WHERE I STAND (GUEST COLUMN BY DAVID COMAROW):

Make Nevada solar energy juggernaut

David Comarow

Thursday, Aug. 14, 2008 | 2:17 p.m.

In August, Brian Greenspun turns over the Where I Stand column to guest writers. Today’s columnist, David Comarow, is a former faculty member of the College of Southern Nevada, where he established the Solar Energy Technology Training Program and the Center for Appropriate Technology in 1976, neither of which exists today. He is now a semi-retired patent attorney living in Las Vegas.

Nevada has a choice. Continue to survive hand-to-mouth, dependent entirely on the good fortunes of a single industry — one based on human frailty and excess wealth. Or seize the moment and become the next North Slope for America’s energy future.

Legislators and the governor are scrambling to cut spending by cutting back on expenditures such as textbook purchases. This is just a few short years since the previous governor rebated the state’s surplus by refunding automobile registration fees.

We continue to be myopic, responding only to emergencies and never investing in the future. But things are different now. The National Clean Energy Summit to be held in Las Vegas on Tuesday is a good sign.

Our state sits on (or perhaps more accurately, under) a massive and never-ending energy resource, free for the taking. It is time for our state, in partnership with the federal government and private industry, to build the largest solar energy system in the history of the world.

Such an undertaking would require a massive investment, but it would pay enormous benefits. It would employ tens of thousands of workers. It would provide affordable energy at a stable price for our state and for the rest of the nation.

We have enough public land suitable for photovoltaic and solar thermal generation to meet the electrical needs of the entire country. All we need is the will to do it.

When, in 1976, we established a solar energy technology training program at what is now the College of Southern Nevada, the technology was primitive and expensive. The best we could do cost-effectively was heat water and swimming pools.

Now the cost of solar electric production has come down by a factor of about 10 and increasing production promises to do for solar cells what it did for laptop computers. So what are we waiting for?

Industry analysts say photovoltaic energy production is near parity with other sources even without any government subsidy. By contrast, nuclear generation is nowhere near cost-effective when subsidies are taken into account.

Moreover, if Nevada puts its full faith and credit behind a “Solar North Slope” development project, our state could be reaping huge financial benefits forever, unlike with the Alaskan finite and depleting oil resource. This is the time. Nevada is the place.

We need to launch a bold state initiative to turn our massive deserts into energy collectors. We need to plant the seed, reinvest profits in expanding the solar array and eventually powering the nation. We did it on the heels of the Great Depression when we built Hoover Dam — on time and under budget, incidentally. We need to tap that can-do attitude once again.

If we get caught up in petty squabbling and turf wars, it won’t happen. So, Governor, Legislature, Congressmen, Senators, political candidates and industry leaders, hear my words:

We can do this now or we can wait a decade or two and complain that we should have done this when it first became clear we could. By then it may be too late. This is no longer a pipe dream. Solar is here and Nevada is absolutely the best place in North America for it.

The numbers are clear. We can produce all the electricity the country needs without generating any pollution. As the capacity grows we can use increasing amounts of power to produce hydrogen and oxygen from water and thus fuel a gradually modified land fleet of cars, trucks and trains. That will take perhaps 10 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product over a finite period of time, but once the infrastructure is in place, it will continue to produce all our energy needs for the indefinite future.

In 1961 John F. Kennedy pronounced that we would put men on the moon in a decade. At the time we had not even put a person into orbit. But we spent $25 billion and not only put men on the moon, but also employed 400,000 Americans and fired off the biggest burst of creative scientific development in the history of the planet.

It is time for that kind of national will once again. And Nevada is uniquely situated to be the center of that universe. But we cannot sit by and wait for the Washington politicians and lobbyists to do something — because they won’t. This is our state. Nevada, this is our time.

