Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: John Doe on 7 Aug 2010 17:35 John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > 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 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! 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.
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2010 18:02 On 07/08/2010 22:35, John Doe wrote: > John Larkin<jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> 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 difference is that the US government subsidizes solar and >> punishes nuclear. Nukes work fine in Japan and France. They >> especially work fine at night. Of course, nuclear has never received subsidies... > The French have more courage than we do. Ack! > > 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. Lots of desert and windmills do not make farmland unusable. -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: Paul Keinanen on 7 Aug 2010 18:16 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 :-).
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 7 Aug 2010 18:18 On 07/08/2010 23:16, Paul Keinanen 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 :-). > Your nuclear costs are a bit low. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_new_nuclear_power_plants "February 2008 � For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW." -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2010 18:30
On 07 Aug 2010 21:35:07 GMT, John Doe <jdoe(a)usenetlove.invalid> wrote: >John Larkin <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote: > >> 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 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. John |