solar energy, 2.4 cents per kWh

[Winfield Hill]

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[John Doe]

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Soler won't get us
anywhere, either. We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (30 Jun 2019 13:43:48 -0700) it happened Winfield Hill
<winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote in <qfb6u4014oo@drn.newsguy.com>:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

In the year .... a big asteroid hit earth causing mass volcanism with smoke that
darkened the sky for a thousand years.. causing the extinction of the humming-beans
species probably because those depended too much on electrickety alone.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:08:03 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:

Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Actually, just a large investment. No hype at all.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Solar won't get us
anywhere, either.

Why not? even the UK has had weeks when it has generated 25% of it electricity from solar power.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic dispersion mechanism.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 1:29:28 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

> Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic dispersion mechanism.

Certainly unpleasant, but an invader wouldn't want to ruin the prize, nor would the defender.
So, it's not a military scenario, but a terrorist/fanatic scenario. The centuries-lifetime
vault over the Chernobyl reactor remains is unlikely to need antimissile defenses.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 9:24:01 PM UTC+2, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 1:29:28 AM UTC-7, Bill Sloman wrote:

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic dispersion mechanism.

Certainly unpleasant, but an invader wouldn't want to ruin the prize, nor would the defender.

Sadly, wars do include the usual number of mistakes and errors.

The missile might not have been aimed at nuclear reactor, but if it hits it anyway, the radioactive contamination is justr as extensive as it would have been from an intentional hit.

> So, it's not a military scenario, but a terrorist/fanatic scenario,

Or a military-that-doesn't-get-everything-right scenario.

No battle plan survives contact with the enenmy.

> The centuries-lifetime vault over the Chernobyl reactor remains is unlikely to need antimissile defenses.

But it might be prudent to add them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[sms]

On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the break-even
point is about 19 trillion KWH.

 

[Winfield Hill]

sms wrote...

On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by
natural gas, the break-even point is about
19 trillion KWH.

I calculate about a 10-year payback time for the
plant. What does natural gas have to do with it?


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 6:36:54 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:

On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the break-even
point is about 19 trillion KWH.

I believe the actual cost of a kWh of conventionally produced electricity is significantly below 7 cents. I am billed separately for generation and distribution with the generation part being around 4 cents per kWh. Another bill charges separately for generation, transmission and distribution, but they don't publish the separate rates and I haven't calculated them. I called to ask about that and the guy basically told me to get stuffed.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Chris]

On 07/01/19 09:29, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:08:03 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
Winfield Hill<winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Actually, just a large investment. No hype at all.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Solar won't get us
anywhere, either.

Why not? even the UK has had weeks when it has generated 25% of it electricity from solar power.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

Sorry Bill, but if you believe everything you read in the G,
you really are a lost cause. Couldn't be more transparently biased
if they tried. I should know, been a print subscriber for years.

We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution

is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries
uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic
dispersion mechanism.
>

Yet more fud. Other than the Windscale fire in the 1950's, UK
nuclear has a 100% safety record, with the rest of Europe
probably close.

The energy contribution of solar in the uk is just a few %, with
wind doing slightly better at 10-15% on a windy day. How do you
think we get the rest ?. Unicorns at the bottom of the garden ?...

Chris

 

[Winfield Hill]

Chris wrote...

Bill Sloman wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

Sorry Bill, but if you believe everything you read
in the G, you really are a lost cause.

OK, let's not trash the Guardian, quoting the
National Grid Electricity System Operator.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

sms wrote:

On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a


Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the break-even
point is about 19 trillion KWH.

Traditional power plants may be more efficient as
huge, concentrated facilities. In the case of solar
power, I'd think it would make better sense to distribute
the system.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 2:10:52 AM UTC+2, Chris wrote:

On 07/01/19 09:29, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:08:03 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
Winfield Hill<winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Actually, just a large investment. No hype at all.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Solar won't get us
anywhere, either.

Why not? even the UK has had weeks when it has generated 25% of it electricity from solar power.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

Sorry Bill, but if you believe everything you read in the G,
you really are a lost cause. Couldn't be more transparently biased
if they tried. I should know, been a print subscriber for years.

