Omnitir wrote:OptiSolarA secretive Hayward, Calif. company has just announced it will build the largest solar power “farm” in North America, using solar cells manufactured in Silicon Valley.
The company, called OptiSolar, is backed by private equity firms apparently with oil connections. It has studiously avoided saying anything until this announcement.
The deal is significant, not merely for its size, but because it was scooped by such an unknown company.
40-megawatt capacity, 365 hectares, estimated $300 million to build, and operational by 2010.
Interesting that the announcement of this deal came out of nowhere.
The French Energy Secretariat in 2003 published updated figures for new generating plant. The advanced European PWR (EPR) would cost EUR 1650-1700 per kilowatt to build, compared with EUR 500-550 for a gas combined cycle plant and 1200-1400 for a coal plant. The EPR would generate power at 2.74 cents/kWh, competitively with gas which would be very dependent on fuel price. Capital costs contributed 60% to nuclear's power price but only 20% to gas's. While the figures are based on 40-year plant life, the EPR is designed for 60 years.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Valdemar wrote:I'd sure like to know the cost of maintaining those shiny, awfully delicte pieces of technology too. PV cells and mirrors require they be nice and clean to give what little peak efficiency they have.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
stock wrote:Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.
There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/
stock wrote:Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.
There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/
stock wrote:Its not that secretive. The farm is to be built in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. The reason for this location is apparently due to the 0.42c kw/h standard offer program that Ontario offers. OptiSolar apparently manufactures the panels and equipment so I think the costs are lower than usual. I suspect they are using it as a demonstration plant for their equipment.
There is some more info at http://tyler.blogware.com/
Sheb wrote:Close...you are getting the units a little bit mixed up, though. But you have the right idea--VERY expensive electricity. Consider...
It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more. However, for the sake of analysis, let's consider that it does come in on time and within budget.
Assuming that the 40-MW output power is it's *rated* output, which is typical for solar energy generation. Then it's time-averaged output over each year will be about 14-MW (total integrated power in, over time, divided by total time). This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.
Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years. Right off the bat, if the $300M cost is spread out evenly over the 3-year construction period, then that is, averaged out, 1.5 years of the recoup time, leaving only 3.5 years of running time to sell electricty in order to pay for its construction. In 3.5 years, in the best of scenarios, the delivered energy output will be:
(3.5-years)*(98,179,200-kw/year) = 343,627,200-kW-hrs.
So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be:
$300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr.
ohanian wrote:You are being far too negative. If you want to play with numbers then I can play with numbers too. --snip--
So it only adds an extra 10 cents (2007 cents) to each kilowatt_hour of electricity to recover back the cost of construction.
Sheb wrote:-snip- It's *estimated* construction budget is $300,000,000. It's estimated construction time is 3 years. But with technology development, the only one universal truth: It will take longer and cost more.
-snip- This means that it will produce 122,724,000 kW-hrs of electricity per year.
-snip-For this thing to be economically viable, the sale of this power must *not only* cover the costs of its operation, but it must recoup the cost to build the thing. Let's just look at recouping building costs over, say, 5 years.
-snip-So, the cost attached to each sold kw-hr *just to cover construction* will be: $300,000,000/343,627,200-kW-hrs = $0.87/kw-hr. Likely Electric Bill Charges: $3.00/kWhr.
At some point before 2050, satellites collecting solar power and beaming it back to Earth will become a primary energy source, streaming terawatts of electricity continuously from space.
The US army could also use such a device to deliver electricity to its troops. Military units in forward areas pay $1 per kilowatt hour,... Lives could be saved by cutting long and vulnerable logistics chains
Andrew_S wrote:Does technology to stream terawatts from space actually exist today?
Or is this just pie in the sky?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests