San Antonio Express-News: Opinion
By David Klar
Two misconceptions about solar energy must be cleared up before any CPS Energy board or City Council vote on nuclear takes place: That solar is too expensive and that it is unreliable.
Those who say solar is costlier than nuclear fail to consider both volume construction and the steadily, rapidly declining cost of solar while nuclear costs are going up.
CPS' recently announced solar venture of 27 MW (megawatts) in West Texas is a small order. The contractor, Tessera, will have to truck in personnel and equipment to a remote location, possibly having to construct housing and offices and bring in necessities for workers, all for a 27 MW facility. Tessera has also signed on to build up to 1,750 MW of solar for another utility. There is no doubt that that larger contract will mean a lower cost per kilowatt hour for electricity generated.
A myriad of other large solar facilities are either planned or under construction. Pacific Gas & Electric has signed on to buy power from a 230 MW photovoltaic solar plant in California, with expected operation by 2013, for 13.3 cents per kWh. CPS gives the price of solar at 21 to 31 cents a kWh (kilowatt-hour).
In California, a solar project planned by BrightSource Energy will produce 400 MW of power. A project planned by Pacific Gas & Electric on 6,000 acres of Mojave desert land will generate 553 MW of electricity yearly and is expected to be running by 2011 — long before construction of the STP expansion is even begun.
Closer to home, a Florida company has announced plans to begin constructing by 2011 a 300 MW facility in West Texas, for generation to Texans.
Projects like these will undoubtedly have a far lower cost per kWh than a nuclear plant that may run as high as $22 billion. And they'll be off the ground a lot sooner.
Then there's rooftop solar for large installations.
When SunEdison founder Jigar Shah was in San Antonio in May, his message was that rooftop — or parking lot — solar needn't have huge up-front costs. Power-purchasing agreements require customers to buy from the installer the electricity produced for a minimum of 10 years. This enables large companies to enjoy solar energy without a capital investment and a fixed price that is usually below utility rates.
Legislation authored by state Rep. Mike Villarreal (HB 1937) will allow home owners to add the cost of solar installation to their property tax, avoiding high initial capital costs.
Unreliability of solar is no longer an issue. Thermal storage, easier and less expensive than storage of electricity, takes care of the solar intermittency problem, and is needed for short periods only.
Most concentrated solar technologies today can potentially provide at least six hours of thermal storage, achievable through the use of capacitors, compressed air, flywheels, molten salt, batteries, or hydrogen fuel cells. Two solar plants in Spain will employ six-hour storage and a third will have 15-hour storage. A 289- MW plant in Arizona will have thermal storage.
The coming smart grid will also eliminate the problem of intermittency.
It behooves all interested parties to know — before the nuclear die is cast — that solar storage exists and that the real costs of solar are far lower than what CPS says.
David Klar is a former chair of the Alamo Group Sierra Club.