4 ms·

You didn't count in the capacity factor for solar.. which is only 10-30% (depending on the type of solar plant they build). So best case, 200 GW will only prod

You didn't count in the capacity factor for solar.. which is only 10-30% (depending on the type of solar plant they build). So best case, 200 GW will only produce 525 TWh annually. This is equivalent to a 66 GW nuclear plant (nuclear has a 90% capacity factor). Out of 20000 TWh electricity produced globally, that's only 2.5%.

cinquemb 9y ago
What kind of solar? If you are talking PV with storage, then id agree, but if its CSP with thermal storage (like molten salt) and if we use Gemasolar (19.9 MW)[0] as an example, their capacity factor is 63%, which is close to parity with geothermal but less than nuclear. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant
- rgbrenner 9y ago
  That plant burns natural gas at a night to heat up the molten salt. That's why the capacity factor is so high. (Saudi Arabia could do that.. they currently burn fossil fuels for electricity.) But it was very expensive.. about $360M for 20MW (or $18B per GW). The price they give -- $200B for 200GW -- would rule out this type of plant. It's almost certainly PV.. which is currently $1/Watt for new utility scale plants. The price matches perfectly.
  - cinquemb 9y ago
    Where are you getting your $1.2B? Closest thing I can find is 260M GBP[0], or about $364.0M at today's mid market fx rate or ~$728.0M at 2011 fx rates. However this was completed and running in 2011, and uses salts with a starting at about 200 deg C and capping out at 500 deg C (You can have molten salts staring around deg 50C today). I wonder what a project at this scale could achieve a decade later. But yeah, seems more likely to be PV at this investment price (assuming this will be the total for the project, which I kind of doubt, but I dont know how much costs will inflate to), would be great to get more details about what they are proposing. [0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1393879/Gemasolar-Power-Plant-The-worlds-solar-power-station-generates-electricity-NIGHT.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1393879/Gemas...
    - rgbrenner 9y ago
      I rechecked, and you're right about the price. I must have been looking at a different plant.. not sure, I cant find the page again. I adjusted the numbers in my post. Thanks.
      - bren_dano 9y ago
        1) regarding price, it's probably PV at those prices, as CSP today comes in at least 2x of PV installed capacity cost and that's taking a very aggressive estimation- although one could probably get CSP costs down to $1/watt with the design and procurement scale economies being talked about. 2) Regarding Venning's point about demand, even with significant amount of energy storage, this would create quite a bit more peak power on sunny days than their current grid demand can handle so announcement may be based on a couple (dodgy to me) assumptions: a) either they assume building it out in phases slowly over time to accompany some aggressive assumed demand growth or b) they are thinking about power exports in a region where Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have too many politically viable customers
      - cinquemb 9y ago
        there's a dead comment from a new account that says this: "1) regarding price, it's probably PV at those prices, as CSP today comes in at least 2x of PV installed capacity cost and that's taking a very aggressive estimation- although one could probably get CSP costs down to $1/watt with the design and procurement scale economies being talked about. 2) Regarding Venning's point about demand, even with significant amount of energy storage, this would create quite a bit more peak power on sunny days than their current grid demand can handle so announcement may be based on a couple (dodgy to me) assumptions: a) either they assume building it out in phases slowly over time to accompany some aggressive assumed demand growth or b) they are thinking about power exports in a region where Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have too many politically viable customers"
Reason077 9y ago
"So best case, 200 GW will only produce 525 TWh annually. This is equivalent to a 66 GW nuclear plant (nuclear has a 90% capacity factor)." Sure. But these days, you'd be hard pressed to build 66 GW of nuclear for $200 billion. It's costing about US$30 billion for one 3.2GW nuclear plant currently under construction in the UK (Hinkley Point C). And it's probably a lot more than that by the time you account for eventual decommissioning costs and long term waste storage.
- adventured 9y ago
  China can still build 66GW for $200 billion in nuclear. They're the only large economy still aggressively pursuing nuclear over the next decade. They have 19 reactors under construction right now that will add 21GW +/-, and 50-60GW of additional nuclear energy planned for the very near-term. Their goal is to add roughly 100GW+ of new nuclear energy output in the next 12 years.

cinquemb 9y ago

What kind of solar? If you are talking PV with storage, then id agree, but if its CSP with thermal storage (like molten salt) and if we use Gemasolar (19.9 MW)[0] as an example, their capacity factor is 63%, which is close to parity with geothermal but less than nuclear. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemasolar_Thermosolar_Plant

rgbrenner 9y ago
That plant burns natural gas at a night to heat up the molten salt. That's why the capacity factor is so high. (Saudi Arabia could do that.. they currently burn fossil fuels for electricity.) But it was very expensive.. about $360M for 20MW (or $18B per GW). The price they give -- $200B for 200GW -- would rule out this type of plant. It's almost certainly PV.. which is currently $1/Watt for new utility scale plants. The price matches perfectly.
- cinquemb 9y ago
  Where are you getting your $1.2B? Closest thing I can find is 260M GBP[0], or about $364.0M at today's mid market fx rate or ~$728.0M at 2011 fx rates. However this was completed and running in 2011, and uses salts with a starting at about 200 deg C and capping out at 500 deg C (You can have molten salts staring around deg 50C today). I wonder what a project at this scale could achieve a decade later. But yeah, seems more likely to be PV at this investment price (assuming this will be the total for the project, which I kind of doubt, but I dont know how much costs will inflate to), would be great to get more details about what they are proposing. [0] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1393879/Gemasolar-Power-Plant-The-worlds-solar-power-station-generates-electricity-NIGHT.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1393879/Gemas...
  - rgbrenner 9y ago
    I rechecked, and you're right about the price. I must have been looking at a different plant.. not sure, I cant find the page again. I adjusted the numbers in my post. Thanks.
    - bren_dano 9y ago
      1) regarding price, it's probably PV at those prices, as CSP today comes in at least 2x of PV installed capacity cost and that's taking a very aggressive estimation- although one could probably get CSP costs down to $1/watt with the design and procurement scale economies being talked about. 2) Regarding Venning's point about demand, even with significant amount of energy storage, this would create quite a bit more peak power on sunny days than their current grid demand can handle so announcement may be based on a couple (dodgy to me) assumptions: a) either they assume building it out in phases slowly over time to accompany some aggressive assumed demand growth or b) they are thinking about power exports in a region where Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have too many politically viable customers
    - cinquemb 9y ago
      there's a dead comment from a new account that says this: "1) regarding price, it's probably PV at those prices, as CSP today comes in at least 2x of PV installed capacity cost and that's taking a very aggressive estimation- although one could probably get CSP costs down to $1/watt with the design and procurement scale economies being talked about. 2) Regarding Venning's point about demand, even with significant amount of energy storage, this would create quite a bit more peak power on sunny days than their current grid demand can handle so announcement may be based on a couple (dodgy to me) assumptions: a) either they assume building it out in phases slowly over time to accompany some aggressive assumed demand growth or b) they are thinking about power exports in a region where Saudi Arabia probably doesn't have too many politically viable customers"

Reason077 9y ago

"So best case, 200 GW will only produce 525 TWh annually. This is equivalent to a 66 GW nuclear plant (nuclear has a 90% capacity factor)." Sure. But these days, you'd be hard pressed to build 66 GW of nuclear for $200 billion. It's costing about US$30 billion for one 3.2GW nuclear plant currently under construction in the UK (Hinkley Point C). And it's probably a lot more than that by the time you account for eventual decommissioning costs and long term waste storage.

adventured 9y ago
China can still build 66GW for $200 billion in nuclear. They're the only large economy still aggressively pursuing nuclear over the next decade. They have 19 reactors under construction right now that will add 21GW +/-, and 50-60GW of additional nuclear energy planned for the very near-term. Their goal is to add roughly 100GW+ of new nuclear energy output in the next 12 years.