I read it for some twenty years when I lived in the UK.

There was bias in their reporting. They didn't leave out stuff out that the right-wing newspapers did. The bias was towards reporting the whole truth.

There were a bunch of similar reports a few month ago - not just for the UK, nor just in the Guardian. Renewable sources have now been deployed in sufficient volume in a few countries to supply all the power consumed in those (few) countries for days at a time (granting favourable winds and not too much cloud cover

We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic
dispersion mechanism.


Yet more fud. Other than the Windscale fire in the 1950's, UK
nuclear has a 100% safety record, with the rest of Europe
probably close.

A nuclear exchange is - hopefully - unlikely, so there's uncertainty in that scenaria, and fear. There's no doubt that it could happen.

The energy contribution of solar in the uk is just a few %, with
wind doing slightly better at 10-15% on a windy day. How do you
think we get the rest ?. Unicorns at the bottom of the garden ?...

I think they threw in hydoelectric power as well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 01:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:08:03 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Actually, just a large investment. No hype at all.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Solar won't get us
anywhere, either.

Why not? even the UK has had weeks when it has generated 25% of it electricity from solar power.

In high latitude countries like the UK, the consumption peak is in the
winter, dropping significantly during the summer. The sun is also
higher in the sky (less air mass losses) and in spring time less
clouds helps producing solar energy, so on a few weeks a year during
some day hours, the solar production can be high and while
simultaneously the consumption was low, you can get high percentages
for bragging in the newspapers .


>https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

The article talks about coal free, not fossil free weeks.

We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic dispersion mechanism.

Why would a nuclear bomb be worse than Chernobyl. The low enriched
reactor core uranium doesn't take part in the nuclear explosion. In
Chernobyl, only part of the core exploded (grafiti/hydrogen) and
burned for days, leaving a lot of fission material at the bottom. With
the fission heat generated, it threatened to sink into the ground
water.

With a nuclear bomb explosion, all the fissible material would spread
all over, stopping any fission reactions immediately, only radioactive
decay remaining. Of course, the short lived isotopes would create
nasty radiation all over the place, but after weeks and especially
years, the radiation levels would drop significantly.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 9:39:25 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

sms wrote:
On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a


Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the break-even
point is about 19 trillion KWH.


Traditional power plants may be more efficient as
huge, concentrated facilities. In the case of solar
power, I'd think it would make better sense to distribute
the system.

Photovoltaic cell systems do work well as distributed generators.

Thermal solar plants - with a wide area of moveable mirrors focussing sunlight on a central tower, where it is used to heat up a steady stream of circulating molten salt to about 550C - do need to be big. Thier unique selling point is that it's cheap to add big insulated tanks to keep the molten salt hot overnight so that you can keep on generating solar power while the sun is down.

There are a couple of prototype systems around to test the technology (which does seem to work) but I don't think that anybody has built a commercial system.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 10:21:46 AM UTC+2, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 01:29:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Monday, July 1, 2019 at 7:08:03 AM UTC+2, John Doe wrote:
Winfield Hill <winfieldhill@yahoo.com> wrote:

No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a

A bunch of hype.

Actually, just a large investment. No hype at all.

Solar certainly is better than wind, but Solar won't get us
anywhere, either.

Why not? even the UK has had weeks when it has generated 25% of it electricity from solar power.

In high latitude countries like the UK, the consumption peak is in the
winter, dropping significantly during the summer. The sun is also
higher in the sky (less air mass losses) and in spring time less
clouds helps producing solar energy, so on a few weeks a year during
some day hours, the solar production can be high and while
simultaneously the consumption was low, you can get high percentages
for bragging in the newspapers .


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/31/great-britain-records-two-weeks-of-coal-free-electricity-generation

The article talks about coal free, not fossil free weeks.

I should have kept searching for the Danish example.

We should be gung ho nuclear, like China. Then
again, if you are planning World War III, you don't want to depend
on a bunch of easily destroyed nuclear power plants that disables
your country's energy supply.

Worse, if you hit a nuclear power plant with a nuclear bomb, the radioactive pollution is enormous - enough to make any of the smaller European countries uninhabitable for some years. Think Chernobyl with a more energetic dispersion mechanism.

Why would a nuclear bomb be worse than Chernobyl.

Because the nuclear explosion could pick and disperse the total mass of nuclear fuel in the reactor, and dump it - as dust - well up in the atmosphere.

The low enriched
reactor core uranium doesn't take part in the nuclear explosion. In
Chernobyl, only part of the core exploded (grafiti/hydrogen) and
burned for days, leaving a lot of fission material at the bottom.

So very little of the nuclear got out to contaminate the surrounding area - which is still uninhabitable for miles in all directions.

A nuclear blast could do a much more comprehensive job.

With the fission heat generated, it threatened to sink into the ground
water.

With a nuclear bomb explosion, all the fissible material would spread
all over, stopping any fission reactions immediately, only radioactive
decay remaining. Of course, the short lived isotopes would create
nasty radiation all over the place, but after weeks and especially
years, the radiation levels would drop significantly.

"All over the place" is an area comparable with several of the smaller europena countries - like the Netherland, Belgium or Denmark.

There are a lot of "short lived (radioactive) isotopes" inside and around a working nuclear reactor, and the problem with hitting a reactor with a nuclear blast is the they could get widely dispersed.

https://www.quora.com/What-would-happen-if-a-nuclear-warhead-hit-a-nuclear-powerplant

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 9:39:25 AM UTC+2, Jeroen Belleman
wrote:
sms wrote:
On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh. Noor Abu
Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a


Assuming 7¢/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the
break-even point is about 19 trillion KWH.

Traditional power plants may be more efficient as huge,
concentrated facilities. In the case of solar power, I'd think
it would make better sense to distribute the system.

Photovoltaic cell systems do work well as distributed generators.

Thermal solar plants - with a wide area of moveable mirrors
focussing sunlight on a central tower, where it is used to heat up
a steady stream of circulating molten salt to about 550C - do need
to be big. [...]

Right! The article does not, in fact, state what kind of
installation this is. So much for journalism. I carelessly
assumed it was photovoltaic, and a bit of searching shows that
indeed it is.

Jeroen Belleman

 

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 01:35:34 -0700 (PDT), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Photovoltaic cell systems do work well as distributed generators.

PVs work reasonably well even in partly cloudy environment. With 4/8
cloudiness, you could still expect about half the nominal power.

>Thermal solar plants - with a wide area of moveable mirrors focussing sunlight on a central tower, where it is used to heat up a steady stream of circulating molten salt to about 550C - do need to be big. Thier unique selling point is that it's cheap to add big insulated tanks to keep the molten salt hot overnight so that you can keep on generating solar power while the sun is down.

CSP requires cloud free (0/8) skies. For this reason, in Europe, most
have been built in Spain (10-20 MW class).

 

[Winfield Hill]

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote...

With distributed production with panels on each house,
who will do the cleaning and maintenance? How many home
owners will fall from their roofs trying to clean the
panel or trying to cut tree branches casting shadows
on the panel?

Strange, my three-year-old system needs no maintenance.
Thanks to the rain and wind, it's kept clean.

One nice thing about a large centralized solar farm,
just one big step-up transformer and transmission
line outa there.


--
Thanks,
- Win

 

On Tue, 02 Jul 2019 09:39:21 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

sms wrote:
On 6/30/2019 1:43 PM, Winfield Hill wrote:
No-subsidy solar energy price: 2.4 cents per kWh.
Noor Abu Dhabi project, 1,177 MW. Cost: $870M.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnparnell/2019/06/29/worlds-largest-solar-power-plant-switched-on/#214abb74161a


Assuming 7˘/KWH for electricity produced by natural gas, the break-even
point is about 19 trillion KWH.


Traditional power plants may be more efficient as
huge, concentrated facilities. In the case of solar
power, I'd think it would make better sense to distribute
the system.

It is easier to arrange the cleaning and maintenance of a centralized
system.

With distributed production with panels on each house, who will do the
cleaning and maintenance ? How many home owners will fall from their
roofs trying to clean the panel or trying to cut tree branches casting
shadows on the panel ?