backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by SPOOFE.. on Dec 3 at 1:57 AM


A map of the planned 250 MW solar power plant, showing preserved land (green) and installation area (blue).  (Source: NRG Solar/SunPower)

The plant will be located roughly halfway between San Francisco and Los Angeles, just south of California's Bay Area.  (Source: Wikipedia)
Plant would take around 15-20 years to break even if electricity was sold at coal power rates

If there's one thing critics and proponents of solar power alike can agree upon, it's that solar power, like any commodity, will go down in price when it is produced at a greater volume.  Recently announced plants, like a 280 mega-watt (MW) installation in the Arizona desert go a long way towards achieving that sort of volume increase.

As does a new 250 MW installation in San Luis Obispo County, California which was formally announced this week.  Construction on the new plant will commence next year and is expected to create 350 construction jobs.

San Luis Obispo is a coastal county that is relatively rural and lightly populated by Californian standards.  It's roughly halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of the state's biggest cities.

The new plant will be a joint venture between NRG Solar, Inc. and SunPower Corp. -- two veteran solar power firms (SunPower, alone, will have installed over 1.5 GW of solar power by the year's end).  NRG Solar is expected to pitch in $450M USD over the four year launch period.  NRG will own the plant, it is basically contracting SunPower to design, build, and operate the plant.

The plant will begin producing electricity in late 2011.  By 2012 to 2013 it is expected to reach full capacity, as construction completes.  The plant is expected to provide enough power for 100,000 households.

The new plant is named the "California Valley Solar Ranch". 

NRG Solar is seeking government loans from the U.S. Department of Energy to initially finance the construction.  While U.S. President Barack Obama recently handed out $1.85B USD in grants to solar power projects, the new installation likely will not receive any of this money.

Securing a government loan is critical to the NRG and SunPower's plan.  States Howard Wenger, president of the utility and power plants business group at SunPower, "The DOE is playing a critical leadership role in supporting renewable energy that provides economic and environmental benefits, as well as a secure, stable energy supply in the U.S."

The project has been in the works for the last two years.  It is expected to be operational for at least 25 years.

Challenges to the plant's success remain.  Currently environmental activists in California are vigorously resisting large solar and wind installations, which they fear will damage fragile ecosystems.  They have filed lawsuits to try to block similar projects.

The California Valley Solar Ranch project may placate these critics, thanks to the 2,399 acres it sets aside as a wildlife habitat.  The plant and associated facilities are expected to occupy 1,966 acres of land.

Another challenge is the underlying economics.  While the California Public Utilities Commission has agreed to buy 25 years worth of power from the installation, likely at an inflated price, it remains to be seen exactly how much money the plant will make.  Coal power costs around $0.06-$0.08 USD per kilowatt-hour, so if the solar plant's power was sold at an equivalent rate, it would take around 15 to 20 years for the plant to break even.  Thanks to large markups to alternative energy power, though, it should break even much sooner, boosting NRG Solar and SunPower.  Nonetheless, some consumers may be unhappy with paying this kind of markup so that their power can be "greener".

Still, it's common knowledge that you have to invest up front to gain access to new technology.  And with large scale installations like this new one in California and the currently developing one in Arizona, the cost per kilowatt hour of solar power in the U.S. should fall over the next few years.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Massive is all relative.
By muIIet on 12/1/2010 12:02:48 PM , Rating: -1
What can they put up faster 1000MW solar plant or a nuclear power plant? One has nuclear waste and the other doesn't. What is the cost difference between the 2?


RE: Massive is all relative.
By namechamps on 12/1/2010 12:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
Still not getting it. 1000MW is a measure of peak power. We consume energy.

Power * time * capacity factor (uptime) = Energy.

Nuclear power plant ~ 0.90 capacity factor (90% uptime @ peak power)
PV Solar (in Southern CA) ~ 0.15 to 0.20 capacity factor (15% to 20% uptime @ peak power).

Thus 2000MW nuclear plant (pair of reactors) is equivelent to not 1000MW of solar but 12,000MW

This plant cost roughly $2 mill per MW. So to produce solar plants (either a lot of smaller ones or one giant one) that has the output of a SINGLE nuclear reactor would require ~ $2 mil per MW * 12,000 MW (peak) = $24 billion.

The question isn't can you build this one plant cheaper or faster than a nuclear plant. The question is can you build 36 to 48 of them cheaper and faster and the reality is no. At wholesale power prices this plant wouldn't produce enough revenue to cover capital + interest. It is only being built because CA utility in a willingness to be "green" is paying $0.20 per kWh instead of market wholesale rate of $0.07.

