The Laws of Thermodynamics, of Heat Transfer, and the equations for both kinetic and potential energy apply to most discussions of energy and impose immutable constraints on all energy supply systems.

These laws are typically studied in physics, chemistry, chemical engineering and other demanding classes in undergraduate and graduate schools. Entire textbooks and college curricula are written and conducted on various forms of energy. Those who have not endured such disciplines may not appreciate the properties of energy and how it is generated, transferred, and used.

One of many units of energy is the "kilowatt-hr". Although all energy units can be converted to any other, the kilowatt-hr is most often used to describe electrical energy. To get a feel for how much energy is in a kilowatt-hr, consider one of those bicycle generators used to power a light bulb (often found in museums). A very fit cyclist can keep a 100 watt light bulb lighted for an hour. If he can do this for 10 hours he will deliver 1000 watt-hrs, or 1.0 kilowatt-hr (kw-hr). This is in human terms a lot of effort.

Now consider a 1000 megawatt (MW) power plant (the megawatt is a unit of power, not energy). In the same 10 hours for the cyclist above, this power plant can deliver 10 x 1000 x 1,000,000 = 10 billion watt-hrs or 10 million kilowatt-hrs. In other words this single power plant can deliver the same amount of electrical energy as 10,000,000 cyclists. The owner of the power plant will sell each kw-hr for about 8 cents. Would those cyclists work for 8 cents for a 10 hr workday??? Not likely. The waste disposal costs would be significant!!

Ever since the Carter Administration the US government has spent billions on solar energy research, development, and demonstrations. Thousands of demonstrations have been constructed across the United States. Whether it’s the Solar One Power Tower in the California desert or the Luz project there also, or the hundreds across the US, I am not aware of any successes. The exceptions might be for water heating (not electricity) in the southern latitudes. Most have been dismal engineering failures. Before spending billions more, this nation would do well to revisit these past projects to learn what went wrong. Such learning is precisely why we built these projects in the first place, so lets learn!!

We learned for example that the heavily subsidized Solar Power Tower in Southern Cal. before it caught fire could not provide on an annual basis enough electricity for its own on-site use, lights, air conditioning, computers, etc. On an annual basis it was a net energy consumer, not a true source!!!

In Eastern Washington as in other states there were many such lesser projects. A Washington congressman in the early 80s was Mike McCormick who was among the first to sponsor legislation for these solar projects. There were a number of such projects built there. Across the nation many billions of government funds were passed out for the demonstrations. So far as can be determined none were successful from either a performance or cost perspective. A radically designed bank building in Richland, Washington still exists where one of the projects was undertaking in the 80s. The intentions were to provide solar energy to heat the building with heated circulating water. The maintenance costs were prohibitive and the engineering performance was a failure. The system has been closed down for years. Today one can still see the burst circulation lines, the corrosion, not to mention bird droppings and dust deposits on the collectors. Such maintenance costs are routinely overlooked in cost analyses and projections.

Another half-million dollar project was installed on the top of a one-story office building. It too was a stunning failure because of high maintenance requirements, but nevertheless cost the taxpayers more than $500,000. The working fluid was ethylene glycol (antifreeze). When the system sprang a leak many cars in the parking lot were sprayed with the chemical ruining the paint jobs of many of them. Such building owners are eager to accept such massive funds, the public relations coup, as well as the politically correct accolades for "alternative energy" efforts. The romance disappears when the maintenance and repairs costs roll in year after year. It too was shut down because of these unrelenting costs.

As with bad marriages these projects became eyesores and never worked. Removal of the failed solar collectors was a requirement for the sale of the property. The history of the US solar energy program over the past 30 years has been a long string of broken promises and the waste of billions. The simplistic assertions and empty promises continue today as if we haven’t learned a thing from the billions spent already. I can provide a tour of failed NW solar projects if desired, which litter the area as well as failed windmills added as a bonus. The costs and performance of solar electric projects are even worse. The amount of solar energy striking a collector depends upon several factors including the distance from the sun and the latitude north or south of the equator. According to retired physicist Howard Hayden, at the latitude of Hartford, Connecticut the incoming solar energy (called insolation) averages 160 watts/sq meter. This is a fixed upper value for this latitude. If one thinks about it, we would never want it to be higher, or lower for that matter!!

In fact the average insolation in 2/3 of the United States is within 20% of this value (See The Solar Fraud by Howard C. Hayden, 2001, for a great summary of the physics and engineering factors---see p. 75-76 for a good discussion of insolation). Although this an upper limit, there is a huge daily drop-off in this value which includes zero power every night!! The need for an equally sized non-solar backup system for night time and cloudy days electrical energy are obvious.

The 160 w/sq m value is only the thermal (heat) energy flux at noon on a sunny day. To convert this to electrical energy photovoltaic (PV) cells are required. This gets very expensive. The cells are typically 10% efficient. In other words from that 160 watt/sq meter thermal power, we can expect about 16 watts/sq meter of electric power!! This is not enough to operate a single refrigerator light!! Furthermore, the electricity from the PV cells are direct current and low voltage. To make this electricity useful in needs more electrical equipment to convert it to alternating current at higher voltages such as 110 volts AC. This also adds to the costs.

An engineering friend in Sacramento was researching solar photovoltaic electricity for installation on his home there. He contacted Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) to discuss the design and costs. He was told that for a 1500 watt photovoltaic (PV) system placed on his roof would cost $14,000 to $16,000 dollars!! Being surprised at this huge cost he asked the intelligent question, "Does that include a storage system (batteries, controls, and distribution systems to supply electrical energy at night)" He was told that it didn’t and that the storage system would cost an additional $30,000 dollars!!

Too often alternative energy advocates throw solar and wind energy into the discussions as if these were the sources of all our future energy needs. Nothing could be further from the truth and it’s dangerous for our leaders to believe so.

The American Physical Society concluded in 1979 that even if the PV cells were FREE the other costs would still make solar electricity cost prohibitive. University of Arizona physicists and solar energy experts Drs. Aden and Marjorie Meinel said essentially the same thing in their Congressional testimony in the early 80s. Their testimony addressed solar space heating, water pumping, and solar voltaics. Hot water heating may be near-economical at the lower latitudes but not in the upper 2/3 of the US. The Meinels pointed out these hidden costs to include financing, installation, repair, maintenance, and replacement.

In the planning for their future energy choices Japan and Switzerland performed energy cost comparisons. Both nations found nominally the same cost disparities in wind, solar, and nuclear. In comparing costs of nuclear energy with both solar and wind energy costs, these nations independently found that solar electricity was a nominal 30 times more costly and wind energy 3 times the costs of nuclear energy. This helps explain why so many nations are building large nuclear programs and not wind or solar facilities. China for example is currently building 8 reactors and has 20 more in the design stages. They are also building huge hydro facilities and a large number of coal plants.

It hasn’t been widely noticed but the same movement which opposes serious oil exploration and drilling, coal burning, nuclear energy, natural gas in places, are also involved with the promotion of the failed solar and wind technologies. Those former sources collectively produce more than 98% of the nation’s electricity. Electrical energy is essential to any advanced nation. Destroying 98% of the electrical energy generating systems would turn the United States into another Third World Country. Their actions do not match their words on many levels. The promise of solar energy has been shown to fail. It is simply too weak a source and far too intermittent and unreliable to be useful.

This was originally published on HawaiiReporter.com

To join in on the conversation or to subscribe or visit this site go to:  http://www.energypulse.net

Copyright 2005 CyberTech, Inc.