How To Write A Sorority Interest Letter .

IL FOTOVOLTAICO SORPASSA IL NUCLEARE? RIFATTI I CONTI E’ UNA BUFALA.

kwh WHY THE POWER AND THE BAG 'COMPANY LESS THAN 10 CENTS A WHILE THOSE WHO PRODUCE THE modules are recognized by law (a law-SCAM) 50 CENTS?

The history of overtaking the nuclear part of the PV is a hoax. It turns out simply duplicating to a good deal of study, "Solar and Nuclear Costs - The Historic Crossover. Solar Energy is the Better Buy Now 'by John O. Blackburn, S. can be found here: http://www.ncwarn.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/NCW-SolarReport_final1.pdf The accounts have them redone Prof Franco Battaglia, Associate Professor of Environmental Chemistry at the University of Modena. I try to explain here: The study "Solar and Nuclear Costs - The Historic Crossover. Solar Energy is the Better Buy Now 'by John O. Blackburn, S. Cunningham uses the following formula: where amortization factor = i / [1 - (1 + i)-n] i = interest rate n = the depreciation period (years) This is calculated by reference to a plant 3 kWp (kilowatt peak) peak, assuming a cost of the plant amounted to $ 8190, a depreciation rate of 6%, a payback period of 25 years and a load factor of 18%. The result is a depreciation factor equal to 0.07823. With the above assumptions, the cost of electricity production (due to the single cost component of the plant, without


operating costs and maintenance costs) amounted to $ 16 c / kWh. But then, as is also stated in the job, the cost of the $ 8190 is equivalent to subtracting the actual cost which is $ 18,000, federal tax credits (30%) and the State of North Carolina (35%). It is then clear that the one shown in the figure is not the cost of industrial production but the production cost of downstream political incentives granted to the photovoltaic source from the federal government and the U.S. Government North Carolina, incentivazioni che trasferiscono il 65% del costo industriale a carico della collettività.


Inoltre, aver assunto un fattore di carico del 18% è decisamente irrealistico. Una potenza installata di 1 GW dovrebbe produrre, alla fine di un anno 8760 GWh di energia elettrica (8760 sono le ore di 1 anno). In realtà ne produce di meno per varie ragioni: ad esempio l'impianto può restare fermo per manutenzione, etc. Tipicamente, un impianto nucleare da 1 GW produce 8000 GWh; il suo fattore di carico tipico è quindi 8000/8760=90% Un impianto fotovoltaico da 1 GW, invece, NON PUO' produrre alla fine dell'anno 8760 GWh per la semplice reason that it is not illuminated for 8760 hours (there at night, winter days can be covered with snow, etc.).. Typically, a PV plant produces 1 GW at the end of one year, 900 GWh. Its load factor is then 900/8760 = 10%. The PV power installed in Italy was 432 MW at the end of 2008 and 1142 MW in 2009. Then in 2009 there were new 1142-432 = 710 MW. That, of course, were installed during the year. In the absence of other data, we assume a steady pace of installations throughout the year, so it is as if the actual PV power installed in Italy in 2009 was equal to 432 +710 / 2 = 787 MW. The electricity produced by PV in 2009 was 674 GWh. The factor di carico che ne risulta è quindi pari a poco meno del 10%.


Ripetendo il calcolo con la medesima formula ma senza considerare le incentivazioni e col più realistico fattore di carico del 10% (valore medio a consuntivo per gli impianti fotovoltaici in esercizio) si ricava in realtà un costo di produzione pari a 63 c$/kWh, ovvero circa quattro volte quello calcolato nel documento. Ora, se teniamo conto che il nucleare nel 2008 costava 2 cents di dollaro (vedere qui alla voce total: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html), pur ammettendo un raddoppio dei soli costi di costruzione come sta avvenendo in Finlandia, il costo del kWh nucleare oggi sarebbe (abbondando) di circa 5 cents, cioè circa 12 volte meno di quello prodotto col fotovoltaico. Altro che sorpasso!


La principale cosa che potrebbe sfuggire, però, è l’ineluttabile fatto che il fotovoltaico non conviene neanche se i moduli fotovoltaici fossero gratis: quando i pannelli FV non sono illuminati dal sole (e non lo sono dal tramonto all’alba, sempre, e dall’alba al tramonto quando è nuvolo, quando sono coperti di neve, etc.) essi sono inutili, il che significa che 100 GW FV non consentono la chiusura di neanche 1 W convenzionale, sia esso a gas, a carbone, o nucleare.


If we refer to the long period then you must also do is this: a 1.6 GW reactor produces, throughout its life (60 years minimum) 1000 billion kWh electric, that the market price (about 10 cents / kWh) give a revenue of 100 billion. If such a reactor requires an expense to construction delays, of 3 or 6 (or 10) billion is almost irrelevant. Conversely, at a cost of 6 billion GWp you install a PV that throughout its life (30 years, if all goes well) produces 30 billion kWh of power (if all goes well) with a revenue of 3 billion. In any case, if the above was not understood, I repeat the question: why we all pay the consumer kilowatt electric 20 cents (including taxes, distribution, etc.., so to those who produce the kilowatt-hours costs a lot less), while today's photovoltaic manufacturers with the same kilowatt-hour are rewarded with 50 cents? Why is the kilowatt-hour electricity is traded on the Stock Exchange less than 10 cents as to who produces it with photovoltaics are recognized by law (a law-fraud), 50 cents?