Next Texas Energy Boom: Solar

Layzej writes: The Wall Street Journal reports: "Solar power has gotten so cheap to produce—and so competitively priced in the electricity market—that it is taking hold even in a state that, unlike California, doesn't offer incentives to utilities to buy or build sun-powered generation." Falling cost is one factor driving investment. "Another reason for the boom: Texas recently wrapped up construction of $6.9 billion worth of new transmission lines, many connecting West Texas to the state's large cities. These massive power lines enabled Texas to become, by far, the largest U.S. wind producer. Solar developers plan to move electricity on the same lines, taking advantage of a lull in wind generation during the heat of the day when solar output is at its highest."

Comments

Re:In "oil" country no less!

[drinkypoo]

I just wish people would hold other people accountable for their rank hypocrisy. Here's another commercial example... Chevy has aluminum trucks coming in 2018 but they're slagging Ford for selling them right now. What astonishing douchebags. But people will just buy those trucks in a few years...

Why are solar and wind not on the same land?

[ThomasBHardy]

There's something I've never understood here.

if you have land for wind power, why would you not want solar spread around it in the safety zone of the tower? Same lines can carry all of the power. Lower real estate cost. Why is it that I only ever see or hear about a solar farm or a wind farm and never an energy farm?

Maybe someone here more familiar with the topic can help me out, or tell me that it's being done and just not talked about much.

Re:Why are solar and wind not on the same land?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. I'm from Kansas and we have a lot of wind power as well...a family friend has leased some of his land as part of a substantial wind farm (I think his property only has 2 or 3 turbines on it though).

Basically, most of this land is leased in long-term contracts which include both a periodic guaranteed payments as well as a small cut of the wholesale cost of the power generated. However, as I understand it, the actual land used is negligible and farmers typically continue to farm and/or ranch on the portion unused by the actual turbines (and service roads). I'm fairly sure the terms of the contract dictates the total amount of land to be used by the lessee...if they wanted to plant a bunch of PV cells there, they would have to renegotiate the contract. Right now, farmers/ranchers tend to do pretty well in that business, so I'm not sure the power companies could offer a lease that would both be high enough from the land owner's perspective to gain full access to the land as well as be low enough (from their perspective) to allow them to turn a profit.

Re:Call it what you want it isn't green

[PraiseBob]

Have you been to west texas...? It's basically a desert. There isn't much environment to disrupt.

Re:Wow

[Moof123]

Where the model broke down is that we let them fail. We are supposed to keep sending them orders for stuff and park the products in the Mojave desert. It works for the defense industry, but the government screwed up and actually let Solyndra die rather than converting it into a perpetual contractor like so many defense companies.

Re:Interesting

[Solandri]

How many GOP Texans were screaming about how solar, wind and other renewables were nothing but communist liberal bullshit and yet.. here we are.

This is classic misunderstanding of Republican ideals. They're not against renewables per se. They're against subsidizing the sale of technologies which can't self-support themselves. If/when the technology is able to compete economically on its own with existing technologies, they are more than happy to use it.

The error is actually in the environmentalists' thinking. They support wind and solar unconditionally regardless of cost. They then assume everyone else thinks like they do. Since the GOP opposed wind and solar in the past, they erroneously assume the GOP must oppose wind and solar unconditionally. (I narrow it down to environmentalists because most of the people on the left are aware of cost constraints.)

In fairness, there is a non-monetary cost associated with pollution which many GOPers leave out. But if you factor that in, then nuclear ends up being the best choice of power source at present. And most environmentalists oppose nuclear so I can't give them credit for correctly factoring in pollution costs.

Re:Wow

[Penguinisto]

Yes and No.
(Disclosure: I used to work for Solarworld).

I partially agree because it was the introduction of *massive* tax/tariff subsidies from the EU member governments (most notably Germany) that drove a lot of development and growth, which led to the rise of solar-panel makers like Solarworld, Q-Cells, etc. (all based in Germany). I think only First Solar is the only big boy that's based in the US.

I disagree mostly because solar really didn't get cheap until the Chinese began to flood the market with panels, around 2010-2011 or so. Before China, solar panels cost around $2.50/Wp; after China started the flood, they could be had for as cheap as $0.75/Wp.

All that said, you get what you pay for... Solarworld for instance has the 25-year power output warranty, 17-18% conversion, and high wattage densities (255+ watts per panel), whereas the real low-end Chinese stuff is barely warrantied for a year, might get 10-12% conversion, and might get you 160-200-watt panels (in real-life testing; forget the label's claims).

Re:Wow

[SillyHamster]

First: which technology besides solar is "better"? Or makes economically more sense? When we clearly right now are at the point where solar makes economical sense?

Those would be the energy technologies that deliver the vast majority of the world's energy needs - that is, fossil fuels. Oil, gas, coal.

If solar made economical sense, it would not need subsidies. Maybe it will not in the future ... but we're not in the future.

Second: the billions spend where likely not the US american billions but the European, notable German, so why do you care?

America's government has subsidized green technologies with billions of dollars, and it goes without saying that Americans have the right to criticize the choices of their government.

I guess you had preferred to wait till the oil runs out, that might be in 20 years?

Oil will not run out in 20 years.

With current usage patterns the oil price in 20 years might be something like $5000 per barrel. Obviously that won't be the case as demand will drop rapidly the closer we come to the "empty wells".

At $5000 per barrel of oil, we'd have all the oil we'd ever want. You realize we can *make* oil, right? We could probably make oil using solar power very profitably at that price point.

Re:Wow

[angel'o'sphere]

If solar made economical sense, it would not need subsidies. Maybe it will not in the future ... but we're not in the future.

You missed the headline, or the article or the summary or all of it.
Solar energy is now the cheapest energy on the planet.

Oil will not run out in 20 years.
With current usage, it will. That is a no brainer. With replacement of current cars by electric cars it, won't. That is a no brainer, too. So try to comprehend what I write instead of jumping to knee jerk reactions and making a fool of yourself.

We are 10 years beyond "peak oil" ...

America's government has subsidized green technologies with billions of dollars Did it? Any proof of that? Over what course of years?