solar energy to save the environment

Worlds biggest thermal solar plants 2013

Lars Snsterd 2012-11-16

1

Background The biggest thermal solar plants in the world today comprise large land surfaces covered with

troughs placed in focus of mirror shaped half pipes or big boiler towers in the focus of many mirrors.

In both cases the mirrors are automatically following the sun. A typical modern feature on these

plants increasing their efficiency is the high working temperature making it possible to store heat in

molten salt during night, maintenance or cloudy hours.

These are often referred to as "SEGS: Solar Energy Generating Systems" or "CSP: Concentrated Solar

Power (CSP)."

In recent years, researches on solar cells that convert light directly into electrical power by means of

photoelectric effect have increased, solar energy referred to as "photovoltaic (PV)". These are not

included in the present investigation though they appear to be a game changer and seem to be the

future, my next target for studies.

For you who dont like many pages, here are some short conclusions. If thermal solar power plants of 2013 are to solve the world need for electric energy they will

demand big land areas and investment costs. But still not big put in relation to the future

alternatives!

Land area calculations results, with thermal solar power efficiency included

The world Electricity demand placed in Sahara compared with the EU27 electricity demand placed in Spain.

The USA Electricity demand placed in California/Arizona

The Australian electricity demand placed somewhere in the Australian dessert.

The Kina electricity demand placed somewhere in the desserts of Kina.



2

Placing huge fields with mirrors in a dessert like Sahara, building a corresponding grid and

infrastructure, is that possible taking in account political instability combined with instable weather

conditions? Possibly not and who knows?

But its hard to understand why Kina, Arabia, India, America and Australia dont use the steady,

costless and reliable sun insolation for producing electricity fully out! And its obvious that Spain

have a nice opportunity to supply Europe with green electricity!

Cost for building such an amount of thermal solar power plants.

An substantiated formula for calculating cost in trillions (Tera) US$ is shown by a linear equation,

extracted by data from the biggest thermal solar power plants 2013 below. is the installed power

necessary for a certain calculated power demand

$ = (5,2519 + 148,92)/10^6 (Tera or Trillion US$)

For given demands the installation costs will be:

The world need of electricity the year 2013 was around 20,2 Pwh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh

GigaWh) which would mean 30,3 TUS$ (Tera US$) (=Trillion US$) for building the thermal

solar power plants needed. No cost for fuel over years!

But the cost is in a range hard to understand. Therefore it is interesting to compare with

corresponding investments/cost on the alternatives:

Nuclear power

Corresponding figures for nuclear power is not easy to extract because of cost for mining, refining,

storage of waste and more, which mostly is not encountered when calculating nuclear costs. Installation cost for nuclear power is ranging up to 11 US$/W according to Basic Economics of Nuclear Power, Ian Schultz, March 19, 2012

Stanford University: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/schultz2/

The world electricity demand in nuclear power of 20,2 PWh would cost 25,4 TUS$ to build. Powering

these plants with uranium is easy to calculate using the year 2013 world uranium price and normal

operational data. Not speculating in increase of price during a 10 year period this cost will be 1,3

TUS$.

An installed nuclear power of 20,2 PWh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh GigaWh) would

cost 26,7 TUS$ (T=Tera or Trillion) to build and run for 10 years which is in the

same range as the thermal solar power, even without considering the loss off

a natural resource, cost increase of fuel, environmental destruction,

Hours in a year Ha= 8760

consumption Egen C Pi

Annual elctricity demand 2013= PWh GWh % MW MUS$ Trillion US$

World, Sahara 20,2 2,02E+07 40 5,8E+06 3,03E+07 30,3

EU27, Andalucia 3,1 3,10E+06 40 8,8E+05 4,65E+06 4,6

America, Mojave dessert 8,9 8,90E+06 40 2,5E+06 1,33E+07 13,3

Australia 0,3 3,00E+05 40 8,6E+04 4,50E+05 0,4

Kina 4,9 4,90E+06 40 1,4E+06 7,34E+06 7,3

Installation cost the

year of 2013



3

restoration of degraded land areas for the uranium handling, waste

deposition and the cost for cleaning up after the nuclear catastrophes!

