Solar cheaper than nuclear
in [Design]
|
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2010 22:11 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. There's lots of natural gas, and it's mostly hydrogen. http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB125193815050081615.html http://www.getsolar.com/blog/spains-solar-subsidies-on-the-chopping-block/10145/ http://www.fastcompany.com/1676909/spains-famous-solar-subsidies-are-gutted-by-government John
From: dagmargoodboat on 7 Aug 2010 22:18 On Aug 7, 6:30 pm, 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 naïve > >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. 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. James
From: Nobody on 7 Aug 2010 22:25 On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 01:06:22 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote: >> 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. > > OTOH sunlight is free and deserts aren't actually doing much at present. OTOH, the plant to extract the energy isn't free, and I daresay there's some maintenance costs. On the upside, most of the figures are predictable. Sunlight doesn't have to be imported from potentially volatile regions, there won't be any "peak sunlight" issues or spikes in the price of sunlight futures. And there isn't much in the way of hazardous waste. While nuclear has a good track record regarding the actual running of plants (even including Chernobyl; if you discount that one case, it's a very good record), its track record regarding waste handling leaves a lot to be desired. Nuclear gets a de facto subsidy in that long-term waste disposal issues get swept under the carpet (or off the balance sheet). Either the government will accept whatever "solutions" happen to be economically tolerable, or the company will just go bankrupt (long after the dividends have been paid out) and leave the public to foot the bill.
From: John Larkin on 7 Aug 2010 22:42 On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 19:18:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com wrote: >On Aug 7, 6:30�pm, 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. > >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. > >James I was assuming a 20% efficient solar panel. The thinfilms are about half that. I wonder about longterm prospects too; degradation of the cells, wind and water damage, structure corrosion. I see solar panels around here on peoples' roofs, heavily subsidized by the city. What happens when the roof leaks; I guess the panels have to be removed and reinstalled. I wonder what the MTBF of the cables and power inverters will be like longterm. John
From: tm on 7 Aug 2010 23:33
"John Larkin" <jjlarkin(a)highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in message news:p46s561ui5ahpnac9glc46teqtgdb3da3k(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 19:18:50 -0700 (PDT), dagmargoodboat(a)yahoo.com > wrote: > >>On Aug 7, 6:30 pm, 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. >> >>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. >> >>James > > I was assuming a 20% efficient solar panel. The thinfilms are about > half that. > > I wonder about longterm prospects too; degradation of the cells, wind > and water damage, structure corrosion. I see solar panels around here > on peoples' roofs, heavily subsidized by the city. What happens when > the roof leaks; I guess the panels have to be removed and reinstalled. > I wonder what the MTBF of the cables and power inverters will be like > longterm. > > John > The panels should shield the roof from sun and perhaps extend the life of the roof. Might be a benefit. Tm --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |