Does anyone know why no concentrated solar power plants are being developed in North Carolina Like trough, solar tower, etc. They are obviously better suited for the deserts in the southwest but is there any reason north carolina couldn't have them too.

map
http://www.eere.energy.gov/states/alternatives/csp.cfm

8/2/2007 11:27:52 AM

Quote :

"For instance, enough electric power for the entire country could be generated by covering about 9% of Nevada — a plot of land 100 miles on a side — with parabolic trough systems."

That's awesome, and they're speaking in regard to current efficiency ratings.

Quote :

"Future advances and cost reductions resulting from deployment are expected to allow solar power to be generated for $0.05-$0.06 per kWh in the next few decades."

Woohoo!

[Edited on August 2, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ..]

8/2/2007 12:44:41 PM

Yeah, now we just gotta distribute it

8/3/2007 8:01:55 PM

<3 Sun

8/3/2007 8:05:15 PM

so then what happens at night?

that is why nuclear will always be superior

8/3/2007 8:13:04 PM

none of this stuff works on a large scale

8/3/2007 8:35:39 PM

Quote :

"so then what happens at night? that is why nuclear will always be superior"

At least less power is used at night

8/3/2007 8:41:58 PM

Nuclear cost per kW is like 8 cents. Significantly cheaper than these solar alternatives.

Not to mention, a BIG solar array can carry 100-200 MW. The biggest wind-farm in the US pushed 700 MW.

The average US Nuclear Plant (keep in mind, built in the 60's, and most running two towers), puts out 1800-2200 MW. That's an absolutely ridiculous difference in scale. New plants being built can reach 1500-1600 MW per tower.

8/3/2007 9:04:45 PM

^
When you say solar array you dont mean concentrated solar correct?

8/5/2007 11:26:32 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, now we just gotta distribute it"

i hear copper is pretty cheap these days
er wait.... didn't i just sell 6' of scrap 1' cable for a pretty hefty sum?

8/5/2007 11:37:51 AM

Quote :

"so then what happens at night?"

The energy (heat) is temporarily stored and can be used at night as well as on cloudy days.

Also, some of the plants have a secondary source. So when the energy produced by the sun is no longer available they can temporarily switch to whatever source they have as a back up

[Edited on August 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM. Reason : .]

8/5/2007 12:29:32 PM

Quote :

"When you say solar array you dont mean concentrated solar correct?"

From what I've seen, the largest concentrated solar arrays even being proposed are on the 125MW scale. Not very big.

The whole at night thing isn't really as big of an issue as people think.

8/5/2007 1:20:01 PM

^yeah but have you guys looked into the cost of nuclear vs solar?

The new australian solar power plant will cost around 57$ million (US) and produce 154 MW of energy.

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415

A nuclear power plant today may cost between 1.7 to 5 billion to construct and produce up to 1,335 MW (largest in US in Arizona).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004790.html

All these power plants built in the 80's were between 1-5 billion$.

So the power output isn't that much different compared to the very large price difference between a solar and nuclear plant.

^oh and in regard to the night thing, newer solar tower designs can produce power at night from the thermal energy stored in the molten salts they are on top of.

So from the little research i just did on cost, it appears solar arrays are MUCH cheaper than nuclear and have a much better price/output index. I also talked to my buddy who works at Duke energy and he was saying how much money it costs to keep nuclear power plants operational. A solar array on the otherhand requires much less in terms of operating cost.

Quote :

"The average US Nuclear Plant (keep in mind, built in the 60's, and most running two towers), puts out 1800-2200 MW. That's an absolutely ridiculous difference in scale. New plants being built can reach 1500-1600 MW per tower."

Actually most built in the 60's only output 200-300 MW. It wasn't until the mid 70's that plants started producing over 1000MWs of power.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004790.html

http://www.uic.com.au/nip58.htm (dated July 2007)

From what i can find the largest US nuclear plant only produces 1335 MW, not 2200MW, but maybe i just didn't look hard enough. So it appears solar arrays are much cheaper to build, cheaper to maintain, and have a much better price/output index than nuclear power plants.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 9:34:38 AM

^That's PER reactor.

Almost every Nuclear plant in the US has two reactors, each rated between 800-1400 MW, that's where you are getting your number from.

Which is what makes your numbers wrong. That 5 billion builds twin or triple reactors, which generate a ton of consistent, weather independent power.

Also, Nuclear plants are expensive because of propoganda based security policies, they can be made with the same safety level for a fraction of the cost. Just happens that ignorant people belief other ignorant people who always think mushroom cloud when it comes to nuclear energy.


I'm a HUGE proponent of solar technologies, especially commercially, but the reality is that we NEED baseline power to replace coal, and you can only really install large, efficient solar arrays in arid areas, which are basically only in the western parts of the US.

8/6/2007 9:57:00 AM

Quote :

"^yeah but have you guys looked into the cost of nuclear vs solar? The new australian solar power plant will cost around 57$ million (US) and produce 154 MW of energy. http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=46415"

You need to read a little bit more critically next time, to avoid making an ass out of yourself.