Fossile power

Corresponding figures of coal power have the same problems with correct calculation as nuclear

power for the similar reasons concerning the environment. An example: Plant Washington is an 850 MW supercritical, pulverized coal-fired, base load, Greenfield power generating facility. The plant is located in

rural east-central Georgia near Sandersville in Washington County. First, the plant turned out to be expensive: Early estimates put the cost

of constructing it at $2.1 billion, though watchdog groups calculate that the price tag would be $3.9 billion or more. That expenditure, plus

the cost of burning coal, could send locals electricity bills sky-high if the plant is completed, according to local consumer advocate Georgia

Watch.2 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115324/plant-washington-meet-last-new-coal-burning-plant-america

An installed coal fired power of 20,2 PWh would cost 11,5 TUS$ to build. Powering these plants with

coal is easy to calculate using the year 2013 world coal price. Not speculating in increase of price

during a 10 year period this powering cost will be 3,7 TUS$.

An installed coal fired power of 20,2 PWh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh GigaWh) would cost 15,2

TUS$ (T=Tera or Trillion) to build and run for 10 years which is in the same range as the thermal

solar power, even without considering the loss off a natural resource, increase of cost for the fuel,

environmental destruction including risks with the climate and restoration of degraded land areas

after the coal handling!

Objectives on thermal solar power fact investigation Going out from known facts given on thermal solar power plants bigger or equal to 100 MW:

Which are their key data?

Which is their true solar plant efficiency?

How large areas of land are really needed to cover human need for energy?

Is it possible to predict cost for human needs of sustainable energy?

Chart of annual average daily insolation on Earth

Given on the map in KWh/m2/day 2-2,9 3-3,9 4-4,9 5-5,9 6,0-6,9

Annual corresponding KWh/m2/year 1095-1424 1445-1796 1445-1796 1840-2146 2190-2505



4

The solar power plants built up to today represent sustainable energy production. The question is

whether the allegations of solar power are correct? Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power

Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert

Facts around the biggest thermal power plants in the world http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_thermal_power_stations

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/by_country.cfm

Key data 6) Al Land area (Km2) sum of used land area

7) Am Mirror area (Km2) sum area of all mirrors

8) Pi Installed maximum power on the turbines (MW) is a measure of the plant size.

9) Egen Annual generation (GWh) electricity generated during one year.

10) Esun Annual sun insolation on land area (KWh/m2) representing the local sun radiation energy.

13) Ha Hours in a year

15) Annual average power plant land area insolation power (MW) on place.

16) Annual average power plant mirror area insolation power (MW) into the used mirror area.

17) Pa Annual average power (MW) produced in the turbines.

18) Annual average power related to land area (W/m2, MW/Km2) a figure used for calculating the

surface area required for bigger energy needs.

19) Annual average power related to mirror area (W/m2, MW/Km2) a figure used for calculating

the surface area required for bigger energy needs.

20) Mp Mirror packing density (land m2/mirror m2) for how dense the mirrors are packed.

21) C Capacity (related to installed power) (%) provides a tool to compare plants. The annual giga

watt hours gives average power for a year dividing by the number of hours in a year. The capacity

factor is: average power during one year / installed power * 100" (%)

22) Cm Efficiency (related to mirror insolation) (%) related to the power plant mirror insolation.

23) Cl Efficiency (related to land insolation) (%) related to the power plant land insolation.

24) Imagined full power utilization (days / year) notional number of days run with installed capacity

gives a sense of the dilemma of solar power plants, for example how often the sun shines and how

sandstorms and otherwise cause breakdowns.

25) Annual operating cost per installed MW (MUS$/Mw/year), gives a means to calculate operating

cost for bigger needs.

16) Construction cost per installed MW (MSek/Mw), gives a means to calculate construction cost for

bigger needs.

Mojave Desert California and Sonoran Desert Arizona, United State The largest thermal solar power plants in the world are located in USA and Spain today.



