where, by my calculation their land use amounts to ~0.8 square meters per kW. That's more than 3 orders of magnitue better than some hydroelectric projects I've analysed. As someone pointed out, there are massive land areas that have been despoiled by coal mining so, if we were really concerned, we could rehabilitate this land by converting it to renewable energy farms. Ditto for the vast acres of gravel pits and other open pit mines.
What the land use discussion needs is a comparative chart of the various power generation options put side by side. Multi-purpose solar farms and deep water wind farms come out extremely well. Nuclear only has a chance if one ignores the fact that a 20 km radius would be a reasonable setback for safety reasons - still, no one is raising beef next to the holding ponds of a nuclear plant (we hope). Coal gets us at both ends - dig up mountains to feed the beast; backfill large valleys with ash and sulphur.
Rooftop solar, on the other hand, is not strictly free. Most structures in North America are deficient in their carrying capacity, which is why a structural engineering study is typically required for any such installation. Cost of mounting large rooftop arrays exceeds that of free-standing installations.
Another comparative that tells a tale is water use: flat plate solar comes of at the top. Even hydro has a water use impact as evaporation and exfiltration does significantly impact downstream flow.
Comment
8 of 18
July 7, 2011
Solar energy is the most reliable and safe energy human beings can use, as it is the power that is transmitted through the whole universe and in my opinion in the future it will be the most type of energy used. The efficiency of existing solar cells is in the range of about 15-18% (slar arrays efficiency is less due to loss in connections), but there are many research work going on many new type of semiconductors among whichis Quantum Dots with high probability that efficiency might reach 42% or more. So the loss in transmission will be compensated by such increase in efficiency. Solar energy is very flexible in usage, for residential buildings, over the roof space can be used, but for industrial plants, the solar arrays can be installed, let us say 10 to 20 km away, may be mediumvoltage with transformers have to be used, knowing that fossil fuel electrical power generating plants which scattered aroung any country with total loss much more that solar energy distribution we mentioned above.
To study Prabhu Deodhar suggestion, let us go more into details.
Each m2 solar panel generate about 150 Wp, that means each 1000 m2, generates 150 KWp, so to generate 1.5 MW, we need 10,000 m2, that is to generate 10 MW, we need about 70,000 m2 which is equivalent to an area of 3-4 blocks which is not great. so to generate 100 MW, we need an area equivalent to about 35 blocks (ie 6 by 6 blocks)
There is another issue, I believe for the next 20 to 30 years, solar generation in and around any town will not satisfy the demand of these towns, so solar power has not to be connected to the national or state grid to tranmit the extra power to other locations.That means solar arrays have only to be connected to distribution grids around and in the town.
So P.D. opinion is not relevant to actual facts.
Comment
9 of 18
July 7, 2011
While I would prefer if the incentives went to home owners and other building owners. It meets my requirements if the power companies "lease" roof space on roofs to install a distributed Solar PV system. That way you get the cost reduction from buying a whole bunch at a time and it becomes distributed, which covers the long-term security interest and finally avoids using land that could be used for something else (like growing food or keep the environment intact).

Meanwhile, the best way to implement distributed solar PV, is to mandate it on new construction buildings. Then they can be designed from the beginning to handle the weight and maybe incorporate some energy efficiencies at the same time.

But that is just my opinion,
No image available
Comment
10 of 18
Anonymous
July 8, 2011
Why does it have to be an "OR" argument? Distributed "OR" centralized generation. c-Si "OR" thin-film. Each have their strengths and weaknesses. Why not an "AND"? Distributed "AND" centralized. Thin-film "AND" c-Si. We should learn from our past and recognize there is no ONE solution anymore. That's an outdated idea. As an industry that is fighting against a firmly entrenched mindset based on the Fossil Fuel model, it's a win for all of us when there's a solar installation that has made the numbers work. It's a win for all of us.
Comment
11 of 18
July 8, 2011
Prabhu, I think you're right about the cost advantages of distributed generation and the wrong-headedness of giant PV plants distant from consumers. But this doesn't necessarily recommend community solar. In India, we need to reforest, so managing forests for biomass production is a real solution that will produce energy, water, habitat, sequestered carbon, employment, and beauty. Solar can augment this on rooftops. Look at http://www.sadhanaforest.org/ to see some of what reforestation means.
Comment
12 of 18
July 8, 2011
check out www.solarroadways.com
this is the future!
Comment
13 of 18
July 8, 2011
I would like to thank Dr Deodhar for submitting this article. While I do not necessarily agree that large PV systems need to be limited to 500 kW (likely 10 MW), the idea that distributed PV needs to mimic large inefficient electric grid systems, rather than more distributed agile cellular systems, should be taken seriously. Companies like Nextek are raising valid questions of embracing pure DC use of electricity, and should also be taken seriously. Now that storage companies in advanced batteries, compressed air, flywheels, thermal salts, hydrogen, and pumped storage are coming of age - the idea of providing local dispatchable electricity makes sense. Time for systems engineers and planners to drive this evolution rather than mimicing 19th century electric systems. Scott Sklar, The Stella group, Ltd. solarsklar@aol.com
Comment
14 of 18
July 8, 2011
Lou1123,
I agree solar roads, especially if matched with induction motors would be fantastic.