Discussion: 16 comments so far…

By Rverp1

8/14/08 at 4:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

I like the general idea but Photovoltaic cells are too expensive..A better system would be to use mirrors or Fresnel lenses to boil water and turn turbines..The water would be pulled from the ocean and desalinated for use as drinking water across the southwest. This project could solve many of our problems at the same time....
By EddieN1

8/14/08 at 6:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Actually all of the above should be explored. Recent technology advances in thin wall photovoltaic cells have drastically reduced their cost.

Also, solar energy could be used to harvest the ethanol that could be derived from commercially grown algae.

Many possibilities abound...
By charlesH

8/14/08 at 7:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

What is Nevada waiting for?

Solar is great in the desert southwest except it costs a lot and is only available during the day (25% of the time).

Mr. Comarow shows a complete lack of understanding regarding PV (solar cell) economics when he says:

"Now the cost of solar electric production has come down by a factor of about 10 and increasing production promises to do for solar cells what it did for laptop computers. So what are we waiting for?"

The economics of laptop computers is driven by gates per units area which has doubled every 2-3yrs for the last 30yrs. PV is simply unit area. A huge difference.

PV now costs $4-5/watt.
see http://www.solarbuzz.com/
That works out to about 30c per kwhr compared to what Nevada users now pay, about 10c per kwhr. And of course PV only works during the day.

Concentrated solar power (CSP, using mirrors) capital costs are similar to nuclear. So why not go with CSP? Well CSP is only available 25% of the day. It might work to power AC but not very good for your other electrical needs. CSP costs the same as nuclear to build but you only get 1/4 the electricity.

So I say go for it Nevada. Show the rest of us how its done.
By mikeg

8/14/08 at 8:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Since when does the sun shine only 25% of the day? I thought it was more like 50%. Today the sun rose at 6 AM and set at 7:30 PM. Even if it's only useable 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset, that's still 9.5 hours or 40% of the day for solar generation. This basic error makes me distrust your other numbers, charlesH.

Also I believe there are solar power plants in Spain that use pressurized air tanks to store solar energy for use at night. Which negates your "solar is no good at night" premise, if refined and implemented effectively.

I think this is a great article. Nevada could be the Saudi Arabia of solar power if we would invest in the technology to harvest our plentiful solar exposure.
By jfnance32

8/15/08 at 3:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

The sun does not shine clearly every day for 9.5 hours.

It surely does not do that between Oct and May.

Some days in the winter it does zero hours.

Some days in the middle of summer it might be a half of day.

Storing energy is currently very expensive. It doubles the cost of per megawatt of solar power.

Also, there is still a limit to how much one can store.

There are two problems with solar.

One is the high cost of building transmission lines from remote desert regions to cities. It will cost billions of dollars to build these lines in Nevada's central region.

Second is that solar can not provide cost effective 24/7 power.

So for each megawatt of solar power you have then you must also have a standby megawatt of coal or nuclear or natural gas megawatt. You need that in case solar comes up short.

The power companies have a mandate to provide 24/7 power. They can not just cross their fingers and hope the sun will shine on demand.

One will still have to build coal, nuclear or natural gas power plants.

Solar will help us save on fuel cost.

This lack of 24/7 on demand capability is the reason why you will not find a large major industrial country ever striving to have more than 30% of its power from solar or wind.

Most only shoot for 20%. After 20% solar/wind does not make any financial sense.
By charlesH

8/15/08 at 7:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mikeg,

Of course the sun is "shinning" more than 25% of the day but it's not shinning at full power. For example, in the case of non tracking PV one only gets almost max power when the sun is almost directly overhead (e.g. 10am to 2pm). From 8-10 and 2-4 power output is ~50% of the max power. 6-8 and 4-6 almost nothing. Before 6am and after 6pm, nothing. (yearly averages)
By davelv

8/15/08 at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Besides the very well put cost impacts by jfnance32, solar power on the scale being talked about would dramatically impact the desert ecosystem. I doubt that the EPA is going to let hundreds if not thousands of square miles of beautiful desert be covered with solar plants without years of court hearings and interventions.
Two other items relative to solar photovoltaic panels - they don't work efficiently in temperatures over 125F and the dust that blows around Nevada will have to be continually cleaned off by some method so power production is not affected.
Perhaps the best way to free market solar power is to let each consumer mark on their power bill what source they want - and when there is none of that type their power will be turned off. How many people will pay 30 cents/kwhr for an unreliable power source - no one except those who have millions of dollars.
By Socrates

8/15/08 at 3:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Renewable energy is the only way to go. This is an excellent opinion piece and points to way toward a long-term, stable energy future that will build our economy and address serious issues like climate change.