5

Dagget, Kramer Junction and Harper Lake, Mojave Desert California

A cluster of nine plants in the Mojave Desert is largest in USA 2013. These power plant turbines are

powered with fossil gas during nights, mirror maintenance and low insolation conditions. One of

them is reported economically fully out:

Ivanpah, Mojave Desert California

The Ivanpah project, is the largest solar power plant in the world. Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2013/10/14/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-plant-storage-comes-online/#KkVEAUG1MeIxWrUe.99

1 Owner

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type

6 Land area 0,78 km2 15 Annual land area sun insolation power 186 MW

7 Mirror area 0,25 km2 16 Annual mirror area sun insolation power 60 MW

8 Installed power 30 MW 17 Annual average power 8 MW

9 Annual generation 72,9 GWh 18 Annual avarage power related to land area 10,7 W/m2, MW/km2

10 Annual sun insolation 2100 kWh/m2 19 Annual avarage power related to mirror area 33,3 W/m2, MW/km3

11 Annual operating cost 3 MUS$ 20 Mirror packing density 3,1 land m2/mirror m2

12 Construction cost 90 MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 28 %

13 Hours in a year 8760 hours 22 Efficiency (related to mirror insolation) 14 %

23 Efficiency (related to land insolation) 4,5 %

24 Imagined full power utilization 101 days/year

25 Annual operating cost per installed MW 0,04 US$/kWh

26 Construction cost per installed MW 3,0 MUS$/MW

NextEra Energy Resources

Kramer Junction SEGS V

Start of construction 1986, 9 all plants have been genarating elektricity since 1990

Mojave Dessert, Calefornia, Southwest United States, 64 km southwest Las Vegas

Trough type, fossile gas backup.

14M stands for "Million" or "Mega" and G for "billion"

or "Giga"

1 Owner

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type



8 Installed power 354 MW 17 Annual average power 76 MW

9 Annual generation 662 GWh 18 Annual avarage power related to land area 11,7 W/m2, MW/km2


11 Annual operating cost xxx MSek 20 Mirror packing density 3,1 land m2/mirror m2

12 Construction cost xxx MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 21,3 %

13 Hours in a year 8760 hours 22 Efficiency (related to mirror insolation) 14,9 %



25 Annual operating cost per installed MW ####### US$/kWh

26 Construction cost per installed MW ####### MUS$/MW

14M stands for "Million" or "Mega" and G for "billion"

or "Giga"

Solar Energy Generating Systems; NextEra Energy Resources,BrightSource Energy and Google

Dagget, Kramer Junction and Harper Lake

Start of construction 1984, 9 all plants have been genarating elektricity since 1990





6

This power plant will contain the largest fully solar-powered steam turbine-generator the nearest

years when it produces electricity according to plan 2014.

Solar thermal power is the only form of solar that can run around the clock, even after the sun goes

down. This is possible because its relatively cheap to store heat produced during the day in the

form of molten salt which can be used to make steam at night. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/519596/worlds-largest-solar-thermal-power-plant-delivers-power-for-the-first-time/

1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type



8 Installed maximum power 392 MW 17 Annual average power 123 MW



11 Annual operating cost xxx MUS$ 20 Mirror packing density 5,5 land m2/mirror m2

12 Construction cost 2200 MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 31,4 %






NRG Energy,BrightSource Energy andGoogle

Start of construction 2010, start of elektricity genaration 2014

14

M stands for "Million" or "Mega" and G stands for

"billion" or "Giga"

Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System


Tower type, molten salt heat storage.



7

Solana, Arizona

The owner of this plant is Spanish and the plant has a molten salt thermal storage.

Andalusia, Extremadura and the Tabernas Desert, Spain The first or the second largest SEGS , thermal solar power plants in the world are located in Spain

today. Spain is without hesitation a leading nation on thermal solar power plants.

Solar Complex, Solaben 1, 2, 3 and 6 in Extremadura

Extremadura Solar Complex, comprising four 50 MW plants, without energy storage system, is what

Abengoa claims the largest solar complex in Europe.

1 Owner

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type













14


"billion" or "Giga"

Abengoa Solar

Solana Generating Station

Start of construction 2008, start of elektricity genaration 2013

Phoenix, Arizona (Gila Bend), (70 miles southwest of Phoenix)

Trough type, molten salt heat storage



8

Solar complex Andasol, plateau of Guadix in Andalusia

Because of the high altitude (1,100 m) and the semi-arid climate, the site has exceptionally high

annual direct insolation. The capacity related to installed power is big, probably because the Andasol plant

uses tanks of molten salt to store solar energy. A full thermal reservoir holds 1 GWh of heat, enough to run

the turbine for about 7.5 hours at full-load, in case it rains or after sunset.

