This thermal solar project when completed in 2011 it will be the largest solar project in the world, generating 553 megawatts of power for Pacific Gas & Electric in the Mojave Desert in California. The plant is being built by Israeli company, Solel Solar Systems of Beit Shemes, Israel, a successor company to the people that built the nine thermal solar plants in the Mojave Desert, that have operated over the past 20 years and are currently generating 354 MW of electricity.
Thermal solar is currently the lowest cost technology for producing solar power and it is good to see a large project like this get the go ahead.
According to their website Solel is building an $800 million 150 MW project in Spain and has recently upgraded a 100 MW project in California for FPL Energy. They have been active in supplying smaller solar power plants and components for them, but this is the first megaproject that they have landed.
Their current technology is more than 20% more efficient than the original design due to improvements in the design of the solar trough and the receiver tube.
Neither Solel or P G & E have revealed any costs for the project but an AP article on PR Inside estimated that The Mojave Solar Park to cost $2 billion. A NYT article said that people close to both companies put the cost of electricity from the plant at slightly more than 10 cents a kilowatt-hour (The Solel website says "the cost of solar thermal produced energy can be close to 12 cents (US) per k/Wh. However, many economists and investors predict that this price will continuously drop over the next ten years with increased installed capacity, to 6 cents per kW/h, as a result of technological improvements, economies of scale and volume production.")
A few paragraphs from the P G & E press release further describe the project:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company announced July 25 that it has entered into a landmark renewable energy agreement with Solel-MSP-1 to purchase renewable energy from the Mojave Solar Park, to be constructed in California’s Mojave Desert. The project will deliver 553 megawatts of solar power, the equivalent of powering 400,000 homes, to PG&E’s customers in northern and central California. The Mojave Solar Park project is now the world’s largest single solar commitment.
Over the past 20 years, the technology has powered nine operating solar power plants in the Mojave Desert and is currently generating 354 MW of annual electricity. When fully operational in 2011, the Mojave Solar Park plant will cover up to 6,000 acres, or nine square miles in the Mojave Desert. The project will rely on 1.2 million mirrors and 317 miles of vacuum tubing to capture the desert sun’s heat.
Solel Solar Systems of Israel, the world’s largest solar thermal company, is the parent company of Solel-MSP-1 LLC. Solel’s leading technology utilizes parabolic mirrors to concentrate solar energy onto its patented UVAC 2008 solar thermal receivers. The receivers contain a fluid that is heated and circulated, and the heat is released to generate steam. The steam powers a turbine to produce electricity, which can be delivered to a utility’s electric grid. The electricity generated by Mojave Solar Park will use some of the transmission infrastructure originally built for the now dormant coal-fired Mojave Generation Station to deliver the power to PG&E’s customers.
See earlier post for detailed description of how solar troughs operate and browse the Solar-Thermal category for more posts on the subject.
What does the 553 MW mean? Peak output power? Expected average power over the course of a year?
Posted by: DavidJ | July 28, 2007 at 12:24 PM
That should mean 553 MW mean peak output power. Of course, you never know what PG&E really means. They are big on hype and weak data like most California utilities.
Does anyone have links to actual solar trough performance?
Since we had been told Nevada Solar One owned by Acciona Solar Power was operational, I went there just to find they were having problems are were not yet commercial.
I have found performance data for PV relative to published expectations.
Dismal.
Both the solar and wind industry get confused between capacity and actual generation.
Posted by: Kit P | July 28, 2007 at 01:41 PM
I would guess that 553MW is the nominal power (about 80% of harvestable peak), and the annual expected power (capacity factor) is probably 20%. Compare this to wind at 30% CF, and ROR hydro at 50% CF, and dammed hydro at 80% CF.
Posted by: Beek | July 28, 2007 at 01:44 PM
In other words, 553 MW is peak output power (that can be practically harvested), and mean annual energy output for this project is:
553 * 20% * 365 * 24
Posted by: Beek | July 28, 2007 at 01:50 PM
I can confirm that the solar industry 'expects' a 20% CF. If the solar industry has data to support this claim, they are not doing a very good job of communicating it.
Posted by: Kit P | July 28, 2007 at 05:12 PM
I would also like to know what the CF a of generic solar thermal plant is, but think that in reality actual CFs will depend on local variables...sunlight being the most obvious.
The capacity factor of the plant will depend, to some extent, on if the plant is designed to operate with natural gas assist.(i.e. if there were a contractual requirement to be able to deliver a minimum power at any given instant/time)
The CF also depends on the amount of thermal storage designed into the plant.
I think these quantities depend on what kind of power the two sides decide is needed rather than a CF imposed by the limitations of physics.
Posted by: disdaniel | July 29, 2007 at 03:45 PM
I noticed an interesting thing when review renewable energy business plans for California projects. They were connected to a gas pipelines.
A 553 MWe turbine generator set cost the same for solar thermal as it would at a nuke plant. It would make economic sense to keep the equipment producing electricity at night with natural gas.
A coal plant in southwestern Virgina has just been announced that will be fueled by up to 20% biomass.
Posted by: Kit P | July 29, 2007 at 04:46 PM
The problem with these new hybrid coal schemes is that they are not economical on the biomass generation alone. So they are really backdoor schemes to burn cheap and dirty coal.
I hope the public is smart enough to realize this. Two hybrid backdoor coal schemes were stopped in BC.
Posted by: Beek | July 29, 2007 at 05:13 PM
It is interesting how many people are always ready to bash wind and solar projects by fixating on the Capacity Factor. No one announcing a 553 MW Solar Thermal plant or a 200 MW Wind Turbine project is trying to say the plant will operate at a full capacity of those megawatts, that is just how electric power plants are rated. A utility is not "tricked" into signing a PPA only to realize to their dismay, after the project is operating, that it produces at 20% or 30% of the full-rated capacity over a year. Yet, many people continue to dismiss solar and wind projects by fixating on the CF number, as if it somehow represented a flaw in the inherent technology. Indeed, if they focused more on the megawatt-hours of coal or natural gas power displaces by rapidly-developin and environmentally-preferred forms of electricity generation, an entirely different picture is portrayed to the public. It is time to move beyond the CF as some kind of a measuing stick of a technology's "goodness".
Posted by: Jeff Anthony | July 29, 2007 at 05:40 PM
“It is interesting how many people are always ready to bash wind and solar projects by fixating on the Capacity Factor. It is interesting how many people are always ready to bash wind and solar projects by fixating on the Capacity Factor.”
Jeff I don’t think folks are bashing solar and wind projects by trying to understand the economics. I wish these projects would provide better economic data. They probably don’t because it would be very revealing. I’m sure some of the so called green projects are done solely because of being “politically correct” or by government mandate. Both of these reasons basically screw the public into higher rates.
The most economic green power available is of course nuclear. Solar and wind together are but a tiny speck of our energy needs while proven and safe nuclear could make a huge impact. Even with no new plants built in years we enjoy 20% of our electrical power from nuclear. We (USA) keep fighting nuclear and burning coal and gas while the rest of the world marches forward. It is crazy. We green folks need to support nuclear at every opportunity for the good of the nation and the environment. JohnBo
Posted by: JohnBo | July 29, 2007 at 10:50 PM
JohnBo - "The most economic green power available is of course nuclear. Solar and wind together are but a tiny speck of our energy needs while proven and safe nuclear could make a huge impact."
Only if you continue to ignore the safe geological storage of spent nuclear fuel. While it is in dry cask aboveground storage the nuclear industry is just externalising the truly horrendous cost to future generations that will have to deal with the problem.
And of course Iran, who is implementing 'green' nuclear power, will have your full support to press ahead with their nuclear ambitions I am sure.
Nuclear is neither green or clean and people should not be deceived into thinking otherwise by the newly green and heavily subsidised nuclear industry that has not changed one bit.
Posted by: Ender | July 29, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Jeff, the goodness of electricity can be measured in the quality of life which includes not polluting our air and water. Beck use the words dirty coal and he do doubt thinks that putting the word clean in front of solar and wind makes it so.
The most of the environmental impact is in manufacture and construction phase for solar and wind. In the extreme, a renewable energy project with a CF = 0 is all environmental impact and no goodness.
PG&E is mandated into buying solar, so the PPA is based on assumed performance. The reason to bash wind and solar is because it is misrepresented. It is time to more beyond blind claims and look at performance.
Posted by: Kit P | July 29, 2007 at 11:31 PM
KitP - "The reason to bash wind and solar is because it is misrepresented. It is time to more beyond blind claims and look at performance."
How about the wind farms at Esperance in Western Australia. Despite being only 15% of the installed generating capacity they generate 22% of Esperance's electricity demand. This is in part because of the advanced controls built into the gas turbine plant. It can respond to changes in the wind quickly and automatically. A nuclear or coal plant being baseload cannot do this.
http://www.horizonpower.com.au/environment/renewable_energy/wind/wind_nine_mile.html
Posted by: Ender | July 30, 2007 at 12:24 AM
KitP - or this. King Island has the vanadium flow batteries from VRB systems. Sort of a microcosm of what larger systems could be.
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/env/2004/mr26feb04.html
"King Island Showcases Renewable Energy Technology
An innovative renewable energy project launched on remote King Island in Bass Strait today has been welcomed by the Minister for Environment and Heritage, Dr David Kemp.
The $6.85 million King Island Renewable Energy Expansion Project comprises two new 850-kilowatt wind turbines to supplement the existing 750-kilowatt wind farm - an advanced energy storage system to capture wind energy generated by the turbines, and a sophisticated control system to manage the operation of the power system and feed into the island's existing diesel power system.
Speaking at the launch, Dr Kemp said the Australian Government provided a total of $3.24 million in funding for three integrated projects through the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program and the Renewable Energy Commercialisation Program. This contributed almost half of the estimated total cost of the project, with the remainder funded by renewable energy company Hydro Tasmania, and developers of advanced energy storage systems, Pinnacle VRB.
"The expansion project will result in a reduction in diesel consumption of over one million litres per year, reduced air pollution and estimated annual greenhouse gas savings of over 2,700 tonnes. It will also reduce the need to transport diesel to this sensitive and beautiful environment," Dr Kemp said.
"The wind farm expansion significantly increases the wind energy generation on the Island, bringing the total capacity of the wind farm to 2,450 kilowatts, providing approximately 50% of the Island's power for its 1,800 residents from a renewable energy resource."
The new innovations in energy storage and control system technology will significantly increase the percentage of usable wind energy being captured by the wind turbines, as well as managing energy demand and optimising energy efficiency.
"The further development of these technologies is a key factor in making renewable energy more technically viable and commercially competitive," Dr Kemp said.
"This project highlights some of the world-class renewable energy technologies being developed in Australia and is an excellent example of Government and industry working together to jointly tackle climate change. The Australian-developed energy storage technology used in this project has significant export potential for use in remote area power systems, particularly in the Asia Pacific region."
Posted by: Ender | July 30, 2007 at 12:32 AM
The parbolic solar collectors follow the sun from east to west. What I would like to know is if the parabolic geometry of the mirrors can still focus the solar radiation onto the thermal collector tubes when the sun is at different elevations during different times of the year. If not, could a variable mirror-to-collecting tube distance and/or a variable mirror geometry improve efficiency in the colder months of the year?
Posted by: Albert Bezzina | July 30, 2007 at 01:57 AM
Only if you continue to ignore the safe geological storage of spent nuclear fuel. While it is in dry cask aboveground storage the nuclear industry is just externalising the truly horrendous cost to future generations that will have to deal with the problem.
Borrowing money to pay for the burial of spent fuel (or, forgoing a productive investment with money we have on hand) leaves future generations worse off economically than if we just seal the waste in casks and let them handle it.
IF we lived in a world with effecively zero interest rates, your point would be valid -- and nuclear power itself would be far cheaper, since the cost of the plant could be amortized over a much longer period of time. We don't live in such a world, though.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | July 30, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Just for the record, I am a very vocal advocate of renewable energy, also coal, and nuclear power.
I am also a vocal critic of utilities like PG&E. They are much better at providing misleading press releases than providing reliable low cost electricity. If PG&E does what the article claims (produce peak power at 10 cents/kwh) then that will be a good deal for the customers. I also have no problem if the way they do it is with natural gas as I suspect.
Ender, I do not much about wind in Western Australia so I will not comment. Australia is a world leader in exporting coal and uranium. They have also developed some world class biomass gasifcation system that have been imported to the US.
However, Ender is incorrect about nuclear being a reliable source of electricity for remote locations because it can not change power quickly. In fact the US Navy operates more reactors for remote locations than utilities operating commercial base load plants in the US. How fast can they change power? That would be classified!!!
Posted by: Kit P | July 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Albert Bezzina asks "The parbolic solar collectors follow the sun from east to west. What I would like to know is if the parabolic geometry of the mirrors can still focus the solar radiation onto the thermal collector tubes when the sun is at different elevations during different times of the year."
Yes it can and does. There are increasing "edge losses" where some reflected sunlight misses the receiver as the sun dips lower in the winter sky. This loss could easily be eliminated by adding a flat "fold" mirror to fill the north end of the parabolic trough (assuming one is in the northern hemisphere). But that would add extra mirror cost and potentially require a stronger/different frame to compensate for extra wind loading.
Posted by: disdaniel | July 30, 2007 at 03:00 PM
Good point on interest rates Paul. Nuclear would be very cheap indeed with a 1% interest rate (!). Whatever bank the nuclear advocates are getting their money from, sign me up!
But that's not all of it. Assuming one could store highly radioactive nuclear waste for hundreds (or even thousands) of years is very dangerous. Only a government-like entity can provide the security framework (e.g. a monopoly on violence) that is needed for safe long term storage.
To this date, no government has lasted more than roughly two centuries. Clearly, governments aren't stable enough to provide hundreds of years of commitment. Therefore, all highly radioactive materials must be 100% recycled, no compromises, and that is absolutely not possible right now. Going full nuclear now, and waiting for technological advancements to deal with the waste completely, is somewhat like throwing away your old shoes before you've got a new pair. Everyone knows that's stupid.
I believe in giving every technology a chance. It may be inefficient on the short term, but it's the only way to insure the best options remain at the end.
However, I also believe in a level playing field. Nuclear has powerful interest groups, nuclear has received more subsidies than solar, nuclear is difficult to quantify due to various unacceptable negative externalities, or risk of it.
Right now, nuclear has a very nasty legacy. Whatever new energy source is chosen, it must not have a nasty legacy. It must also be economically transparent i.e. quantifiable in terms of $$$ (the former also partly causes the latter btw). When all aspects are considered, nuclear doesn't fulfil these two conditions.
OK back on topic.
Kit P wrote: “It would make economic sense to keep the equipment producing electricity at night with natural gas.”
Not really. Electricity isn’t worth much during the night, when demand is extremely low. Hybridisation is only an intermediate solution. It makes sense from an energy security viewpoint, not from an economical one. Ultimately, hybridisation will be replaced with thermal storage and just a bigger solar field.
According to Sandia:
"Because of their practical energy storage, solar power towers have two features that are particularly desirable for utilities: flexible capacity factors and a high degree of dispatchability.
Power towers can be designed with annual capacity factors up to 60 percent, and as high as 80 percent in summer when the days are longer. This means a power tower can operate at capacity for up to 60 percent of the year without using fossil fuel as a back-up, thus being able to deliver power during most peak demands. Without energy storage, the annual capacity factor of any solar technology is generally limited to about 25 percent. A solar power tower's high capacity factors are achieved by building the solar portion of the plant with extra heliostats so that during daylight, sufficient energy is collected to power the turbine, while extra energy can be put into the thermal storage system. At night or during extended cloudy periods, the turbine is powered with stored thermal energy. The dispatchability of a solar power tower - its ability to deliver electricity on demand - is illustrated above, where three different parameters are plotted against time of day: the intensity of sunlight (insulation), the amount of energy stored in the hot-salt tank, and the output power from the turbine generator. In this example, sunrise on a winter's day is around 7 a.m., and the intensity of sunlight rises quickly to reach its maximum at noon and drops off at sunset around 5 p.m.
The solar plant begins collecting energy shortly after sunrise and stores it in the hot-salt tank - the level of energy in storage increases during daylight hours. The turbine is brought on-line not at sunrise, but when the power is needed, in this example at 11 a.m. The output power of the plant is constant throughout the day, even though there are fluctuations in the intensity of sunlight. After sunset, the turbine continues to operate on energy from the storage tank; note the level of energy in storage declines after sunset. The turbine operates continuously until 9 p.m. using the thermal energy in storage. In the summer when the days are longer, the turbine would be able to operate a larger fraction of each day.
In designing a power tower, the size of the turbine, the fraction of the day it is in operation, and the period when it is operated are completely flexible. The plant's efficient thermal storage system provides dispatchability, and by adjusting the size of the solar field and the size of the storage tanks, the capacity factor can be tailored to meet the specific needs of a utility."
This is about power towers, which may not be the best CSP tech. CLFR may be superiour. I'll get back on that some other time.
Do not be fooled by capacity factors, and certainly do not be fooled by that Kit P critter. It is misleading; CF is measured over time and that’s unfair as the power demand isn’t equal over time. With CSP, the power is always generated during high demand, making it far more useful than, say, wind power. I’m not making this stuff up, you know. Air conditioning needs in California alone are enough to justify building these solar thermal plants, which match those needs almost 1:1. No need for storage.
That said, the potential of thermal storage should not be underestimated. Concrete storage is down to $18.70/kwh of storage capacity . A simple and elegant solution. Compare that to lead-acid, which is far more expensive, is made from less benign chemicals and materials, doesn’t last very long and is less efficient too. There is more work being done right now on concrete storage. Here is a solid example.
Doing a little back on the envelope calculation (actually, Microsoft calculator but that’s even worse) a 12 hour (peak) storage for this project @ 20$/kwh would cost $132,720,000. If the project does cost 2G$ [appears a bit high?] then it’s only an additional 6.6% cost. The concrete would last a long time. Even if it has to be replaced during the lifetime of the plant, then it’s just another 6.6% at most, since the storage is likely to be even cheaper by that time. Off course, the solar field would have to be expanded significantly; but this a can be amortized over all the extra kwh’s generated. Funny enough, this actually decreases the cost/kwh because the entire system runs at a much higher capacity, thus utilising the capital intensive equipment to a higher degree. And, the solar field will come down more in price with the mentioned volume increase and technical advancements.
Posted by: Calamity | July 30, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Kit P comments at July 27, 2007 at 7:11 PM at http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/07/epri-nrdc-repor.html "I also have reliable cheap electricity". I guess that means he's not a PG&E customer. I've been wondering what utility Kit P does use.
I was intrigued by the comment on nuclear submarines being able to change output instantly and found indeed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine " The power plant for the boat was a lead cooled fast reactor. Such reactors have a number of advantages over older types:
Liquid metal cooled reactors can almost instantly adjust their power output, while typical water-cooled reactors require 20 to 30 minutes to reach full output."
Impressive. Somehow I doubt most people would want molten lead in the nuclear reactor up the road from them. I wonder how the molten lead design would increase the cost of the plant. The military is not known for cheap submarines.
Posted by: Clee | July 30, 2007 at 05:02 PM
Some more info on CLFR. Simple, low cost, effective use of land, easy to scale up. While it is a bit too optimistic regarding the economics, and the coal part may be wrong, the overall findings are good. Notice this bit of irony:
”The potential cost advantage gained by low temperature operation derives from an unusual combination of large low cost low temperature turbines developed for the nuclear industry, and an inexpensive storage concept which suits that particular temperature range. Should both options be applicable, then this is likely to be the most cost-effective and simple solar thermal electricity development path, using simple solar collector technology already being installed, and a proven turbine from the nuclear industry.”
Not so sure about that 3$/kwh cavern storage, if it’s BS then 20$ concrete storage would still only add a relatively small amount to the grand total.
More info here. Most reports have medium term LEC of $0.04 to $0.07 per kwh
Posted by: Calamity | July 30, 2007 at 05:10 PM
Kit P - "In fact the US Navy operates more reactors for remote locations than utilities operating commercial base load plants in the US. How fast can they change power? That would be classified!!!"
Yes but the Navy does not have to make a profit. Nuclear submarine reactors are completely different to power plant reactors. Nuclear is expensive enough without trying to make it like a submarine power plant. In one famous incident an inferior grade of piping was used accidently in a nuclear submarine. Rickover made the contractors remove every single last meter of the piping and replace it and we are talking here about kilometers of pipes. Could you see this happening at a commercial nuke plant? I don't think so.
Posted by: Ender | July 30, 2007 at 05:39 PM
Calamity, thanks for the excellent reference on solar thermal. Before belittling someone about CF you should read and understand your reference that uses that term about a million times.
Since solar thermal uses a conventional reheat steam Rankine cycle turbine-generator plant what does adding natural gas provide:
“With gas assist, as at the operating plants at Kramer Junction, the solar plant outage falls to zero.”
The other important interesting point is that California also has a winter peak. Adding natural gas improves the economics of another wise ROFLOL economic picture.
Interesting also, “The heat transfer fluid (HTF) for a parabolic trough solar field is typically a diphenyl/biphenyl oxide.” Just call the HAZMAT team after a spill.
Posted by: Kit P | July 30, 2007 at 10:16 PM
"Adding natural gas improves the economics of another wise ROFLOL economic picture."
Like I said, ultimately it will make more sense to replace gas firing with thermal storage plus a bigger solar field. Natural gas is already expensive now, and is therefore mainly used for peaking @ high rates. Natural gas will go up in price even more in the future. Generating with natural gas at night will be more and more expensive in the future. OTOH, the solar field and thermal storage will come down in price.
It may still make sense to keep the hybridisation equipment in the future, in case of emergency conditions (e.g. bad weather for longer periods). Biogas could also be used for this purpose. But ultimately, it may just be rudimentary most of the time.
"Interesting also, “The heat transfer fluid (HTF) for a parabolic trough solar field is typically a diphenyl/biphenyl oxide.” Just call the HAZMAT team after a spill."
CLFR can just use steam directly, no secondary heating fluid required. That's simpler and cheaper (e.g. no heat exchangers needed and no heating fluid replacement needed). The receiver is also fixed; that means no expensive moving pressure couplings etc. and less maintenance. The CLFR is so simple, it can be run with just one laptop computer!
Posted by: Calamity | July 31, 2007 at 08:37 AM
Electric Cars: CNN has a nice story about the Think City electric car. Nothing earth shaking, but they have some interesting ideas about producing and marketing it.
Posted by: Tim | July 31, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Like I said, ultimately it will make more sense to replace gas firing with thermal storage plus a bigger solar field.
Alternately, if natural gas prices stay up the entire concept will become uncompetitive.
Burning natural gas to intermittently run steam turbines is dubious anyway -- it's less efficient than combustion turbines or (especially) combined cycle units.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | July 31, 2007 at 04:24 PM
My dislike for PG&E was old school. They did a bad job of making electricity and treated customers like trash. Whenever, I lost power they has some feeble excuse but would get around to restoring it. I worked for a neighboring utility and they were not any better.
So I looked up how JD Powers rated the first utility that I worked with out of the navy. This utility is number one in customer satisfaction for the 10th time in a row in their market. This utility does it the old school way, they treat their customers like they are their neighbors and provide low cost reliable electricity. This utility has it share of MBA, but they started out as plant engineers.
PG&E may be doing a better job at marketing but something make me think they hired the new guy to make a profit.
If you are interested in the factors going into evaluating the environmental impact read this:
Life-Cycle Energy Balance and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Energy in Australia
http://www.pmc.gov.au/umpner/docs/commissioned/ISA_report.pdf
Posted by: Kit P | July 31, 2007 at 07:03 PM
Kit P's pdf says "The energy payback time of nuclear energy is around 61⁄2 years for light water reactors, and 7 years for heavy water reactors, ranging within 5.6-14.1 years, and 6.4-12.4 years, respectively. "
You know, I really didn't expect the energy payback time to be twice as long for nuclear compared with PV. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf I was under the impression that nuclear payback was quicker than 5 years. Maybe I was reading too much nuclear propaganda.
Posted by: Clee | August 01, 2007 at 04:33 AM
Burning natural gas to intermittently run steam turbines is dubious anyway -- it's less efficient than combustion turbines or (especially) combined cycle units.
You may be right about that Paul. Off course, a dedicated combined cycle turbine is going to add quite a bit of capital costs. Might as well build an IGCC plant then? All this dependence on imported natural gas can't be good...
Posted by: Calamity | August 01, 2007 at 04:39 AM
Maybe I was reading too much nuclear propaganda.
KitP was being overly pessimistic there. The energy payback time for nuclear is much shorter than that, less than a year at full power. Maybe his payback time included the initial construction period where the reactor isn't operating?
The overall energy input to nuclear is dominated by enrichment cost, but if centrifuges are used the reactor returns sbout 50 times its energy input over a 40 year lifetime.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip57.htm
Posted by: Paul Dietz | August 01, 2007 at 11:19 AM
“You know, I really didn't expect the energy payback time to be twice as long for nuclear compared with PV.”
Well Clee, I suppose it depends on whose propaganda you believe. Let me ask you what the payback for solar when it 30 below in the middle of the night. I just love it when some people in Vermont want to close down their nuke plant because there is so much solar potential in California.
Looking at the pdf that Calamity provided and the LCA I provided, i could come up with some good energy and environmental solutions for California. A hybrid solar in the high desert could be a good choice for peaking power while a nuke closer to the load in Fresno ( http://www.powerforcalifornia.com/ ) would be a good choice for base load power.
A 1600 MWe plant designed for 60 years with design life and a 95% capacity factor, aircraft crash protection, using modern separation technology would have a longer energy payback period than PV but be an order of magnitude lower in ghg emissions.
The reason for longer energy payback period is the initial investment in concrete. This would also be true for a hybrid solar thermal if concrete was used.
When looking at both renewable energy and nuclear, both require large investments in material to build them. Increasing CF is the key to impoving economic and environmental performance.
Posted by: Kit P | August 01, 2007 at 11:24 AM
I understand its been 34 years since the last nuclear power plant has been built in the US
(although the industry still receives yearly $13billion US in funding and tax credits)
The 78 or so active plants in the US were estimated to cost $45 billion, but ended up costing $175 billion (almost 4times the estimate) As for being co2 free, the mining, processing/transportation of Uranium as well as the storage & facilities required afterwards are not exactly ghg free..
Posted by: petr | August 01, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Kit P writes "Let me ask you what the payback for solar when it 30 below in the middle of the night. . I just love it when some people in Vermont want to close down their nuke plant because there is so much solar potential in California."
My friend in Colorado loves how the low temperatures increases the efficiency of his PV system. As to Vermont, they get half the solar insolation as the US average, and as the average solar insolation was used to determine the PV payback time, then it would take 6 years in Vermont, which would put it on par with your nuclear payback time numbers.
Petr, I think the 34 years is how long since a new nuclear plant was ordered. The Diablo Canyon plant in California went into commercial operation in 1985 after 11 years of construction and delays.
Posted by: Clee | August 01, 2007 at 02:04 PM
As for being co2 free, the mining, processing/transportation of Uranium as well as the storage & facilities required afterwards are not exactly ghg free..
They are, however, competitive with the 'renewable' alternatives in GHG emission, per unit of produced power, particularly if one doesn't make silly assumptions such as that enrichment must be by diffusion powered by coal-burning powerplants.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | August 01, 2007 at 02:05 PM
Petr, I think the 34 years is how long since a new nuclear plant was ordered.
You're wrong, even if you limit yourself to the US. TXU, a Texas utility, ordered two new Mitsubishi 1.7 GW LWRs just last March.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | August 01, 2007 at 02:10 PM
Kit P wrote:
A hybrid solar in the high desert could be a good choice for peaking power while a nuke closer to the load in Fresno ( http://www.powerforcalifornia.com/ ) would be a good choice for base load power.
An even better option would be:
1. Pure solar CLFR + bigger solar field (costs relatively little extra since hybridisation equipment and NG fuel costs are avoided) + 12h thermal storage (also costs relatively little extra).
2. IGCC (or underground gasification where possible) for baseload, maybe with CHP. Recent advances in gasifiers et al have made IGCC a much more realistic option. Less costly than nuclear, and not all that much more polluting than CCGT (except for some more CO2).
In time, the balance could shift towards mostly solar. More storage, more CLFR (or whatever solar thermal technology is most cost-effective). Keep the IGCC plants for emergency situations? Maybe fired with gasified biomass? Just some thoughts.
Posted by: Calamity | August 01, 2007 at 03:10 PM
They are, however, competitive with the 'renewable' alternatives in GHG emission, per unit of produced power, particularly if one doesn't make silly assumptions such as that enrichment must be by diffusion powered by coal-burning powerplants.
Are you sure about that?
Posted by: Calamity | August 01, 2007 at 03:34 PM
Are you sure about that?
The link you put there does not appear to contain any data to support an argument contradicting my assertion. Are you trolling?
Posted by: Paul Dietz | August 01, 2007 at 03:43 PM
Trolling? Now why on earth would I do such a horrible thing? Maybe you’ve got me mixed up with someone else on this blog.
Alright, a better source would be this one which mentions 4 tonnes/gwh CO2 emissions for solar thermal.
another holds it at 3 tonnes/gwh for solar thermal and boiling water reactors at 8 tonnes/gwh, of which 2 for fuel extraction, 1 for construction and 5 for operation.
From this research:
Studies of the lifecycle carbon emissions from nuclear generation suggest that emissions can be between 6gCO2/KWh (grams of carbon dioxide per kilowatt hour) and 26gCO2/KWh69. This spread reflects the different assumptions and
approaches adopted in analysing carbon outputs, for example there are different estimates of how much electricity is used in the enrichment process and the proportion of that electricity which is generated from low carbon sources.
That’s between 6 tonnes/gwh and 26 tonnes/gwh. Depending on design, enrichment method (you’re right off course, centrifuges are far more efficient) and probably some optimistic guesstimating, NP would be as low as 3 tonnes/gwh. You’d need those extremely optimistic scenarios for nuclear to get the same lifetime emissions as solar thermal.
However, the research does state that
We can expect carbon emissions from nuclear power to fall further as new reactor technologies lead to more efficient power stations with fewer components, with the ability to extract more energy from their fuel [note # ]73. Carbon emissions will also decline as we switch to generating technologies that produce less carbon, so that the electricity used in fuel enrichment and construction of power stations, for example, is itself generated in a way that produces less carbon.
I’d reckon that also applies to solar thermal, so that’s not necessarily a strong argument.
The Government believes that, based on the significant evidence available, the lifecycle carbon emissions from nuclear power stations are about the same as wind generated electricity with significantly lower carbon emissions
than fossil fuel fired generation. As an illustration, if our existing nuclear power stations were all replaced with fossil fuel fired power stations, our emissions would be between 8 and 16MtC (million tonnes of carbon) a year
higher as a result (depending on the mix of gas and coal-fired power stations). This would be equivalent to about 30-60% of the total carbon savings we project to achieve under our central scenario from all the measures we are
bringing forward in the Energy White Paper. Therefore, the Government believes that new nuclear power stations could make a significant contribution to tackling climate change. We recognise that nuclear power alone cannot tackle climate change, but these figures show that it could make an important contribution as part of a balanced energy policy.
The same as wind, maybe. But wind is a limited solution (serious intermittency issues, no cheap storage), solar thermal isn’t and has much lower lifecycle emissions than wind.
When you consider that solar thermal has virtually no waste disposal issues (materials can be recycled with relatively little energy input), almost no NIMBY or even BANANA responses, doesn’t require an unrealistically low interest rate to be even remotely economically viable, can be built a bit faster than nuclear plants, has that “green” image, no dirty-bomb threats, no fission weapon threats, no incentive for international conflict, in fact no catastrophe risks at all, potential for 100% privatization, and requires less strict regulation and red tape, one could wonder why we’re quarrelling about CO2 emissions!
Posted by: Calamity | August 01, 2007 at 05:54 PM
Question: Which continent has the most solar power potential?
Answer: Antarctica!
Posted by: Calamity | August 01, 2007 at 06:00 PM
More PDFs about CLFR:
Performance and generating costs
and
A project proposal
Posted by: Calamity | August 02, 2007 at 09:26 AM
That site has more good stuff:
Overview
Modelling
General
More on Stanwell project and (future) cost estimates
Getting saturated already?
Posted by: Calamity | August 02, 2007 at 09:48 AM
You’d need those extremely optimistic scenarios for nuclear to get the same lifetime emissions as solar thermal.
The difference is negligible, compared to the sources they're replacing. So I don't consider your information to contradict the point I was making.
But wind is a limited solution (serious intermittency issues, no cheap storage), solar thermal isn’t and has much lower lifecycle emissions than wind.
Of course solar thermal is limited. In particular, it doesn't work well in non-arid regions with significant cloudiness, since concentrators need direct sunlight. Nor does it work well in winter, particularly at high latitude.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | August 02, 2007 at 11:30 AM
Does anyone know of project proposals to use solar thermal (CLFR seems suitable) for industrial heating needs, e.g. ethanol conversion, pyrolysis of biomass, cement kilns, etc.? The ethanol conversion process needs a huge amount of steam energy-- on the same order of magnitude as the heat value of the ethanol. For switchgrass ethanol, almost all the energy input is in the conversion. I'm not sure how the economics works out for solar-thermal area requirements or having operation only during the middle of the day.
I came across this: Currently most corn processing plants generate both electrical and thermal energy from burning coal. Doh!
Posted by: Carl Hage | August 02, 2007 at 01:48 PM
The Spanish solar thermal plant mention in this post has a quoted price tag of nearly $6000/kW and a $0.30/kWh price for delivered electricity (see this link:http://www.solel.com/files/press-pr/sacyr_nov-7-2006.pdf) This cost is lot higher than $0.12/kWh. Does anyone have an idea why this project is so expensive?
Posted by: Roger Brown | August 02, 2007 at 03:17 PM
The difference is negligible, compared to the sources they're replacing. So I don't consider your information to contradict the point I was making.
Yes the first part is obvious but the point you were making was
They are, however, competitive with the 'renewable' alternatives in GHG emission, per unit of produced power
That means you were comparing ‘renewable’ vs. nuclear. It’s likely that the lifecycle CO2 emissions per unit of produced power of nuclear are at least twice that of solar thermal. 100% more is misleading because as you say in absolute terms it doesn’t matter much, but strictly speaking you were not comparing to the sources they would be replacing. Relativity is a ghoul isn’t it? But this is nitpicking, sorry, your point is valid.
Of course solar thermal is limited.
Speaking of relativity, Albert Einstein once said: "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe."
But did I say solar thermal is unlimited?
No, I said wind is a limited solution, implying that solar thermal has enough potential to cover 100% of electricity needs, even in the winter. That’s not going to happen, we’ll have both wind and solar for the foreseeable future (and a whole bunch of other alternatives for that matter). But solar thermal’s energy potential itself is not a limiting factor. Right now it’s mostly just financing and economics. As for high latitudes, don’t build solar thermal plants there! Just as one should not build windmills in an area with little wind, duh. However there’s plenty of space in the desert and there is plenty of desert in most parts of the world. Even if only the best locations are used that’s 7000 gigawatts peak in the USA alone, leaving plenty of extra capacity for storage. China, India, Australia, South Africa and South America also have more than enough favourable areas, leaving room for storage to achieve a high capacity factor. I’m sure you’re familiar with TREC et al for Europe, North Africa and the Arabian countries. That’s the brunt of the electricity use in the world.
I'd like to get your opinion on the hot water storage concept for CLFRs. Just a big insulated pressure tank or the proposed cavern (geological) storage. That way, the H2O could be stored directly, no heat exchanger required. When steam is needed, the valve could simply be opened, lowering the pressure thus vaporising the water. Do you think that would be more cost effective than concrete/molten salts?
Posted by: Calamity | August 02, 2007 at 04:44 PM
Roger, don't know about the high cost/kw (maybe plant size, red tape, older tech, high land cost etc) but the high cost/kwh could be partly explained by a lower direct radiation. Check out the map above under "antarctica". Looks like about 1500 kwh/sq meter. The SW USA appears to have nearly 2x that.
Posted by: Calamity | August 02, 2007 at 06:24 PM
Technofossil, this solar thermal technology is well suited for industrial heating and refrigeration.
Using waste heat from a nuke plant: Idaho Energy Complex
http://www.idahoenergycomplex.com/
“Furthermore, IEC will use the plant’s excess heat from nuclear generation to produce biofuels like ethanol, thereby further reducing cooling requirements and giving local farmers a market for their crops and agricultural waste.”
Posted by: Kit P | August 02, 2007 at 08:54 PM
Calamity,
Thanks for the reply. The plant is in Spain, however, not Antarctica. The insolation map I found shows a ratio of 5.5 to 3.5 which takes $0.12/kWh to $0.19/kWh. Since the announcement for this plant was in November of last year, and it is going to be build by the same company that is building the new California plant I have trouble believing that obsolete technology explains the rest of the cost differential.
Posted by: Roger Brown | August 02, 2007 at 10:49 PM
The plant is in Spain, however, not Antarctica
Hehehe, that's not what I meant of course; the link was named "Antarctica".
Spain is not the best site for a solar thermal plant. It's not too bad, but sometimes it's too cloudy. But if they put it in the Sahara desert they'll have to construct expensive HVDC lines and there's security issues too.
Maybe there are significant R&D costs integrated in the total price. The smaller size (3x50 MWp) might also be a factor. Solel is not the only company involved in the Spain project btw so that can also affect price. Another possibility is a large euro/dollar currency difference? Just guessing, couldn’t find any breakdown of the costs for the project.
Posted by: Calamity | August 03, 2007 at 05:53 AM