From your link:

Quote :

"n the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, the Australian Government has made a significant change in its energy policy by announcing it will contribute AUS$ 75 million [US$ 57 million] towards the building of the world's largest solar energy plant as part of its recently unveiled renewable energy package."

So, $57 million is not the cost of this plant. Let's keep reading

Quote :

"The 154 megawatt solar power station -- to be built as a private/public partnership in the southern state of Victoria -- is the first component of a total AUS$ 125 million [US$ 96.7 million] Government package to clean carbon emissions on two projects in Victoria."

So, it is public and private, with the public contribution being $96.7 mill total. That means the cost is still higher.

If I do a little bit of googling and link clicking, I finally land here

http://www.solarsystems.com.au/154MWVictorianProject.html

Quote :

" A $420 million large-scale solar power plant – the biggest and most efficient solar photovoltaic power station in the world - is to be built in north-west Victoria. "

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 9:59 AM. Reason : *]

8/6/2007 9:57:38 AM

^which makes it more expensive than existing Nuclear plants, not to mention drastically more expensive than any new reactors that could be built to compete with it.

8/6/2007 9:58:53 AM

^ok i messed up the cost. 420$ million. But what am i missing here? 420$ million for 154MW, but still 1-5 billion for 2200MW (2-3 towers). If you do the math isn't solar still cheaper? Plus that doesn't even take into effect the operating cost which is much much more for nuclear.

I mean they'd be around the same price right? For the power output? Then you'd have to take into effect operating costs and such.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ..]

8/6/2007 10:04:33 AM

if by cheaper you are just looking at the total cost and not cost per MW output..

the solar is about ~1 million dollars per MW more than your average nuclear.

edit:

running actual numbers, an 'average' nuclear plant costing 2.5 billion for about 2000MW of power will cost about 1million dollars less per MW than that solar, and even on the high end say spending 5billion for 2000MW, its still about 500,000 dollars per MW cheaper to go with nuclear

this is just install not operating of course

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:08 AM. Reason : ]

8/6/2007 10:05:12 AM

^alright i see it now. I'm still assuming solar would be much cheaper to operate, but that's just a guess because of the crazy security for nuclear.

http://news.com.com/Shrinking+the+cost+for+solar+power/2100-11392_3-6182947.html

I guess solar arrays take up a bunch of land too.

Quote :

"the 354-megawatt plant in California occupies 1,000 acres."

http://www.chiefengineer.org/content/content_display.cfm/seqnumber_content/2594.htm

Quote :

"The Saguaro Station power plant was built by Solargenix, a solar energy development company based in Raleigh, NC, and a subsidiary of ACCIONA Energy of Spain, a world leading company devoted to renewables. The plant is operated by APS, Arizona's largest and longest-serving electric utility, based in Phoenix, AZ."

That's pretty neat. Company based in Raleigh.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 10:13:11 AM

^operating cost is effectively the same, because the government subsidizes a lot of it's mandatory regulations for security and oversight. It might be slightly higher, but I doubt by much.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is the difference between peak output and MWh output. Because Nuclear can run 24/7, while solar can only generate power up to 18 hours a day. From that alone, nuclear trumps solar with another 30-50% higher actual energy output.

8/6/2007 10:24:12 AM

^Yeah, maybe by 2020 it'll be competitive like that article ^^ mentioned i linked to.

http://www.seasolarpower.com/otec.html

That seems like a cool idea. Using the water as a solar/heat collector.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 10:26:03 AM

look guys we've all played simcity

nuclear always wins

8/6/2007 10:26:53 AM

^^now there's a project that's going to have insane upkeep costs.

Actually though, the Wind powered ocean floatilla's are pretty cool, and cheap.

^Brian comes in FTW

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:27 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 10:27:40 AM

Quote :

"Concentrating solar power technologies currently offer the lowest-cost solar electricity for large-scale power generation (10 MW-electric and above). Current technologies cost $3-$3.50 per watt. This results in a cost of solar power of $0.11-0.12 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in real 2004 dollars. New innovative hybrid systems that combine large concentrating solar power plants with conventional natural gas combined cycle or coal plants can reduce costs to $1.5 per watt and drive the cost of solar power to below $0.08 per kWh."

Accoriding to this article nuclear is around 11.1 - 14.5 Cents/kW-h-->

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Cents_Per_Kilowatt-Hour

Isn't it lower than that? (i believe this link takes into account waste removable, etc.)

It mentions current solar at 15 - 30 Cents/kw-h but says it's "expected" to drop down to 3.5 Cents/kw-h. While the article of this thread estimates 6-8 Cents/kw-h.

Another cool link:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 10:45:03 AM

im expecting to be a millionaire any day now too.

the reality is far different from down the road. They neglect to account for what NEW nuclear reactors with reprocessors would cost. Which, btw, is one of the reasons we have such a problem with waste in this country, along with the retarded fact they won't let the plants ship it to Yucca mountain for reprocess or disposal.