1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type













14


"billion" or "Giga". Fossile backup

Abengoa

Extremadura Solar Complex, Solaben 1,2,3and 6

Construction was started in 2010 and it commenced operation in 2013

Logrosn city, Cceres region, Exremadura Community, Spain


1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type






11 Annual operating cost 9 MUS$ 20 Mirror packing density 3,9 land m2/mirror m2







14


"billion" or "Giga"

ACS Group (Andasol 1,2&3), Solar Millennium, Ferrostaal, Stadtwerke Mnchen, RWE npower

Andasol Solar Power Station

Start of construction 2006, start of elektricity genaration 2009 and is now in action.

On the plateau of Guadix in Andalusia close to Sierra Nevada Spain.




9

Solnova complex, Seville, Andaluca

Solnova Complex, comprising three 50 MW plants is without energy storage.

1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type













Andalucia, Sevilla south of Spain


14


"billion" or "Giga".

Abengoa Solar

Solnova 1,3 and 4

Construction was started in 2009 now operational



10

Extresol complex, Torre de Miguel south of Spain

The Extresol Complex, comprising three 50 MW plants, is provided with an energy storage system

enough to run the turbines for about 7.5 hours at full-load.

Valle 1 and Valle 2 in Andaluca close to Gibraltar

There are some more 100 MW plants around in Spain and USA not shown here.

1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type













14



ACS/Cobra Group

Extresol 1, 2 and 3

Construction was started in 2009 now operational

Andalucia, Torre de Miguel south of Spain


1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type













14



Torresol

Valle 1 and Valle 2


San Jose' del Valle, Cadiz in the south of Spain




11

Planta Solar PS20 in Andaluca close to Gibraltar

This plant represents one of the experiment power plants in Spain, now part of history.

Australia Australia seems to have big plans for the coming years. But 2013 the solar power industry have just

started in a very small scale.

1 Owner

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type




9 Annual generation 48,0 GWh 18 Annual avarage power related to land area 6,4 W/m2, MW/km2


11 Annual operating cost 3,26 MUS$ 20 Mirror packing density 5,6 land m2/mirror m2

12 Construction cost 109,8 MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 27,4 %






Sevilla Sanlcar la Mayor, Sevilla in Andalucia, south Spain close to Gibraltar

Tower type, fossile back up

Abengoa Solar

Planta Solar 20 (PS20)


14

M stands for "Million" or "Mega" and G for "billion"

or "Giga"



12

Kogan Creek Solar Boost, Queensland, Australia The biggest solar power station in Australia today is just boosting a big coal fired 750 MW power

plant with 44 MW sun power daytime. The linear fresnial reflectors seem smart by giving an

extremely dense mirror packing.

Arab countries and Middle East The industrialized countries in this region have promised to put a lot of money on solar power the

coming years as well. So far there is not much done on thermal solar plants.

Shams 1, United Arab Emirates The oil producing Arab countries have big plans for the coming years but so far there is only one big

size plant. Are these countries really having correct priorities where to put their money?

1 Owner

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type







12 Construction cost 92,88 MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 11,4 %






14



CS Energy

Kogan Creek Solar Boost

Construction was started in 2011 operational 2014

Queensland, Australia

Solar Boost to a coal power plant, Linear Fresnel reflector



13

Summary Focus is put on available key data for evaluation of how to supply the worlds, or parts of the worlds

need for electrical energy and to calculate cost.

Efficiency of using land area These results and formulas for capacity C (21), mirror efficiency Cm (22), land efficiency Cl (23) and

mirror packing density Mp=land area/mirror area (20) are using the formulas:

=

100 , =

100 , =

and =

It is obvious that the capacity of solar plants are to be much bigger if they are equipped with

thermal storage, compare average 23,5 with 38,4 %.

But how should it be explained that the efficiency related to the mirror and land area is the same or

even less for plants with thermal storage, compare16,9 with 16,4 % and 4,7 with 3,8 %?

It seems clear that at solar plants which are optimized for solar power and thermal storage got to

have more mirror surface. Since Am is bigger, both Cm and Cl will be lower.

Neither Cm nor Cl is used as a selling argument for solar power plants. Why are the mirrors so

sparsely spaced on land surface both in plants with- and without thermal storage Cl=4,4 and Cl=3,7?

1 Owners

2 Name

3 Year

4 Lokation

5 Type







12 Construction cost 600 MUS$ 21 Capacity (related to installed power) 24 %

13 Hours in a year 8760 hours 22 Efficiency (related to mirror insolation) 17 %



25 Annual operating cost per installed MW ####### MUS$/Mw/year


Abengoa Solar (20%), Masdar (60%)

Shams 1

Construction was started in 2010, operational 2013

United Arab Emirates, 120 km southwest of Abu Dhabi


14



Name Location TypePower

Picapacity C

Mirror

effi ciancy

Cm

Land

effi ciancy

Cl

Mirror

packing

Mp

MW % % %Land/mi

rror

1 Dagget, Kramer, Harper Lake USA, California Dessert Trough,fossile back up 354 21,3 14,9 4,9 3,1

2 Ivanpah USA, California Dessert Solar tower, thermal storage 392 31,4 19,7 3,62 5,5

3 Solana generating station USA, Arizona Dessert Trough parabolic, thermal storage 280 38,5 20,4 3,6 5,7

4 Solaben SPAIN, Extremadura Trough, fossile back up 200 22,8 16,6 4,5 3,7

5 Andasol Solar Power Station SPAIN, Guadix Trough parabolic, thermal storage 150 37,7 14,7 3,8 3,9

6 Solnova SPAIN, Andalucia Trough, fossile back up 150 25,8 18,7 4,9 3,8

7 Extresol SPAIN, Andalucia Trough parabolic, thermal storage 150 40,9 16,2 4,2 3,8

8 Valle SPAIN, Andalucia Trough parabolic, thermal storage 100 36,5 14,3 3,6 4

9 Shams 1 United Arab Emirates Trough, fossile gas backup. 100 24,0 17,2 4,3 4

10 Cogan Creek Australia, Qensland Trough fresnel, fossile back up 44 11,4 7,9 6,7 1,2

11 Juelich Solar Tower Germany Solar tower, thermal storage 1,5 7,6 6,2 0,7 9,4

Summary, average Global Trough, fossile backup 201 23,5 16,9 4,7 3,7

Summary, average Global Trough,thermal storage 170 38,4 16,4 3,8 4,4

Summary of the biggest thermal solar power stations in the world with key data 2013.



14

Is it because it is not an issue so far? But it should be, if these facilities would be used to solve the

world's energy needs!

With focus on the mirror packing and high efficiency, future thermal solar power plants might then

have a capacity C=40%, mirror efficiency of Cm=17%, mirror packing of Mp=4 and a land efficiency

of Cl=17/4=4,3%

The formula for calculating the land area for needs and regions will be:

=

This is illustrating the true land area Al (km2) to be covered with mirrors, imagined by a circular

surface with a diameter D (km), provided for supplying the need for electricity in the world

compared with the demands of EU27, USA, Australia and Kina. Some locations are exemplified. The

calculation is simple, accurate and based on well-established input data from reality described

above.

The circles are shown below placed on respective localizations.

The world Electricity demand placed in Sahara compared with the EU27 electricity demand placed in Spain.

The USA Electricity demand placed in California/Arizona

Annual elctricity demand 2013= PWh GWh KWh/m2 % Km2 km

World, Sahara 20,2 2,02E+07 2400 4,3 1,96E+05 499

EU27, Andalucia 3,1 3,10E+06 2100 4,3 3,43E+04 209

America, Mojave dessert 8,9 8,90E+06 2100 4,3 9,86E+04 354

Australia 0,3 3,00E+05 2100 4,3 3,32E+03 65

Kina 4,9 4,90E+06 2100 4,3 5,43E+04 263

Area calculationsCirkel

diameter Dconsuption Egen Esun Cl Al



15

The Australian electricity demand The Kinas electricity demand

Cost for building solar plants, operational cost and electricity cost. The cost for building new solar power plants in a scale supposed to supply the world need for electric

energy is by nature a difficult issue. The figures below should almost be considered as prototype

costs with such a perspective! The big scale production needed would reduce the building costs in big

extent. The size of such a reduction is impossible to guess, can it be halved? Such speculations are

not used here when calculating costs even if it should. But it is used in discussions and conclusions.

The costs for running and maintaining the plants are not compared because these figures seem hard

to find. When comparing we suppose they are equal. On the other hand cost for fuel is taken into

consideration. It is rather obvious that these costs are to low when considering fossil fuels and

nuclear fuels.

The cost per generated KWh is not found for the clusters of big plants, only occasional figures for

parts of them: http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/solarthermal.html#streferences........http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy......

Statistics from the U.S. Department of Energy list solar thermal power costs around 0.13 to 0.17 US$ per kilowatt/hour. Compared to wind,

another alternative energy source, which produces kilowatt hours at 0.08 US$ each, solar may seem less desirable. Given the facts that

solar thermal power is reliable, can deliver peak load and does not cause pollution, a price of US$0.10 per kWh[83]

starts to

become competitive, although a price of US$0.06 has been claimed. With some operational cost a simple target is 1 dollar (or

lower) investment for 1 kWh production in a year.

Name Location TypePower

Pi

Construc-

tion cost

Annual

operating

cost

Power

Pi

Invest-

ment

cost

MWMUS$

/MW

US$

/KWhMW MUS$

1 Dagget, Kramer, Harper Lake USA, California Dessert Trough,fossile back up 354 3,0 0,04 30 90

2 Ivanpah (Planta Solar PS20) USA, California Dessert (Spain) Solar tower, thermal storage 392 5,5 0,07 392 2200

3 Solana generating station USA, Arizona Dessert Trough parabolic, thermal storage 280 7,1 xxx 280 2000

4 Solaben SPAIN, Extremadura Trough, fossile back up 200 3,0 xxx 200 608

5 Andasol Solar Power Station SPAIN, Guadix Trough parabolic, thermal storage 150 7,6 0,02 150 1140

6 Solnova SPAIN, Andalucia Trough, fossile back up 150 4,7 xxx 150 710

7 Extresol SPAIN, Andalucia Trough parabolic, thermal storage 150 6,4 xxx 150 950

8 Valle SPAIN, Andalucia Trough parabolic, thermal storage 100 7,0 xxx 100 700

9 Shams 1 United Arab Emirates Trough, fossile gas backup. 100 6,0 xxx 100 600

10 Cogan Creek Australia, Qensland Trough fresnel, fossile back up 44 2,1 xxx 44 92,9

11 Extresol 1 SPAIN, Andalucia Trough parabolic, thermal storage 50 380

Summary, average Global Trough, fossile backup 201 4,2 0,04

Summary, average Global Trough,thermal storage 170 6,7 0,05

Summary of the biggest thermal solar power stations in the world with key data 2013.



16

Just looking at todays cost for solar plants with thermal storage would be: average construction cost

~6,7 US$/MW, annual operating cost 0.02 US$/KWh and the cost for the generated electricity 0.1

US$/kWh the year 2013.

But using the value 6,7 US$/MW is not correct and ought to be 5,2 US$/MW which is seen on the

regression analysis below:

We can see a trend on construction cost on the lower side shown by the linear equation (going from

millions (Mega) to trillions (Tera)):

$ = ($/10^6 = 5,2519 + 148,92)/10^6

Here is the installed power necessary for a certain calculated power demand the year of 2013.

This gives a result for installation costs:

http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/more_highlights.cfm

The world need of electricity the year 2013 was around 20,2 Pwh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh

GigaWh) which would mean 30,3 TUS$ (Tera US$) (=Trillion US$) for building the thermal

solar power plants needed. No cost for fuel when calculating over time!

This cost is in a range hard to understand. Therefore it is interesting to compare with corresponding

investments/cost on the alternatives:

y = 3,6587x + 36,75

y = 5,6014x + 180,88

y = 5,2519x + 148,92

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0 100 200 300 400

Bu

ildin

g co

st (

MU

S$)

Installed power (MW)

Fossile backup

Thermal storage

Thermal storageoptimistic

Linjr (Fossile backup)

Linjr (Thermalstorage)

Linjr (Thermal storageoptimistic)

Hours in a year Ha= 8760

consumption Egen C Pi

Annual elctricity demand 2013= PWh GWh % MW MUS$ Trillion US$

World, Sahara 20,2 2,02E+07 40 5,8E+06 3,03E+07 30,3

EU27, Andalucia 3,1 3,10E+06 40 8,8E+05 4,65E+06 4,6

America, Mojave dessert 8,9 8,90E+06 40 2,5E+06 1,33E+07 13,3

Australia 0,3 3,00E+05 40 8,6E+04 4,50E+05 0,4

Kina 4,9 4,90E+06 40 1,4E+06 7,34E+06 7,3

Installation cost the

year of 2013



17

Nuclear power comparison The installation cost for nuclear power is ranging between 5 and 11 US$/W according to Basic

Economics of Nuclear Power, Ian Schultz, March 19, 2012 Stanford University: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/schultz2/

The world demand for electricity 20,2 PWh the year 2013 recalculated to an annual average daily

power will be 2,3 TW (T=Tera or Trillion watt). This means an installation cost (ranging from 11,5

TUS$ to) 25,4 TUS$ (T=Tera or Trillion US$ on the upper side which is used here without hesitation).

In June 2013, the approx. US $ cost to get 1 kg of uranium as UO2 reactor fuel (at current spot

uranium price) was 2360 US$/Kg. The electric power per kg uranium (assuming a burn-up rate of 45,000 MWd/t,

and work out to a fuel cost of 0.77 US c/kWh) make 360000 kWh/kg. A 1000 Mwe nuclear power plant reqires 30

ton/year which means that generated electricity in this nuclear plant the year 2013 will be 10,8

TWh/year, the cost per Wh for this power is 0,000007 US$/Wh and the cost for of electricity during this

year 70,8 MUS$/year (million US$/year) for this plant.

The figures for this plant scaled to the world consumption during 10 years means a fuel cost of 1,32 TUS$ which

is surprisingly low.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Economic-Aspects/Economics-of-Nuclear-Power/

So an installed nuclear power of 20,2 PWh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh GigaWh) would

cost 26,7 TUS$ (T=Tera or Trillion) to build and run for 10 years which is in the

same range as the thermal solar power, even without considering the loss off

a natural resource, cost increase of fuel, environmental destruction,

restoration of degraded land areas for the uranium handling, waste

deposition and the cost for cleaning up after the nuclear catastrophes!

Fossil power comparison Plant Washington is an 850 MW supercritical, pulverized coal-fired, base load, Greenfield power generating facility. The plant is located in

rural east-central Georgia near Sandersville in Washington County. First, the plant turned out to be expensive: Early estimates put the cost

of constructing it at $2.1 billion, though watchdog groups calculate that the price tag would be $3.9 billion or more. That expenditure, plus

the cost of burning coal, could send locals electricity bills sky-high if the plant is completed, according to local consumer advocate Georgia

Watch.2 http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115324/plant-washington-meet-last-new-coal-burning-plant-america

An installed coal fired power of 20,2 PWh would cost 11,5 TUS$ to build. Powering these plants with

coal is easy to calculate using the year 2013 world coal price. Not speculating in increase of price

during a 10 year period this powering cost will be 3,7 TUS$.

So an installed coal fired power of 20,2 PWh (PetaWh) (2,02*10^7 GWh GigaWh)

would cost 15,2 TUS$ (T=Tera or Trillion) to build and run for 10 years which is

in the same range as the thermal solar power, even without considering the

loss off a natural resource, increase of cost for the fuel, environmental

destruction including risks with the climate and restoration of degraded land

areas after the coal handling!

Conclusions The investigations above so far only have been considering satisfying the world need for electricity. It

has only been concentrating on thermal solar power as well.



18

A problem with solar power which many takes for granted is the lack of storage capability and the

given fact that problems with mobile energy seems not solved. This is discussed below.

The world need for electricity It is obvious that even the old well tried and tested thermal solar power plants easily can supply

the worlds need for electricity!

The investment costs will be in parity with the alternatives even in short term and completely

obvious superior to the alternatives in long term.

It is natural, doubting the idea of building huge plants and a grid in the worlds best location

Sahara, due to this regions political instability!

But why is it so far from reality 2013 to put all investments on solar power in parts of the

world like Kina, Australia, USA, Spain, Saudi Arabia and many other single countries with

stable political structure, money and superior insolation?

