An open letter on solar farms to Congressman Smith

No one locally will benefit. Even the farmers who agree to lease their land will pay the repercussions if something were to happen on the land. The countryside as we know it will be lost forever. If you don't think it's going to affect you even though you don't live near the proposed sites, YOU'RE WRONG. Not one person who benefits from the electricity produced and stored on a total of approximately 3,000 acres TAKEN FROM US, will never even know where McCook, Nebraska is. Our local govt won't even benefit because of the way the leases are written. STAND UP AND SAY WE DON'T WANT YOU.

Solar Power - A Losing Proposition

According to data compiled by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, in the period between 2011 and 2017, states that increased their use of solar and wind generation realized large increases in electricity costs despite a large decline in natural gas prices. If the cost of NG had not collapsed at the same time solar and wind power were scaled up, electricity costs in these states (ND, SD, KS, IA, OK, CA, HI) would have been greater.

Solar power is an expensive, inefficient way to generate electricity – particularly at latitudes beyond 35 degrees N/S. The Sun delivers 1300 Watts per square meter (W/m2) to Earth’s atmosphere above the equator. Surface insolation there varies from 380 to 430 W/m2 – the maximum occurring during the equinoxes. This rate decreases towards the poles, but is best for power generation at latitudes between 35 N/S. At 40 N/S, the W/m2 at noon may be half that at the equator. The U.S. average is 100-150 W/m2. For SW Nebraska, direct irradiation = 218 W/m2 – or 1909.9 kWh/m2.

In photovoltaics (PV), the Schockley-Queisser Limit sets a physical cap for power generation in monocrystalline silicon: a maximum of 33% of the incoming photons can be converted into electrons. Most PV achieve over 26% conversion. Non-silicon PV have similar limits but are less economical to produce. Multi-layer PV have a 45% conversion; but are less durable than silicon. Conversion to usable power creates losses equal to 24 percent of the Natural Capacity Factor (CF).

Natural Capacity Factor (CF) is “the % of the maximum possible output of the power plant, achieved under the natural conditions of the site.” Utilization is “the % of the power plant’s workable capacity used on average over the year, reduced by technological, operational, or economic outages.” Net Load Factor = CF X Utilization. For photovoltaics, CF is strictly a function of site location. In the U.S., a perfect PV material must work with average annual CFs of 10 – 25%, excluding losses due to conditioning, transmission, balancing, or storing intermittent sources of electricity. For a solar plant the CF depends on the intensity and duration of sunlight, which is affected by seasonal weather conditions, daylight cycles, and the ability to maintain the panel’s surface transparency.

The capital cost of solar PV, per megawatt capacity, is approximately the same as the purchase price of a gas turbine. Solar fuel is “free,” but excess capacity must be paid for, and amortized into utility bills. The major drawback with most “green energy” is low power density (W/m2). For PV, power density ranges from 4 – 9 W/m2, whereas for natural gas it is 200 – 2000 W/m2, and 100 – 1000 W/m2 for coal. PV plants thus require massive amounts of land to match the output of a typical natural gas or coal-fired power generation plant. For a generating capacity of 225 MW, a NG-fired generation plant requires 20 to 40 acres. A Solar array of the same capacity requires 1643 direct usage acres, and 2003 acres total. One acre of solar panels produces about 351 megawatt hours (MWh) of electrical energy per year (Nevada). Profit depends on location irradiance, but averages $14,000 per acre per year. Installation costs for one acre of solar PV is about $450,000. Substantial government subsidies (Investment Tax Credit and Production Tax Credit) are required to offset what would otherwise be a net loss.

The dirty secret that “green energy” proponents conceal is that as wind and solar projects expand their penetration of the national power grid their economic value declines, and the grid becomes increasingly less stable. Solar and wind “farms” produce too much electricity during off-peak hours, and not enough during periods of high demand; hence the need for large-capacity storage facilities and supplemental power generation, all of which require even more land usage.

Premier Energy’s Chief Project Development Officer, Jeff Cook-Coyle, says the rationale for building their proposed 220 MW Solar PV plant in Red Willow County is that the facility is needed to supplement the diesel-fired “McCook Peaker” generation plant, whenever it goes off-line “due to high fuel costs.” This is circular reasoning. Why are fuel costs high? It is because government has inserted itself into the energy market, working to eliminate the U.S. fossil fuel industry, while heavily subsidizing “renewables.” The American Energy Alliance recently published 125 actions taken by the federal government, in the period dating from 20 January 2021 through 6 October 2022, designed to undermine the exploration, development, and production of fossil fuels, while greatly incentivizing “green energy.”

However, green energy is not so “green” …

Solar power is material intensive. Raw material quantities (steel, fuel, glass, concrete) required to fabricate wind and solar plants, compared to traditional generation methods, ranking from highest to lowest, are: Solar PV, Hydro, Wind, Geothermal, and Nuclear. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, lifecycle CO2 emissions – including indirect emissions (production of materials) – is higher for solar PV (60 kg / MWh) than for nuclear power (25kg / MWh). For locations north or south of 35 degrees latitude, the total power a single solar panel generates over its lifecycle is less than the combined energy required to mine its materials and manufacture the panel.

Green energy technologies require a 10-fold increase in mineral extraction compared to fossil-fuel electricity. China accounts for 70% of global PV production, most of which is through slave labor. The remaining 30%, is distributed between Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Taiwan. Solar panels require specialized recycling, costing 4 to 8 times their recycled worth. Recyclers recover aluminum and copper from the frame and J-box, then shred the panel – including the glass, polymers, and silicon cells (silver, tin, and lead). This results in a mixture of impure crushed glass. A standard 60-cell panel yields $3 of recoverable aluminum, copper, and glass. The cost to recycle one panel ranges between $12 and $25 – after transportation costs. Burial in a landfill cost less than a dollar. The International Renewable Energy Agency projects that, by 2050, 78 million metric tons of PV will reach the end of their lifecycle – and the world will produce another 6 million metric tons per year.

Sunlight is dilute and unreliable. Its use to generate electricity requires far greater expanses of land – with longer and less-utilized transmission lines and large amounts of storage, with the accompanying ecological damage. Government manipulation of the marketplace to force “green energy” greatly increases the cost of electricity. Solar Power is thus a losing proposition. Our communities should not support expending limited resources on such projects, for reason that fundamental physical constraints make this form of energy impractical from an economic and reliability perspective.

“Cheap renewable green energy” is a myth, fabricated by those with a political agenda to advance, championed by those who have an economic incentive to lie, and believed by those who are too lazy to do basic research.

Correction - Premier Energy's proposed solar power plant is 200 MW, not "220."

I find it odd that the 'Don't tread on me,' crowd is now opposed to what a private land owner wants to do with his own property. "Don't tell me what I can do, but I'm going to dictate to you."

Mix in the people who ran for political office promoting how they loath government interference, providing government interference now.

Your last sentence is a good example of the classic straw man argument. I have never heard one responsible proponent of renewable energy refer to it as being cheap. I do know there are no 'futures markets' on wind and sun.