The economics of RE make complete sense when all subsidies for fossil/nuclear, both obvious and hidden, are taken into account.

Nevada will become The Solar State, leading the transformation to a new, green economy.
By Socrates

8/15/08 at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Here's an example of solar energy that will provide some clarity on the cost issue.

Take the worst case situation, PV on a single family home. Small system, high cost per watt. Here's how it breaks down over the life of the system:

A 5 KW AC system will produce approximately 11,000 KWH of electricity annually, enough to provide all the electricity needed for an average energy-efficient home.

The warranty period for the panels is typically 20-25 years, but overall production will last much longer. Using 30 years as a conservative “useful life” the system will produce roughly 330,000 KWH of electricity.

With no rebates or incentives, installed costs run $9-$10 per watt, say $50,000. Add 10% contingency for maintenance/replacement costs (a very conservative number), bringing the total to $55,000.

So the cost per kilowatt-hour, over the useful life of the system, comes to approximately $0.17. Systems installed at the lower $9 per watt result in $0.15 per KWH. When installed in greater quantity, it is not difficult to get to $8 per watt or less, or $0.13 per KWH.

Clearly, this system produces power only at certain times, but is often during times of peak demand when utilities must pay the highest rates. Rates vary, but are often three or more times the base rate. For a true comparison, PV power should be compared at the same level as the more expensive power it is offsetting which could easily be $0.30 or more per KWH.

Being based on the sun, PV works well in tandem with other sources of energy or energy storage and more options are becoming available each year. The bottom line is between energy efficiency and the already existing energy systems that are online, there is more than enough base power generation to fill in the gaps until more storage capacity comes online.

Cleaning is a non-issue as long as the panels are tilted. Wind blows off any major dust and our infrequent rains are enough to wash them periodically.

For those who think nuclear is cheap, read the Price-Anderson Act, the biggest energy subsidy on the planet, born solely by taxpayers.

Coal futures for 2010 are already twice the current price and that’s not counting any carbon costs, which are coming and will add significantly to the cost. There is no way that any utility using coal or nuclear will honestly be able to produce electricity for less than $0.17 per KWH in thirty years – unless they embrace the sanity of renewable energy on a massive scale. If that happens, we all win.

The bottom line is that PV is already on a par with our existing energy sources. Other technologies like geothermal, wind and CSP are even better. So, as Mr. Comarow states, “What are we waiting for?”
By charlesH

8/15/08 at 5:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Socrates,

Your analysis fails to account for the opportunity cost (or borrowing cost) of your $55,000. If I assume 5% then 0.05 * $55000 = $2750/yr. Divide $2750 / 11000 kwhr = $0.25 which must be added to your $0.17 or $0.42 in year one declining to $0.17 in year 30.

If I do the same calculation as you (don't include interest cost) for a nuclear reactor I get.

$8B/(1.6GW * 8000 hrs * 60yrs) = $0.01 / kwhr. Ridiculous right? You have to include interest costs!

Including interest
5% x $8B = $400M/yr
$400M/(1.6GW * 8000 hrs) = $0.03 / kwhr.

Now we need to add fuel, operating and maintenance of 2cents we get in the first year $0.06 and in year 60 $0.03.

****** bottom line

Nuclear $0.06 going to $0.03
PV $0.42 going to $0.17

The above is why utilities only build solar if there is a state mandate. They know they can pass the higher cost on to the rate payer saying "the state made us do it".

Now it isn't quite this bad for PV since for the homeowner the alternative is retail cost which in CA can be $0.20 or higher. (I figure I need PV to reach $1-2/w here in Utah before it makes sense (installing myself)). And you correctly point out that PV is best when AC load is highest. No storage is necessary for PV to be useful.
By Socrates

8/15/08 at 6:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Please factor in the damage nuclear power does to our environment along with the fact that it is an uninsurable business (per the Price-Anderson Act), the costs for decommissioning, the costs for storage, the health impacts on those living near the plants or the mines or the waste transport routes (millions of people), the damage to the land from mines and their tailings (a pile of which leaches into the Colorado River upstream of Las Vegas and that no one wants to pay to clean up), etc.

All of these "externalities" amount to a HUGE tax on all of us, except the utilities.

Interest means nothing if the end result is a world that is uninhabitable. We must start making decisions based on life, not on profit. Just a fraction of the current subsidies for oil, coal, natural gas and nuclear would level the playing field enough for renewable energy to succeed very rapidly. As it is it will succeed regardless, but the time frame needs to be accelerated IMHO.

Plus, nuclear power is a non-renewable fuel source, just like fossil fuels are. There is only a finite amount in the earth. The stuff we have yet to dig up is exactly where it should remain. There is only one nuclear plant that really works well, and it is 93,000,000 miles away, exactly where it should be.

I suppose the sun is ultimately non-renewable as well, but it will likely be the mother of all energizer bunnies in that respect. It won't be going out soon.

Why argue with the inevitable? Unless a person owns stock in these environmentally damaging companies (coal, nukes, gas, etc.) and doesn't grok our role as stewards of the planet, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to renewable energy.
By jfnance32

8/15/08 at 6:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

"A 5 KW AC system will produce approximately 11,000 KWH of electricity annually, enough to provide all the electricity needed for an average energy-efficient home."

This is so BS.

Where are you getting these numbers? From Mars?

The only way that I have seen any break even numbers on a residential system is because of very large tax incentives.

That is like robbing your neighbor to pay yourself.

Below is a good academic paper on the subject from the very liberal Univ. of Berkely.

In this paper it says that PV is a big big loser when you look at the financial numbers.

http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/PDF/csemwp1...

If you want to buy a PV system then go at it.

Just do not rob your taxpayer neighbor to pay for your desire to throw money down the drain.
By charlesH

8/15/08 at 7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Socrates, you ask:

"Why argue with the inevitable? Unless a person owns stock in these environmentally damaging companies (coal, nukes, gas, etc.) and doesn't grok our role as stewards of the planet, I don't understand why there is so much resistance to renewable energy."

Because it costs alot more and it is not 24/7. We don't want our utility bills to double or triple and we don't want our power to go off when the sun goes down or the wind doesn't blow.

I have nothing against solar. When solar is cost effective, it will be added to my home to offset AC. For base load utility power I prefer nuclear. In particular green nuclear (see below).

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade plutonium (compared to uranium reactors). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100 (1000s yrs)
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)
Desalination with Waste Heat____________No : Yes
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/tho...

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah
By mschaffer

8/16/08 at 10:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

charlesH,

You do know that nuclear power is not 24/7 either. I have read that the fueling cycle means a plant will be down ~38 days in a two year cycle just for starters.

Amory Lovins does a nice job demolishing the idea that nuclear is a viable option here:

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid504.php

Read and think about it.
By charlesH

8/16/08 at 11:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

mschaffer,

I believe nuclear achieves better than 90% uptime which my numbers assumed.

Yes I know Amory Lovins doesn't like nuclear. Takes money from coal clients to trash nuclear I understand. Same old story for 20 yrs. Fortunately most of the world doesn't believe him.

Nuclear has a proven track record. Currently the lowest cost most reliable electrical power in the grid.

Still I understand some are concerned about nuclear safety, waste etc. That's why I strongly support LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) development. Makes a good technology much much better.

Check out:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
By Benedictine1980

8/23/08 at 11:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

You mean solar energy will cost more than the war in Iraq? hmm.
Think about it.