That is spelled ignorance, fossil thinking and reactionary lobbying. The world economies really

need something to believe on and get a sustainable focus in the energy matters. As it is today too

much effort put on the fossil and nuclear dirty alternatives sucking power from the future real

sustainable alternatives.

In Germany, the political establishment has taken truly radical measures, but they are really solo on

this and have to endure so much criticism for its "Energiewende". Sweden is not alone in meeting up

with this criticism and the politicians partly are right, in that the Germans put market forces out of

play. But the question is if the market forces really have the capability of ever doing what the

Germans are calling an Energiewende?

Above this, for example the 89 million (mega) Sec transaction the Swedish Vattenfall bought the

Dutch oil, coal and gas industry Nuon is about to be a real good business. Crassly note that with the

boom in shale gas that goes on in U.S., combined with the problems with Russian gas that appeared

in 2014, Nuon gas business might be profitable within short, but no politician dares to say that!

And as for the advocates of nuclear power, one can only note a lack of imagination and a total

blindness to all the environmental damage!

Let's just hope that all investments in coal, gas and oil that we see today will be used as a lever to make the

giant "Energiewende" that the world is waiting for. It can actually be a perfectly acceptable idea provided it

takes place fast.

Energy accumulation and mobile energy Lack of imagination is one thing which is typical for all who states that solar energy never can replace

oil and gas due to the problems with storage capability (accumulation). Huge efforts today toward

improved batteries make electric cars more and more a realistic alternative. True but we are talking

about replacing oil, gas and make the solar power work the year around! This will never be done by

means of batteries.

And now we're talking about the really big bet on solar power, which is not mentioned in the

present paper but will be a next topic for studies:



19

One basic ingredient for producing hydrogen is electricity! Suppose we make the land area covered

with mirrors ten times bigger using the energy for producing hydrogen as well. Then the world

would never more suffer from lack of energy, not for rockets, cars, ships, working machinery and

landscape contractors.

There is science on recirculation carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into a cycle with hydrogen

increasing the energy level of hydrogen gas.

In a transition phase, one can also let the energy-rich fossil gas be included in this process.

Hydrogen made by electricity and water will then both solve the accumulation problems and fuel

vehicles! Hopefully without any damage on our precious Mother Earth.

Will there be new environmental problems? For sure we will have new environmental problems to solve! One of these is the huge area covered

with mirrors.

For example it is well known that the building of Ivanpah in the California dessert was about

to kill a big population of rare turtles. Big efforts were made to move the population to

another place.

If large areas are to be covered with mirrors in the deserts, there will be a redistribution of

heat that will change the climate for the better or for the worse. Who knows?

Production of hydrogen in this scale can cause environmental problems to be solved! But

burning hydrogen and burning synthetic carbon gas recycling atmospheric carbon dioxide is

no problem!

But these are small problems compared with the dirty alternatives. These are so tiring to talk

about because of all the alarmists who do not seek solutions to the problems.

Alongside this, a new human dilemma caused by all the "fossil" scientists who claim they want

to compensate for atmospheric carbon dioxide using a variety of truly dangerous practices has

shown up!

In such a case it must be better to do climate experiments with mirrors in deserts!

The eventual environmental problems producing huge quantities of hydrogen will be an

interesting topic for new studies!

A game changer in the solar power industry In recent years, researches on solar cells converting light directly into electrical power by means of photoelectric

effect have increased, solar energy referred to as "photovoltaic (PV)". These are not included in the present

investigation though they seem to be the future.

The reason for a game change is

These solar cells seem to be capable to work only using day light which means they can be used in a

wider ranges of locations on earth.

The price is steadily going down making them compete able and profitable.

The grid is used backwards and there seem to be no big need for building big new grid systems.

Human urban systems are by nature using the surfaces needed for these solar panels, city

building roofs and walls. This is a kind of human way to imitate nature with something similar to

the photosynthesis. Very attractive!

Future integration of roofs, windows and walls with solar cells will cause a new way of building houses!

But is there a big environmental problem with huge solar cell industries? Another topic for discussion

and studies!

solar energy to save the environment

Documents

thermal solar power

biggest thermal solar

solar energy

concentrated solar power

solar cells

electrical power

world electricity demand

kina electricity demand