Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Bill Sloman on 8 Aug 2010 22:53 On Aug 8, 11:13 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:06:47 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > > > > <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On 08/08/2010 13:59, k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > >> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:24:09 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >> <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On 08/08/2010 03:11, John Larkin wrote: > >>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:12:58 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >>>> <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>> On 07/08/2010 23:34, John Larkin wrote: > >>>>>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:16:03 +0300, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:45:48 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > >>>>>>> <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> "Summary > >>>>>>>> Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily for decades.. They > >>>>>>>> are projected to fall even farther over the next 10 years. Meanwhile, > >>>>>>>> projected costs for construction of new nuclear plants have risen > >>>>>>>> steadily over the last decade, and they continue to rise. In the past > >>>>>>>> year, the lines have crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new > >>>>>>>> solar installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new > >>>>>>>> nuclear plants." > > >>>>>>> The cost of recent (2000+) nuclear power plants is somewhere between > >>>>>>> 1-3 EUR/W based on actual deals. > > >>>>>>> To be competitive, at the grid_interface_point at the equator in > >>>>>>> cloudless conditions, the solar panel cost should be somewhere between > >>>>>>> 0.25 .. 0.75 EUR/W based on the geometry alone. > > >>>>>>> Moving away from the equator or allowing for some random clouds, the > >>>>>>> unit price should be even less to be competitive. > > >>>>>>> For some reason, all bulk solar power producers, such as existing > >>>>>>> power plants in Spain or the proposed DESERTEC project are using > >>>>>>> concentrated solar thermal power, not photovoltaic cells :-). > > >>>>>>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-the-sun-setting-o... > > >>>>>> John > > >>>>> So, solar is so successful that subsidies are being cut back... > > >>>> That's one way to look at it. The other way is to imagine that Spain > >>>> ran out of money to throw at subsidies. All sorts of people from all > >>>> over the world were cashing in on it. > > >>>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes > >>>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it > >>>> will be a niche source. > > >>> How much govt money was pumped into nuclear before it could "compete on > >>> its own" (assuming it can, even now)? > >>> As for niche, that could be a very big niche if it was used to supply > >>> daytime heavy industry over a continental grid. > > >> You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. If you subsidize > >> a failure (solar) you get more failure. If you tax nuclear you get less of it. > >> Now you know why, as a country, we're failing. We don't like success. > > >It seems to me that it's the nuclear industry that whining for > >subsidies, and have been for decades. > > So what? Everyone whines for subsidies. The difference is that the > government listens to some (chooses winners and losers). *That* is _bad_. > > >As for solar, that's starting to hit the steep slope of the exponential. > > So let it go. Do you favor subsidizing kids in their 20s? > > >Installed capacity has been doubling in less than 2 year intervals for > >the past decade. 8 more doubling will match the conventional generating > >capacity of the planet. Since a lot of the initial high cost is down to > >lack of economies of scale, subsidies are justified at present. But as > >mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they are being scaled back as solar > >becomes cost competitive with other power sources. > > No, they subsidies are being "scaled back" because there is no more money for > this nonsense. As John Larkin pointed out, Spain is cutting back its subsidies for solar power generation because it has to cut back its expenditure across the board, and long term investment looses out to short term advantage. This doesn't make solar power a nonsense. You may think it is a nonsense, but you also think that it would be a good idea to invest money in building nuclear plant, despite the fact that it seems to take a decade or more to get a nuclear plant on-line and generating, by which time the power that it generates will be dearer than power generated by windmills - and granting the usual effects of the economies of scale - probably also dearer than that generated by thermal solar plant and solar panels. -- Bill Sloman,Nijmegen
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 9 Aug 2010 05:56 On 09/08/2010 03:40, Bill Sloman wrote: > On Aug 9, 12:27 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: >> On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 06:31:09 -0700 (PDT), Richard Henry >> >> >> >> <pomer...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On Aug 8, 1:18 am, Paul Keinanen<keina...(a)sci.fi> wrote: >>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin >> >>>> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >>>>> If solar can compete on its own, it should. But even if it becomes >>>>> economical on a cost per KWH basis, without a good storage method it >>>>> will be a niche source. >> >>>> A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is >>>> larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day >>>> load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of >>>> air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, >>>> while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load >>>> during night. >> >>>> If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak >>>> production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the >>>> arrays to the south. >> >>>> Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but >>>> it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead >>>> of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would >>>> have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to >>>> ride through the winter. >> >>> California ISO typically reports 2 types of electric power usage day - >>> those with a peak about 9 PM when it is cool, and those with a peak >>> about 2 PM when it is hot. >> >>> http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html >> >> Thank you for the graph. >> >> It would appear that the daily variation is about 9 GW, so that is the >> maximum nominal solar power that it makes sense to build. >> >> Apparently some kind of daylight