The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Building the world's largest solar project > Comments

Building the world's largest solar project : Comments

By Nicholas Cunningham, published 9/4/2018

Yet another uncertainty is what Saudi Arabia wants to do with 200 GW of power when its total electricity capacity only amounted to 77 GW in 2016.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
The Saudis will have nowhere to go when their oil runs out. Already the water percentage in their oil is said to be increasing. Norway is rich in both oil and hydro and they are subsidising electric cars which makes more sense.

Maybe the anti-nuclear nations Germany and Belgium will pay top dollar for solar electricity via long distance cables. Despite promises to cut fossil fuel dependence those countries are importing more Russian gas. Saudi solar, Russian gas... hang the expense so long as it is not nuclear.
Posted by Taswegian, Monday, 9 April 2018 9:07:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Yet another uncertainty is what Saudi Arabia wants to do with 200 GW of power when its total electricity capacity only amounted to 77 GW in 2016."

This statement by the author demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the subject. 200 GW of solar power may generate up to about 40 GW power on average. However, to be able to supply 40 GW fully dispatchable power to the grid would require around 350 TWh of energy storage capacity. The cost of that needs to be added to the cost of the solar power station. Then compare the total cost of solar plus storage with the cost of 45 GW of nuclear power, which would supply reliable 40 GW of power for 60 to 80 years.
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 9 April 2018 10:28:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This shows a degree of economic nouse missing in most of today's privatised/corporatized/mindless economies! XXX Yes of course the energy sales will pay for the build costs! XXX And as a massive solar thermal project with state of the art heat banks, will produce very low cost energy for numerous industrial projects! Like affordable desalt reliant irrigation projects and endless hydrogen production. XXX The only real limitations are those created by the, we know all the reasons it can't be done or won't work, experts! XXX Saudi Arabia knows its oil however vast is a finite resource and know that it current energy products are contributing to destructive, survival threatening, climate change. XXX It acts, with its investment plans, as though it actually has some responsibility for consequent outcomes and a very pleasant change from the oil rich oligarchs/Satan's servants, who want to own all our money and rule the world! XXX WHAT'S THE BET ALL THOSE PLANNED FOR 16 NUCLEAR PLANTS, WON'T BE MSR THORIUM? Saudi probably has serious supplies of Thorium, the most energy dense material in the world!? XXX Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 9 April 2018 11:18:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps the main driver is Saudi intermediaries aim to collect the usual "commissions" (bribes) to approve an (in the end) illusory 200 GWs of development?
Posted by plantagenet, Monday, 9 April 2018 12:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I support Peter Lang's comments above.

Citing nameplate capacity to compare stable, reliable power sources such as coal or nuclear with unreliable, weather-dependent sources such as solar and wind is irrelevant.

Consumers want to buy energy, not promises of peak capacity at some future and probably inconvenient time.

The initial commitment is for only 7.2 GW, which at say 20% capacity factor, represents 12,000 TWh, where a terrawatt hour is a billion domestic electricity energy units, ie one billion KWh.

In more understandable terms, that is approximately equal to the annual output of the currently very publicly debated Liddell Power Station during its best years. Liddell was and is reliable and schedulable, as well as being capable of load-following, eg when an unexpected cloud or dust storm gets between the sun and the solar farm.

I'd love to see the economic evaluation to justify $US200 Billion on this project. It will rate as one of the best works of fiction of all time.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Monday, 9 April 2018 12:24:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A solar thermal power plant in a largely waterless desert, makes perfect sense. But particularly if it includes fluoride/lithium/beryllium/thorium salt heat banks that'll allow them to produce base load dispatchable power for up to a week of no sunshine. And that's what the Saudis have excessive amounts of. XXX All the costs are up front and the fuel, sunshine. Is free and endless! XXX These salt heat banks can and do, retain boiler ready heat for up to 7 days or more, and are therefore able to operate as base load, dispatchable, on demand, power stations! XXX [Thorium has an unusual reaction to concentrated, thorium exciting sunlight and some pulsed laser beams?] XXX And once done, all the usual detractors will have nowhere to go! An economic dagger aimed at the economic throat of Iran and Russia, both almost exclusively dependant on oil exports for their entire economic well being! XXX And would want anything else for the Saudis! And probably thought the Saudis future proofing industrialization, would stop with a few oil refineries? Let alone a world leading solar thermal plant or, horror of horrors for them, 16 operational thorium MSR'S XXX Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 9 April 2018 3:38:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy