Solar cost to rival coal in 10 years

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by Kal

I've lived for the last 30 years, and still live, 23 kilometers away from a nuclear reactor!

i worked occassionally at lucas heights and was not overly concerned at the time but it is not a power station and serves a vital purpose that cannot be served by other means. i realise that nuclear power plants serve a vital purpose, too, but i think there are other alternatives.

i would not have worked at a nuclear power station as I am generally against nuclear power generation.

bring on large-scale solar power.

BTW, i am not trying to make this a "mine is bigger than yours" contest when I said I worked at lucas heights . Just putting in context for the rest of my comments.

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by renormalised

There's already a hullabaloo over a solar plant in CA with env' concerns, because it will take up 2500 acres in an area with some rarish animals and plants. It doesn't matter where they put them, the environmentalist will always find something to go off about...some rare animal and/or plant

you just cannot please all of the people all of the time...

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

There's already a hullabaloo over a solar plant in CA with env' concerns, because it will take up 2500 acres in an area with some rarish animals and plants. It doesn't matter where they put them, the environmentalist will always find something to go off about...some rare animal and/or plant

Well, that is what I am talking about.
The solar power plant must occupy a large area... and if we want to minimise the losses in the distribution network, the plant must be located reasonably close to where the majority of consumption is - usually where people live. Same applies for nuclear plant as well.

To match the average rated power of a nuclear plant (600MW), taking into account 20% efficiency of the solar panels, we must use the area that delivers 3000MW !!

This is 2142857 m2, or square the size 1.4km X 1.4km.
Actually larger by a factor of 1.6 (to compensate for Sun elevation. So, 1.4 x 2.3km.
And this is only for a sunny day... high noon.
Now, remember 24/7......

Obviously, a scale problem.

[CraigS]

Interestingly, from my experience, throwing money at engineering problems doesn't always solve them.

Frequently, I've seen it actually slowing down the solution to technical problems. Eg: the more minds you get .. the more ideas .. the more competition … the more politics .. the more process .. the slower the outcomes … and the resolutions, frequently turn out to be more a function of non-technical aspects.

Technical issues take time, patience and a lot of disciplined thinking.

The idea that they can be sped up by throwing money at them, is flawed.

Cheers

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by bojan

Actually larger by a factor of 1.6 (to compensate for Sun elevation. So, 1.4 x 2,3km.

that doesn't seem like a lot to me, even if solar power was only generated by solar panels, and adding some more area for the rest of the facility.

how large are coal-fired power stations and nuclear power plants overall?
all appear to be in that size range.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The idea that they can be sped up by throwing money at them, is flawed.

Cheers

Quite right.

First, you have to have something to start with - not just blindly go into something that you know doesn't work.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by DJDD

that doesn't seem like a lot to me, even if solar power was only generated by solar panels, and adding some more area for the rest of the facility.

how large are coal-fired power stations and nuclear power plants overall?
all appear to be in that size range.

My number are ideal and minimal.
So the occupied area will be probably 2x larger.
And I repeat, this is valid for ONLY high noon - maybe 5 hours daily, max.
And we need power 24/7.

Now, take into account the price....

Coal power stations are much smaller (100-200metres?) (yes, I know, coal mining takes more space.. ), nuclear are even smaller.

It simply doesn't add up.

What I am trying to say, only with numbers you will be able to change the current trends.

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Interestingly, from my experience, throwing money at engineering problems doesn't always solve them.

Frequently, I've seen it actually slowing down the solution to technical problems. Eg: the more minds you get .. the more ideas .. the more competition … the more politics .. the more process .. the slower the outcomes … and the resolutions, frequently turn out to be more a function of non-technical aspects.

Technical issues take time, patience and a lot of disciplined thinking.

The idea that they can be sped up by throwing money at them, is flawed.

Cheers

even taking that generalisation and anecdotal evidence into account, which takes my generalisation into account , spending more than the small amount we currently do on the problem of solar-power will, I believe, lead to outcomes.

I agree that "Technical issues take time, patience and a lot of disciplined thinking." but we have the last two in spades and the first can be minimised to some extent with more funding of research and technical innovation.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by DJDD

...., I believe, lead to outcomes...

Can you elaborate in more details, why do you believe this is applicable to solar power?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by DJDD

that doesn't seem like a lot to me, even if solar power was only generated by solar panels, and adding some more area for the rest of the facility.

how large are coal-fired power stations and nuclear power plants overall?
all appear to be in that size range.

The more active elements in a system, the lower the reliability.

Multiple concatenated solar panels would lead to lower longer term reliability/replacement issues, as well as the Sun availability/power storage issue. There's more to this than just installing a bunch of solar panels and hooking them together. You need to consider all those known aspects .. and the others that haven't been considered.

Cheers

[casstony]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Technical issues take time, patience and a lot of disciplined thinking.

The idea that they can be sped up by throwing money at them, is flawed.

Cheers

Offer cash to entities that are already working on the problem and are short of cash, offer cash to entities that would not otherwise take the risk of the research, offer a cash prize to the first company to achieve a certain target. There are ways to use cash productively.

[casstony]

Bojan, you are using a figure of 20% in your calculations. Efficiency will likely be some multiple of that in 10 years time.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by casstony

Offer cash to entities that are already working on the problem and are short of cash, offer cash to entities that would not otherwise take the risk of the research, offer a cash prize to the first company to achieve a certain target. There are ways to use cash productively.

.. create competition and drive up development times and 'work around' solutions to bridge the timing gaps …

Tony and DJDD .. I have lived this life .. its not anecdotal evidence … technical innovation is a function of elapsed time.

Cash does not influence time !

It is not a manpower issue ..

Just ask Peter Garrett ..

Cheers

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The more active elements in a system, the lower the reliability.

Multiple concatenated solar panels would lead to lower longer term reliability/replacement issues, as well as the Sun availability/power storage issue. There's more to this than just installing a bunch of solar panels and hooking them together. You need to consider all those known aspects .. and the others that haven't been considered.

Cheers

I agree. But let's just put some more time, money, brains, political will, into it.

similar to solar there is more to nuclear power plants than getting some Uranium out of the ground and putting it ina big concrete box to generate electricity, but this has been done.

I feel that the same voices raising objections now would have been the ones raising objections years ago saying that 20% efficiency or 30% efficiency was just not possible.


i should be studyign and working!

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by casstony

Bojan, you are using a figure of 20% in your calculations. Efficiency will likely be some multiple of that in 10 years time.

Based on what assumptions ?

[bojan]

Originally Posted by casstony

Bojan, you are using a figure of 20% in your calculations. Efficiency will likely be some multiple of that in 10 years time.

Well, it will definitely not be higher than 100%.
Most likely, it will be 50-60%, 75% maximum... we have to take into account the loses by heat dissipation and re-radiation (in form of IR).

But in the future, the power consumption will also go higher.
Mind you , in Australia we don't have one child policy..

So when you do all your number crunching (including cost), the inevitable outcome is nuclear option.

I am not for/against nuclear by default, I am just saying numbers are such that point into that direction, like it or not...

[renormalised (Carl)]

If they're going to go the nuclear option, then we should look to fusion and work to get that up and running. More money may help, but what we need is a bit more original thinking going on. The methods they're using now most likely won't result in a viable powerplant. What they're essentially doing in all experiments is trying to heat a very thin gas/plasma to 100 million K and keep it confined and they don't have the power to do it. They can only confine it for a few seconds at the most.

[FlashDrive (Poppy)]

Interesting debate we have here.

I have just committed myself to buying a 2kw Solar Array for my house.
Costing me in the order off $5630.00 after Govt' Rebates.

My electricity company has offered to buy the power generated by my Array at 52c per kW ... and I will buy back what I use at 19c per kW.
At my current electricity use and today's prices ... It will take 4 1/2 years to pay for it self.

After 20 years ... the Panels will only be around 75% efficient from what they were brand new.

It's an investment for me against rising power prices ... they go up again by 5.8% as of July 1st 2011.

I don't profess to be an expert in this field .... it's all about ongoing daily living costs to me.....I'm just hoping this will beat the Power Companies at their incessant grab for more money.

Cheers ..... Colin.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by FlashDrive

.....I'm just hoping this will beat the Power Companies at their incessant grab for more money.

Cheers ..... Colin.

David against Goliath...

Don't worry, you (neither me or anyone else here on this forum ) will ever outsmart them.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

We must be leading the way here in Ballarat and District with alternative power generation.

We have the largest wind farms in the Southern hemisphere providing large scale power, and last year they opened the new Solar power Station at Ballarat Airport, which is reportedly doing very well.

Also, I was horrified when I recieved a reply from Council about our Light Pollution Reduction proposal.
They sent me all the documents about councils power use.
More than 60% of the power used was just for street lights!
Yet there are Solar powered Street lights available and in use in some places, costing zero power useage.

There needs to be a lot of re-thinking from councils. Lots of small changes equal a noticably bigger change if all councils jump on board.
And they should be the shining example to us.
It's our rates that pay (and go to waste) on all that street light power.