-
Pingback from Anonymous on Thursday 22 July 2010 at 11.54am
-
How much of the $60 million can be attributed to first of a kind costs? Are there any projections for the cost of the 5th such facility? How about the 20th?
How much storage is part of the system? There has to be a finite limit on the number of BTUs or kilowatt-hours that can be withdrawn from the storage system without new heat input from the sun before the temperature of the salt reaches some predefined limit. What is that number?
-
Hi Rod,
I have seen a lot of concerned comments over the price of this first plan, which surprised me quite a lot. If I hadn’t stressed myself the high price of this first experiment, I guess we wouldn’t have had as much discussion, so I’m glad I did. Anyway, I have published some more data from ENEA on my blog, regarding their expectations from this technology once it’s fully developed: http://www.opportunityenergy.org/?p=94
For a typical 100MW stand alone plant in Egypt, it should look like this:
Annual direct solar radiation: 2.900 kWh/(m2 year)
Total area occupied by the solar collectors: 67 ha
Total area occupied by the solar field: 134 ha
Nominal power output: 100 MW (Peak 485 MW)
Thermal storage capacity: 1.800 MWh
Net annual electricity produced: 369 GWh/year
Plant load factor: 42 %Total Cost : 157 M€
Specific cost : 1.570 €/kWe
Service life: 25 years
Interest rate: 7%
Annual operating (O&M) costs: 2% of investment cost
Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE): 4,5 €cents/kWhObviously, this can be scaled down or up according to needs, as much as the technical data can be changed. Some clients might want more storage to achieve a higher load factor, some might prefer a lower storage capacity, and just modulate the plant according to peak prices (which tend to be matched quite well by nature in this case).
-
Hi Carlo:
In your response above, you stated that a 100 MWe plant in Egypt would require a total of 134 ha to be occupied by the solar field.
134 ha is equal to 1.34 square kilometers. (Please correct me if I am wrong on my unit conversion.)
According to the Archimede Solar web site technology page at
http://www.archimedesolarenergy.com/solar_receiver_tube.htma system that uses 1 square kilometer of land would produce between 100-130 gigawatt-hours of solar electricity each year.
Using that figure, a plant occupying 134 ha of land would produce between 134-174 gigawatt-hours of solar electricity each year.
If it produces at a 42% load factor that would give it a peak output of just 47 MWe, not 100 MWe.
Also, for a high temperature-high pressure steam power plant a total O&M budget of just 3.2 M€ (2% of 157 M€) is optimistic – especially if the operators need to buy enough fresh water to keep the Egyptian dust off of 67 ha of polished mirrors.
-
Rod,
I have reported figures from ENEA, so I am not the man behind those numbers, particularly the financial projections. As to the technical data, I would tend to agree with the ENEA figures from a 42 page report thou, rather than to a website page by a private company briefly illustrating the technology. Could well be a typo.
ENEA assumes a surface of 67 hectares for the solar collectors of a 100MW plant. The Archimede Plant collectors are about 3 hectares and 5 MW, the proportion is therefore consistent.
-
Carlo:
The factor that the ENEA does not take into account that the Archimede web site does is the specific environmental conditions that developers of concentrating solar power systems will face in their target areas like North Africa. Here is the quote from that web site.
“Other promising areas of the world to apply CSP technology include Southern Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East, parts of India, China, and Australia. These regions have peculiar territorial features as large amounts of atmospheric humidity, dust and fumes so that 1 sq km of land is enough to generate 100-130 gigawatt hours of solar electricity a year, using solar thermal technology.”
I have spent some time in a few of the areas mentioned and recognize that the vendors of this technology are being realistic. The ENEA may not be so realistic and may not be factoring in such inevitable influences as dust, humidity, and air pollution. Anything exposed to the open weather in a North African desert has a high probability of being covered with a thick layer of powdery dust in just a few weeks.
-
Hi Ron, I don’t see your point.
Archimede plant, the first of its kind, indeed follows ENEA’s figures, and it does so at a tiny scale. But let’s say, regardless of this, that you are right and ENEA are wrong. Let’s say that it takes 2, even 3 times as the surface they claim (and granted, a real case scenario is already proving different). We have millions of square kilometres of unused land available in North Africa, Middle East, and elsewhere. Big deal! We will still require just a tiny fraction of the land available. And not all of this land is battered by constant sand storms.
But again, I don’t see how we can deny what the Archimede plant already achieves in terms of design figures. There is available literature to prove the amount of surface required for a given output. Let’s not confuse the need for maintenance to the output capabilities, related to collectors’ surface and storage volume (which is the main parameter to determine the load factor, along with the latitude of the chosen location).
Incidentally, I found another example of ENEA design, for a 400MW power plant with a high 80% load factor to deliver 2.8TWh per year (basically, bigger heat storage, should it ever be required even in a hot desert area). Again, the surface required for solar collectors is assessed at around 3.3km2, that is 82.5 hectares per 100MW, slightly more than the 67 reported above.
The document (in italian) is available here: http://www.enea.it/produzione_scientifica/pdf_enea_attiivita/Calore_alta_temp.pdf
Regards






14 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.carboncommentary.com/2010/07/20/1604/trackback