The catch is they need to prove three things first and then meet cost parameters.

1. They must provide at least as much if not more road traction as existing road beds, even under rainy/snow conditions after being deployed for several years in oily dirt filled conditions. I think the odds are good they will, but this must be proven.

2. They must demonstrate that as a collective they actually provide the power reasonably consistent with expectation potential. This includes distribution of electricity from the roadway to where else it is needed in a reliable manner (note by reliable, I mean in a manner I can predict during the day within a reasonable amount)

3. The long-term maintenance/replacement once installed must be close to (although it can be more then) the cost of maintaining existing road beds.

And then it is just an issue of costs.

if it can do all that, then we should start implementing that as well. it has the potential to meet daytime industrial needs.
Comment
15 of 18
July 9, 2011
Great article but, if I am a utility monopoly.. this makes for some pretty sad reading. How can I keep the average citizen and small businessperson under my thumb if I don't control their power bill under the guise of "being the good guy by providing clean energy"? The utilities are using their clean energy mandates as an excuse to take away the incentive (especially during our existing economic downturn) for the average consumer to install inexpensive solar.
This is so sad for our senior and low income population. Instead of having an extra $200-$300 dollars a month to survive on (health care anyone? - grocery money?), the monetary advantages of owning rooftop solar are usurped by the local utility. But, a quick look at the power bill additives show that they still pay for it.
Hopefully the mousetrap they (the utilities) are setting, will close on their own hands with the combination of the development of "solar ink" and "plug and play" systems that are competitively priced for the average citizen.
No image available
Comment
16 of 18
Anonymous
July 15, 2011
Where I live and work, the solar fuel doesn't shine at night. It doesn't shine much of the day, either. And for much of the year, it only comes out for a few hours at low and thick-atmosphere angles on a good day. And even if the solar fuel did shine during the day, the means for storing power for darker hours (which involves the predominance of the demand period) would mean an entirely new, additional expense and greater environmental impact which would take us even further from any sort of economic viability.
Comment
17 of 18
July 15, 2011
Anonymous - Comment #16
I am guessing you are maybe in Seattle area or some place similar. Seattle should have an over abundance of hydro power, but even solar will provide quite a bit of power in the day through clouds (if not too thick).

I have been impressed how much power my system generates on a cloudy day. only on a day where it was consistently dark thick storm clouds did it only produce a disappointing amount of only 10% of its best ever and about 18% of average. Granted I am in Virginia, but clouds are pretty much clouds. for gentle rain clouds consistent throughout the day, I usually get 40-60% of normal. While I would not expect Seattle to do as good, it eventually would be worth it even there.

And as to energy storage, if you do have that hydro, there is your energy storage if everyone else on that coast did not need it, because they don't have solar.
Comment
18 of 18
November 14, 2011
Solar power is no doubt future of power generation. I think the vested interests of large corporates, government officers, billionaires, tycoons, corrupt bureaucracy etc. is the prime reason for such attacks on solar technologies. It is well-known in any industry that for any technology initial costs are always higher and output is always lower. With time technology matures and costs are reduced considerably. Solar PV is in very initial stage to achieve levels of hydro or thermal power generation. But it will eventually get there.
Biggest problem for solar technologies is fighting with totally narrow minded capitalistic group of very powerful people! Once it is over, rest all other problems are very easy to tackle.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Prabhu Deodhar

View Prabhu Deodhar's Profile
About: Academic Qualifications
B.E. (Telecom) with Distinction in 1956, University of Poona, India.

Professional Fellowships
Distin... more »

Advertise With Us

SMA America, LLC European Wind Energy Association KYOCERA Solar, Inc. WindPole Ventures, LLC Idaho Department of Commerce REC Solar Solar Energy International (SEI)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters