Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 08:29 On 08/08/2010 12:22, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, 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. >> > > If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line > it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the > sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. > > Sylvia. > > Interesting argument - "solar is not competitive because it makes nuclear too expensive" -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: krw on 8 Aug 2010 08:59 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:24:09 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(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.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. 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.
From: Paul Keinanen on 8 Aug 2010 09:00 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:19:29 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >On 8/08/2010 9:45 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: >> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:22:46 +1000, Sylvia Else >> <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, 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. >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line >>> it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the >>> sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. >> >> The cost of an unused facility depends only on the interest rate. >> >> If some active solar energy storage is used, it will also have various >> operational costs, such as energy loss costs, personnel costs and >> replacement part costs. >> > >The interest is not insignificant. The interest rate depends on the inflation, so the real question is the bank margins. >There are personnel costs even when the plant is not running, because >the people required to operate it are not available from a pool of >people who are otherwise unemployed. They will have to be paid enough to >make it worth their while to keep themselves available. Peak power gas turbines and small hydroelectric plants are remote controlled anyway, so personnel is required only for maintenance. Solar energy systems are not rocket science, so it would not be too hard to train people working with gas turbine or hydroelectric power plants to also maintain solar power stations. If there has been a heavy demand for backup power and the backup power systems need maintenance, just transfer the qualified people back to their original jobs.
From: Sylvia Else on 8 Aug 2010 09:06 On 8/08/2010 11:00 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 22:19:29 +1000, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >> On 8/08/2010 9:45 PM, Paul Keinanen wrote: >>> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 21:22:46 +1000, Sylvia Else >>> <sylvia(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/08/2010 6:18 PM, 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. > > >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If the discussion is about economics (and judging from the subject line >>>> it is), then the cost of having that other plant sitting idle when the >>>> sun is shining has to be included as part of the cost of solar. >>> >>> The cost of an unused facility depends only on the interest rate. >>> >>> If some active solar energy storage is used, it will also have various >>> operational costs, such as energy loss costs, personnel costs and >>> replacement part costs. >>> >> >> The interest is not insignificant. > > The interest rate depends on the inflation, so the real question is > the bank margins. It's still a real cost that has to be taken into account. Sylvia.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 8 Aug 2010 09:06
On 08/08/2010 13:59, krw(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote: > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 11:24:09 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax > <dirk.bruere(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.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. > > 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. As for solar, that's starting to hit the steep slope of the exponential. 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. Given that nanosolar can produce panels at 70c per Watt I think we can see that the price will fall by at least by factor of 3 quite rapidly from its current $2.50 per Watt as capacity ramps up. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show |