"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."
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
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.
John
The French have more courage than we do. Ack!
And then there is the amount of surface area required to produce the same amount of power, it is unrealistic. The idea of windmills and solar panels as a primary source of power is sold to naïve people.
Of course, nuclear has never received subsidies...
Lots of desert and windmills do not make farmland unusable.
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
-- "Night soil" seems to be the problem...
The cost of recent (2000+) nuclear power plants is somewhere between
1-3 EUR/W based on actual deals.To be competitive, at the grid_interface_point at the equator in cloudless conditions, the solar panel cost should be somewhere between
0.25 .. 0.75 EUR/W based on the geometry alone.Moving away from the equator or allowing for some random clouds, the unit price should be even less to be competitive.
For some reason, all bulk solar power producers, such as existing power plants in Spain or the proposed DESERTEC project are using concentrated solar thermal power, not photovoltaic cells :-).
Your nuclear costs are a bit low.
"February 2008 ? For two new AP1000 reactors at its Turkey Point site Florida Power & Light calculated overnight capital cost from $2444 to $3582 per kW, which were grossed up to include cooling towers, site works, land costs, transmission costs and risk management for total costs of $3108 to $4540 per kilowatt. Adding in finance charges increased the overall figures to $5780 to $8071 per kW."
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
How humiliating.
Unfortunately, solar isn't very concentrated. A square meter of full-blast sunlight delivers a couple of hundred watts peak and averages maybe 50. The walls of a natural gas boiler, or nuclear fuel rods, run megawatts per square meter, 24/7.
John
John
-- I don't think it's a question of courage as much as it's a question of stupidity. To wit, how are they disposing of their nuclear waste in a fashion which is benign to us all?
According to more or less common knowledge, Areva/Siemens sold the
1600 MW Olkiluoto 3 here in Finland as a turn key projectUnfortunately this project is several years late and at least 1 billion over budget, so 3 EUR/W would be more reasonable.
It is interesting to note what the nearly identical Flamanville 3 plant in France is going to cost.
Anyway, Russia has recently sold NPPs for much less than 2 EUR/W.
Areva also sold NPPs to China, but I have not seen any price estimates.
OTOH sunlight is free and deserts aren't actually doing much at present.
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
So, solar is so successful that subsidies are being cut back... OTOH total installed capacity doubled last year.
-- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
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.
John
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 =3D 650WHr a day /m^2. So that's what, six or seven cents' worth of juice? Yum.James
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.
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: snipped-for-privacy@netfront.net ---
That assumes no clouds, with clouds it is even less.
A storage method is only required, if the installed solar capacity is larger than the day/night load variation. In all countries, the day load is larger than the night load, especially if there is a lot of air conditioning loads. Solar energy could supply the daytime peak, while other forms of energy should be used to supply the base load during night.
If fixed arrays are used, they should be oriented so that the peak production match the peak load hours, instead of simply orienting the arrays to the south.
Of course, other means of production is required for cloudy days, but it makes more sense to use hydroelectric plants or burn stuff, instead of trying to store solar energy. The solar energy storage time would have to be up to weeks due to clouds and months at higher latitudes to ride through the winter.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.