saving time is used, since the >> consumption is high after sunset, apparently due to air conditioning >> load. >> >> A similar curve for Finland (at Alaska latitudes) is available athttp://www.fingrid.fi/portal/in_english/electricity_market/load_and_g... >> with about 2 GW day/night variation during weekdays and 1 GW during >> weekends with early morning base loads of 7 GW. >> >> The base electric consumption is more than 12 GW during the winter >> night and about 14 GW during the winter day. >> >> Someone might think that putting up 2 GW of solar power would solve >> the problem. Unfortunately, at such high latitudes, the sun does not >> shine much in the winter. A solar panel would only produce a few >> watts. So in reality, the solar power array would be usable only >> during a few summer months. > > Germany is talking about building massive solar generation in the > Sahara, and shipping the power north on ultra-high-volage DC links. > Super-conducting cable has yet to be mentioned, but it would seem to > offer even lower losses per kilometre. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen As if we ought to put all our power generating capacity in poor Muslim nations (again). Asking for trouble or what? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 9 Aug 2010 05:57 On 09/08/2010 03:35, Bill Sloman wrote: > On Aug 9, 7:42 am, dagmargoodb...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> On Aug 8, 12:45 pm, nospam<nos...(a)please.invalid> wrote: >> >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> I think that within a couple of decades most houses will have their own >>>> PV and battery set, and use the grid for (expensive) backup. >> >>> Show me a battery with a replacement cost which is less than the cost of >>> the equivalent grid electricity it can discharge in its lifetime. >> >>> Of course if grid electricity prices rocket (due to technically illiterate >>> eco wankers and politicians refusing to build viable large scale generating >>> capacity) anything can happen. >> >> The easiest way to make any one technology competitive is by >> kneecapping the others. > > A scheme well-illustrated by the oil industry, which dictates that the > US has an immense and expensive "defence" forces, paid for by the tax- > payer, to protect US-exploited oil fields around the world. > > The same subsidy, re-directed to sustainable domestic energy sources, > would kneecap the US oil industry. Sadly, the kind of military or > commercial intelligence that might appreciate this is in short supply, > and James Arthur is one of the people least likely to understand the > point. > > He probably thinks that it is right and natural that the US spends as > much on "defence" as the next ten countries down the pecking order put > together. Historically, the top nation spent as much as its two > closest rivals, but the US managed to invent the military-industrial > complex, and the oil companies, like the banana importers before them, > are happy to exploit this irrational extravagance. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Nijmegen So what would the $1tr pissed into the Iraqi sand have bought? 100 nuclear reactors plus 100GW of solar PV? -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Tim Williams on 9 Aug 2010 07:35 "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:8c95hcFuujU1(a)mid.individual.net... >> when the factory that makes solar panels has them on the roof and uses >> them to power itself.. > > And the factory making nuclear power plant elements has its own nuclear > reactor for just that purpose. Yo dawg, I herd you like power plants, so... Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms
From: Jim Yanik on 9 Aug 2010 11:55
"tm" <the_obamunist(a)whitehouse.gov> wrote in news:i3nnde$bpi$1(a)adenine.netfront.net: > > "Mark" <makolber(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:f6abed25-a7aa-4940-9367-4c39a9fe913c(a)w30g2000yqw.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 8, 9:21 pm, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...(a)ieee.org> wrote: >> On Aug 8, 8:30 am, John Larkin >> >> >> >> <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> > On 07 Aug 2010 21:35:07 GMT, John Doe <j...(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >> >> > >John Larkin <jjlar...(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: >> >> > >> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >>> "Summary Solar photovoltaic system costs have fallen steadily >> > >>> for decades. They are projected to fall even farther over the >> > >>> next 10 years. Meanwhile, projected costs for construction of >> > >>> new nuclear plants have risen steadily over the last decade, >> > >>> and they continue to rise. In the past year, the lines have >> > >>> crossed in North Carolina. Electricity from new solar >> > >>> installations is now cheaper than electricity from proposed new >> > >>> nuclear plants." >> >> > >> The difference is that the US government subsidizes solar and >> > >> punishes nuclear. Nukes work fine in Japan and France. They >> > >> especially work fine at night. >> >> > >The French have more courage than we do. Ack! >> >> > How humiliating. >> >> > >And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce >> > >the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills >> > >and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to na�ve >> > >people. >> >> > Unfortunately, solar isn't very concentrated. A square meter of >> > full-blast sunlight delivers a couple of hundred watts peak and >> > averages maybe 50. The walls of a natural gas boiler, or nuclear fuel >> > rods, run megawatts per square meter, 24/7. >> >> True but largely irrelevant. The US has lots of desert, and - with the >> advance of global warming - will probably soon have even more. This >> land is useless for anything except solar power generation and super- >> conducting cable means that the power generated there can be used >> pretty much anywhere. can't use the desert;a solar farm would upset the ecology,and the long distance power lines would harm the view. Plus,you need WATER to clean the panels,lots of it. Nuclear is the way to go for electric power generation. Safe,clean,reliable,works 24/7/365. Can be located nearer to population centers. Save the solar panels for where it makes sense; Rural and other areas not easily served by conventional utlities. >> >> Photovoltaic cells are useless at night, but thermal solar can heat up >> loads of molten salt during the day and use it to keep generating >> power overnight. with huge conversion losses. >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Nijmegen > > .It's easy to tell when solar becomes economical... > . > .when the factory that makes solar panels has them on the roof and uses > .them to power itself.. > . > .Mark > > And stays in business. > > tm -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |