3 ms·
This is interesting, and as for comparison, the construction cost of this is just a bit higher than for nuclear ($1/watt at 25% capacity for this vs $5billion /
by pieter 15y ago
This is interesting, and as for comparison, the construction cost of this is just a bit higher than for nuclear ($1/watt at 25% capacity for this vs $5billion / ~1.2GW at 95% capacity for nuclear), though that doesn't include labor for the solar.
As for comparing operating cost, I have no idea. Obviously this is meant for poorer countries, but I can't imagine how much work would be involved in turning 5billion square foot of mirrors. The nice thing about this is of course the scale; you can just have one guy maintaining a small installation.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- FrojoS 15y agoGood point but I doubt it will cost even a fraction of nuclear in the future. I just remembered an interview from MIT Technology Review, about a year ago: “The guys can be drunk when they place the rows; it really doesn’t matter. Our tolerance is plus or minus a foot.” [1] Bill Gross, eSolar [2] Unfortunately, the interview is behind a pay wall [3]. Seems like they found an easy and robust way to do pretty much all the calibration after construction and fully automatic. I wonder what the current status is. [1] http://gigaom.com/cleantech/daily-sprout-258/ http://gigaom.com/cleantech/daily-sprout-258/ [2] http://www.esolar.com/ http://www.esolar.com/ [3] http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24560/?ref=rss http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24560/?ref=rss