Nuclear can already be down in the 6-8 cent range with current technology, if we built new plants.

8/6/2007 10:59:07 AM

Yeah i have nothing against nuclear, but if someone says they expect solar to go down to 3.5 cents/kw-h I think that's pretty cool.

^yeah can't reprocessors recycle most of the nuclear waste anyway to be used again? But most current nuclear plants just don't utilize the technology?

8/6/2007 11:02:19 AM

They aren't allowed to under current US law. All waste has to be disposed of, because of the cold war fear that reprocessing plants could leak material to the commies, or be a target of attack.

A NEW plant produces about a marble of unusable waste per year. 1 marble.

8/6/2007 11:05:20 AM

According to the NRDC, solar will be cheaper than nuclear. They break down the cost of solar vs nuclear. They say you have a 2.9 billion dollar budget you would either spend on a 3,000-4,500MW nuclear plant with a 25-40 year payback OR you could spend it on a 3,000MW solar array with a 5-10 year payback. It seems everyone thinks they would cost too much and require to many subsidies compared with other forms of energy.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf

They say existing plants can compete with other forms of energy, but building new plants would be extrememly expensive. So if the NRDC says a solar array is cheaper, with a cheaper payback period, then what's the deal? Is it just differing opinions?

8/6/2007 11:16:12 AM

that's like linking to green peace talking about how cattle farms arent profitable and so everyone should stop eating meat

8/6/2007 11:24:00 AM

Ah i see. Greenpeace is silly. But despite the source, it seems everywhere says Nuclear is STILL the most expensive energy source in the US.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/441990/nuclear_vs_solar_energy_which/index.html?source=r_science

So this is just because of security reasons and storage?

Even the guys at MIT think nuclear isn't currently an economical choice but has hope for the future.

currently reading: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Quote :

"Washington, D.C. – A distinguished team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard released today what co-chair Dr. John Deutch calls "the most comprehensive, interdisciplinary study ever conducted on the future of nuclear energy.""

I guess Nuclear has many issues to get over (security, storage, reprocessing etc) until it will be economical to continue building more plants.

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 11:32:34 AM

not really, most of the world has passed us up in the nuke plant department... mostly b/c they still build them and do more reprocessing (purex not what we are probably going to use)

8/6/2007 11:50:13 AM

^^You might want to look into why China is building nuke plants as fast as possible.

Like I already said, the technology isn't what makes the costs so high, its the absurd amount of regulation.

from that article:

Quote :

"But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. "

The first one is a result of the other three. The other three are because of ignorance and propoganda preventing progress.


[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : . ]

8/6/2007 11:53:55 AM

^oh i agree. Most of the inflated cost of nuclear is bs, and people need to educate the public so they don't think nuclear is bad.

8/6/2007 12:01:10 PM

Quote :

" Even the guys at MIT think nuclear isn't currently an economical choice but has hope for the future. currently reading: http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/"

Again, take some time to read a little bit AND think critically before you offer us your amazing commentary. I applaud the effort (more than what most yo-yo's are doing on this website), but be a little more diligent.

For starters, your report is from 2003, which is already a little bit dated.

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Click on the summary report, go to chapter 5, the economics of nuclear.

Notice right away that they don't even compare the relative cost of nuclear to solar. Wonder why?

Then, look at the data and see that nuclear can be very competitive against coal and gas by just working on nuclear related construction/cost improvements (topics most certainly having been tackled since 2003). Then, if we consider carbon taxes, nuclear gets to be even more attractive.

Now, we can argue the merits of a carbon tax all day long, but thats a little bit off from this current discussion.

8/6/2007 12:04:55 PM

^i've been reading that article and never intended to use it to compare nuclear to solar. I was only reading that link to learn about the current costs of nuclear. As i stated before I learned through that article that much of the inflated cost of nuclear is from security, etc etc:

Quote :

"But the prospects for nuclear energy as an option are limited, the report finds, by four unresolved problems: high relative costs; perceived adverse safety, environmental, and health effects; potential security risks stemming from proliferation; and unresolved challenges in long-term management of nuclear wastes. "

Quote :

"Again, take some time to read a little bit AND think critically before you offer us your amazing commentary."

The only thing i commented on was that the guys at MIT still think there's an issue with how the US spends its money on nuclear. Even though that article is from 2003 I believe the same issues arise. Once the different energy consortiums can get past the risk of building new nuclear power plants THEN they can start to be competitive with other forms of energy(like from the 2005 Energy Policy Act, plus the 2010 Nuclear Power program). Plus the regulations and security issues that need to be rethought etc etc.

More on the costs of nuclear:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2006/tc20060628_463853.htm?cha\n=technology_technology+index+page_more+of+today's+top+stories

[Edited on August 6, 2007 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

8/6/2007 12:13:15 PM