Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 03:56 On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 19:18:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Sun has a bit more zip than that. About 1kW/m^2, peak, and about >5kWHr/m^2 in a day in most of the US. Unless you meant electrical >output--that should be about 0.13 * 5kWHr/m^2 = 650WHr a day /m^2. So >that's what, six or seven cents' worth of juice? Yum. That assumes no clouds, with clouds it is even less.
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 04:18 On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin <jjlarkin(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.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 06:24 On 08/08/2010 03:11, John Larkin wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:12:58 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 07/08/2010 23:34, John Larkin wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:16:03 +0300, Paul Keinanen<keinanen(a)sci.fi> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 21:45:48 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax >>>> <dirk.bruere(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-on-solar-power-in-spain >>> >>> >>> 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. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 06:25 On 08/08/2010 09:18, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 19:11:20 -0700, John Larkin > <jjlarkin(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. > Since the costs of raw PV panels are heading for zero it could be very cheap indeed. There is also a lot of work being done on turning water and CO2 back into hydrocarbons. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Spehro Pefhany on 8 Aug 2010 07:13
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 23:16:34 -0500, the renowned Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: > >> > >20 years later,you'll be replacing all your solar panels,or the output will >have dropped so far your efficiency figures are in the dump,no longer >valid,while the nuclear plant will still be producing full power. Silly. Nuclear plants have operating and maintenance costs of the same order as the amortized capital costs. Best regards, Spehro Pefhany -- "it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com |