To put it in another perspective. A single nuclear power plant is 2GW * 0.90 * 24 * 365 * 80 lifespan = 1200 TWh lifetime power. At the absurd $0.20 per kWh rate it would produce $252 billion in revenue. Of course nobody is going to pay $0.20 per kWh for nuclear power. Without massive subsidies (in form of sweetheart pricing deals) solar is simply not viable.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By muIIet on 12/1/2010 12:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, thanks. So is solar better used on a house instead of a power plant?


RE: Massive is all relative.
By kattanna on 12/1/2010 1:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So is solar better used on a house instead of a power plant


solar panels, or PV solar, yes.

solar thermal systems that use large arrays of mirrors to heat a primary fluid, usually water, to generate steam to turn a turbine is more of industrial generation thing. It also has the added feature of when they heat salts, they can use the heat to continue power generation even after sunset.

they are also systems that use a large mirror to produce heat that a stirling engine can use to generate power. also more of an industrial size generation thing.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Solandri on 12/1/2010 8:20:48 PM , Rating: 3
Solar thermal systems are actually really efficient. They can typically pay for themselves in 1-3 years. The problem is the energy they provide is almost exclusively water-heat. That's great if you're in a cold climate and need to heat up the water from the main a bit before pumping it into your water heater. But it's very, very difficult to do other things with that energy. While stirling engines can get a lot of the latent heat energy out, they're very slow and take a lot of time to do it. You're better off just finding ways to use the heat directly.

PV solar is best in remote sites and low-power applications where it's disproportionately costly to hook up to the power grid. Those emergency phone boxes on the side of the freeway? Solar. A pump to bring up groundwater for drinking at a desert rest area? Solar. The weather station mounted on the side of a mountain in the middle of a national park that needs to radio out its readings? Solar.

For home applications, the ~20 year payback time is really crippling since most people only stay in a home for about 7-10 years. So the best application for large-scale PV solar is actually commercial plants like this one. You just have to make sure they're in a sunny locale, remote location so bringing in electricity from elsewhere is relatively expensive, and accept that it's only going to provide supplemental power to take some of the load off the mains during peak hours. San Luis Obispo fits those requirements almost perfectly. Sure nuclear would be better, but I'm not sure there's enough people living in the area to warrant construction of a full 3- or 4-reactor nuclear plant. You typically need a population of 0.5-1 million to justify the cost of building something that large.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By hyvonen on 12/1/2010 8:30:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For home applications, the ~20 year payback time is really crippling since most people only stay in a home for about 7-10 years.


Mine pays itself off in about 7 years - that's for the tax break goodness. And since they are productive for some 20 years or so, I'd like to think that they also increase the value of the house a bit.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By kattanna on 12/2/2010 10:58:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
that's for the tax break goodness


glad I could help you buy them


RE: Massive is all relative.
By mcnabney on 12/1/2010 12:32:31 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize that you are factoring the uptime/efficiency TWICE in your calculations.

This plant produces 250MW @25% efficiency (6 hours on average sunlight everyday over a year) = 1.5GWh per day.
The dual-core reactor produces 2000MW @90% efficiency (scheduled maintenance and refuelling takes plant offline for extended periods) = 43.2GWh per day.

Now the nuclear plant makes 28.8 times as much power, but also cost 18 times as much to build. Once the very high costs of operating the nuclear plant and providing tight security are factored, as are the tax incentives for solar, they are really not that far off in dollar efficiency.

I would also point out that the solar panels are 100% recycled at EOL and there is no reason to believe that a solar farm would ever need to be decomissioned. Nuclear reactors are decomissioned - at great cost.

Now there are two things that would alter the math. Scale in panel manufacture and common reactor design which would both significantly drop the fabriaction/design/construction costs of the associated technology. I honestly think that we should be doing BOTH and creating a massive electricity generation surplus so we can ditch imported OIL - a cause we should all get behind. Energy independence FTW!


RE: Massive is all relative.
By rvd2008 on 12/1/10, Rating: -1
RE: Massive is all relative.
By SPOOFE on 12/1/2010 7:10:05 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
there is a need in peak power plants during the day. And solar will provide that nicely.

No, it won't. It will provide that power sporadically, unreliably. "Rolling blackouts" is the phrase that should be running through your head.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Nfarce on 12/1/2010 9:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
Nukers? Nukers? Are you talking about nuclear energy or nuclear bombs there, sport? You got a windmill and solar power running that PC you just posted on? Didn't think so.

You know what amazes me? Probably the vast majority of you anti-nuclear energy bed wetters would like the US to be more like Europe, especially in socialist agendas (hell even some of the more extremist wingnut wackos even want Europeans to be allowed to VOTE in American elections).

But when it comes to joining European nations like France in nuclear energy output per capita, suddenly it's oh hell no! The very least you pie-in-the-sky solar/wind dreamers can do is be consistent.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By SandmanWN on 12/1/2010 11:37:00 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
28.8 times as much power, but also cost 18 times

29x the power at only 18x the cost, hmm....

If you were actually pitching solar panels to me as a business proposition, I would have totally thanked you for convincing me to go nuclear.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Strunf on 12/2/10, Rating: 0
RE: Massive is all relative.
By SPOOFE on 12/3/2010 1:04:14 AM , Rating: 2
Operating cost offset by reliable predictability. Problem solved.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By dirtyfoot on 12/1/2010 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 3
the cost difference is massive even when decommissioning and waste storage is factored in. this 250mw plant will cost over 1billion to build while a 1,700mw nuke will cost about 5 to 6 billion and the nuke will run at about 90% efficiency for 60 years. while this solar plant will run at about 25%(at best)efficiency for only 25 years. so when u factor all that in these solar plants r a waste of time, space and money.

the nuke also takes up a lot less space even when u factor in waste.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By FITCamaro on 12/1/2010 12:18:28 PM , Rating: 4
Waste is only an issue because our government makes it to be one by refusing to allow reprocessing.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By aegisofrime on 12/1/2010 12:34:49 PM , Rating: 2
I have always wondered why the US Government won't allow reprocessing. On a related note, why was the Integral Fast Reactor project canceled ? It seemed like such an awesome piece of tech.


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Chemical Chris on 12/1/2010 12:42:01 PM , Rating: 4
You should also consider Thorium based plants: They would be cheaper, safer, and produce less than 1% of the waste on conventional light-water reators (the waste is 'safe' in 200 vs 1 million years, also).
http://energyfromthorium.com/
Or just run around wiki :)

ChemC


RE: Massive is all relative.
By ekv on 12/1/2010 4:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
Thorium base reactors actually benefit from current LWR designs, since, if I'm not mistaken, spent fuel can be used to jump-start thorium reactors.

There is also Travelling Wave Reactors (TWR). Sure, the technology is paper only at this point, and you have somebody like Bill Gates (partially) bank-rolling the hype. But it wasn't too long ago the "best" microprocessor was an 8086.

http://www.powermag.com/blog/index.php/2010/03/27/...

[read the article, but then read the comments!]


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Rasterman on 12/1/2010 12:36:44 PM , Rating: 4
Lasting for 25 years is false, first of all the solar technology used in these panels hasn't even been around for 20 years to test. The only reason most people state that time frame is that what they are warrantied for. Further more some of the very first solar cells manufactured (of a much inferior design) are still running at 95% efficiency with no problems after 21 years (source below)! Given that there are no moving parts there is no reason to believe that solar panels won't last 50-100 years, or indefinitely for that matter. Sure diodes and inverters may come and go which are easily replaced.

http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_solar_used.ht...


RE: Massive is all relative.
By Solandri on 12/1/2010 8:02:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Further more some of the very first solar cells manufactured (of a much inferior design) are still running at 95% efficiency with no problems after 21 years (source below)!

That's a very deceptive and dishonest way to phrase it. Your source says it was rated at 22 W when brand new, and produces 19 W after 21 years. That's a 14% drop in efficiency, which is pretty much par for the course, maybe a bit better than you'd expect. (Numbers I've seen say a 25%-30% drop after 30 years.)

The only way you get the 95% figure is by noting that the system was original rated at 20 W. So initially it operated at 110% the rated power, and now it operates at 95% the rated power. The way you phrased it makes it sound like there was only 5% degradation after 21 years, when that's clearly not the case.

The problem with degradation of solar panel efficiency is that the panels take up space which is often limited (e.g. rooftop). If the efficiency drops too much, you are actually better off scrapping them and installing new panels. Which is probably exactly what happened and why your source managed to get these used panels for so cheap.

The same problem crops up due to the technology improving. Output efficiencies have climbed from about 12% to 15% for commercial-grade panels over the last 20 years. If you figure the 12% panels have degraded to 85% original output, they're putting out ~10% now. So scrapping them and replacing them with 15% panels will give you a 50% boost in power generation for the exact same amount of area covered by the panels.


By biohazard420420 on 12/3/2010 1:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
Not to push hard for solar power as I think its best as an ADDITION to nuclear coal and wind power but there is a great vid of "solar power" at probably its most efficient the link is below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0_nuvPKIi8

Until you get that kind of efficiency solar power will never become a primary power source nor will in my opinion any "alternative" power sources become the primary power source for the US.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki