Sorry, solar is not for us, says Progress Energy.

Florida Power & Light today announced a $688 million project to build three solar power stations in south and central Florida. Company president Armando Olivera told me solar was becoming increasingly cost-effective thanks to a new Energy Bill passed by the state legislature.

So I thought it only right to ask a spokesman for Progress Energy what his company's plans for solar energy were. "We have examined similar proposals," said C.J. Drake, a spokesman for Progress Energy. "It's not cost-effective for on-demand generation." (For laymen, that means energy that's available 24 hours a day.) "The power is not available when you need it," he added.

Maybe someone from Progress should sit down and have a chat with the folk from FP&L and ask them why their numbers are so different? FP&L serves 4.5 million customers as far north as Bradenton.

How can two neighboring utilities have such different views on solar energy? Is there less sun in
Tampa Bay?

- David Adams

Comments

[paminator]

Solar PV is pretty expensive still. After seeing the FPL announcement, I was inspired to run the numbers again and see how many years it will take to pay off a residential solar PV system. I want self-contained, on-demand solar PV generation, just like Progress Energy. My house averages 2 kW. Tampa has about 5 kWhr/m^2/day of solar insolation (30 year average from NREL). For a 2 kW load, I need 48 kWhr/day of solar generation. With PV panels at 15% efficiency, that gives 64 m^2 of panel, or 48 typical PV panels. Battery backup provides a full day of energy in case of clouds. Panels cost $38,600. Batteries run $13,600 every 5 years. Two inverters are $6500. If I install myself, and assume a 20 year life (4 sets of batteries and one set of panels), this comes to about $100,000. Financed with a 20 year loan at 6.5%, the monthly payment is $745. This is about 15% more expensive than when I ran the calculation two years ago.

With a 2 kW load, my house uses about 1440 kWhr/month. At 12 cents/kWhr from Progress Energy, that costs me $173 per month.

Bottom line- A solar PV system for stand-alone, on-demand with battery backup at my home will never pay for itself.

So tell me which utility is looking at solar through engineering eyes, and which utility is using solar as a marketing investment?

[paminator]

Also, consider the price of $688M for 110 MW of solar PV. With an availability of about 25% for most of Florida, that 110 MW peak is equivalent to an on-demand supply of 27.5 MW, assuming energy storage is included in the facility. That comes to $25,000 per kW. The proposed nuclear plants and reactors have price tags around $8,000 per kW.

[Chris in FL]

"How can two neighboring utilities have such different views on solar energy? Is there less sun in
Tampa Bay?"

Simple, they would have to take a loss in profit due to the initial solar equipment costs. And they won't take a cut until they are forced to.

They know they will make much higher profits for selling electricity that costs them so little to produce in the long run. Only, most of today’s corporations and business owners don't plan long term.

90% of anyone would rather have $100,000 today than $110,000 tomorrow.

[Chris in FL]

They won't need battery storage, they will sell off the solar energy immediately after its collected.

Residents don't need batteries either, you use what you collect while collecting it because you can't collect enough for the rest of the night to begin with. Then you still pay for what you use at night, less your credits (if any).

The incorporation of solar means large scale production. Which means the manufacturer is going to find a cheaper way to produce panels, and sell them for less. Eventually reducing the price for all consumers.

And solar does not cost nearly as much as some claim, because you must take into consideration that,

1. The government has generous tax incentives that reduce the cost by half. And,

2. The utility company pays enormously less because they buy in bulk, they negotiate royalties, and they have their own technicians to install the equipment themselves!

[paminator]

Chris- read the Progress comment- ""It's not cost-effective for on-demand generation (for laymen, that means energy that's available 24 hours a day). " That means you need storage at the site, whether its batteries, steam, molten salt, compressed air, hydrogen generation, etc.

Let me first say that I welcome solar PV on the grid and at my house when it makes economic sense.

As you say, a grid-tied system at home will not need batteries. But, remember to add in the installation costs and insurance rider that current FL law requires for a grid-tied system.

You can collect enough solar at home to provide energy 24 hours a day. My calculation shows that you can easily achieve this, at a price. 48 panels covers about 800 sq ft of rooftop.

Economies of scale lower PV panel prices. Panel improvements were supposed to lower prices as well. Panel prices were at their lowest in 2000, and have crept up in price since then.

Generous rebates reduce the cost by half until you hit the maximum rebate ceiling. In addition, you must pay for a certified installer, which increases the costs relative to the equipment costs alone. For a typical small residential system (2 kW peak), the end user cost is about the same whether you design, purchase and install the system yourself w/o rebate or have it installed and become eligible for the rebate. Florida's rebate program is also pathetically underfunded.

Using solar for peaking may be what FPL has in mind. The published cost of $6250 per kW for peaking power is more reasonable, only a factor of 10 more expensive than a peaking gas turbine.

You say "The utility company pays enormously less because they buy in bulk, they negotiate royalties, and they have their own technicians to install the equipment themselves!"

Show us some numbers.

[raymond]

OMG they are going to have to cut down all those trees and dissrupt habitat. where are the enviromentalists when it comes to the land clearing of hundreds of acres? I guess they are ok with it as long as its there agenda.

[raymond]

the truth about the oil problems

Ok people here it is all the truth you can handle. its about 40 min long, but start at 29 min and that's where they are really getting into the nuts and bolts of the problem. you see your being lied to and here is the proof.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=206134-1&showVid=true

[Nick]

Hey Raymond...it's "their" agenda...not "there" agenda.