Slashdot Mirror
India To Build World's Largest Solar Plant
ananyo writes "India has pledged to build the world's most powerful solar plant. With a nominal capacity of 4,000 megawatts, comparable to that of four full-size nuclear reactors, the 'ultra mega' project will be more than ten times larger than any other solar project built so far, and it will spread over 77 square kilometres of land — greater than the island of Manhattan. Six state-owned companies have formed a joint venture to execute the project, which they say can be completed in seven years at a projected cost of US$4.4 billion. The proposed location is near Sambhar Salt Lake in the northern state of Rajasthan."
Is 4.4 billion cost effective? Is there subsidies that make it cost effective? How does this compare to other forms of electricity consumption. To throw numbers around without context reminds me of this observation by Randall Monroe:
http://blog.xkcd.com/2013/05/15/dictionary-of-numbers/
4,000MW is 4 jiggawatts...
Wait till Google gets on board to out do them with 5 GiggleWatts. :)
5 miles on a side, we have that kind of space in arid nevada... like it's nothing.
When you have State funding and a free pass on environmental regulations.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Believe it or not, even with 1.2 billion people India still has vast tracts of empty land. This 30 square miles is not a big deal.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Cloudy.
Congratulations to India for leading the world on a big step away from fossil fuels.
This is what all the world should be doing if we are going to reduce the effects of global warming and climate change.
Line losses would ruin efficiency though. I'm pretty sure they're set on building it in India.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
So this will power 3 delorians for a 30 year temporal displacement?
According to TFA, this will be a huge photovoltaic plant. But as I understand it, solar thermal is more efficient, and for a large centralized project like that, I would have expected solar thermal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Does anyone know why they are going photovoltaic for this project?
Photovoltaic certainly does have some pluses: it's simple, no moving parts. But for a project of this capacity I should think they would go for the most efficient solution.
Plus a thermal solution with molton salt would provide a nontrivial amount of storage, for power after dark.
So, what am I missing? Does India have lots of factories making photovoltaic cells or something?
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
As opposed to other countries where nobody gets raped?
Too bad their electrical infrastructure is like a spider web that got caught in a hurricane.
However, this is smarter than it seems on the surface. If you lose 60% of your electricity during transport due to crappy, outdated lines and equipment, it's a hell of a lot better if solar was the source. If it was a CO2-emitting source, that's an awful lot worse. If it's the sun, you really didn't lose anything.
I am concerned about their ability to store the electricity for night time or when it's not sunny. Even the US hasn't perfected that one.
I wonder if those estimates include the transmission infrastructure to carry the electricity to high usage areas? The Wind Farm rush of West Texas had every energy company throwing up wind turbines to get the government subsidies. Next thing you knew there was more power generation in West Texas than the transmissions lines could carry back to Dallas where it was needed. The cost of storing electricity is more than it is worth so large amounts of electricity were being shunted directly into the ground while E.R.C.O.T. decided how to build out the new transmission lines. That project alone took 5 years and cost around 4 Billion.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
30 square miles of unfarmable salt flats, solar is a pretty good use of the space, really. Not to mention jump starting the local solar panel industry something fierce.
moox. for a new generation.
Cheap government subsidized home solar panels would be better. Solar hot water heaters. And even solar rechargeable led lamps. India should also put more focus on hydro. Hydro can provide both power and water.
First of all: It will generate less energy than that. Averaged over the year about 800MW. The amount of energy it will generate between 6pm and 6am is roughly zilch. During the short time around noon, when it will generate on the order of 3+GW (depending on weather, season, condition of the solar cells etc.), there will be no industry capable of actually using it, because 2-4 hours of electricity a day is simply not worth the investment. (Before and after this time, the power drops off quickly.) Even 8 hours would be too short, because you'll need 2 or 3 factories working in parallel for 8 hours a day to produce as much as a single factory can in 16 or 24 hours.
Finally wrap your head around the fact that quality of service cannot be compared by using peak power generation.
P.S.: Yes, noon is just the right time to get your air conditioning started, but unfortunately, when it comes to India the question is mostly: What air-conditioning are you talking about?
I gotta go back in time and tell doc that it's possible to use solar panels for this. "Back to the Future 5: Climate Fighters"
So... Do you still lie awake at night hiding under the covers because of all the "Space Nutters" plotting against you?
Oh no! There may be one under your bed RIGHT NOW!
Two nuns and a lumberjack walk into a bar. The first nun turns to the lumberjack and asks "do you know how to ruin a joke?"
Help stamp out iliturcy.
We can plant a house, we can build a tree.
God spoke to me
Aravali hills have Rajasthan on on Levard side, not even much rain there even during monsoons
"The solar photovoltaic power plant will have an estimated life of 25 years and is expected to supply 6.4 billion kilowatt-hours per year, according to official figures."
For reference, a single 1GWe nuclear plant operating at (a conservative) 0.85 capacity factor will produce 7.45 TW-hours/year of reliable power. So this solar plant isn't the equivalent of one reactor, much less four. Considering that nuclear plants typically last 60 years and AP1000s are near $2/W in China, the solar option costs five times as much over that time frame.
While this solar farm is idle at night and unreliable by day, the transmission infrastructure must be built to handle the full capacity of the equivalent four nuclear plants, and it will sit idle most of the time. The solar option makes no economic sense, when instead they could purchase two actual 1GWe nuclear plants, and have 15 TW-hours/year of reliable power for more than twice as long.
> Is 4.4 billion cost effective? Is there subsidies that make it cost effective?
Subsidies would come from whom? The taxpayers, right? The underlying assumption there is "perhaps it's not cost effective, except that forcefully taking someone's paycheck has no cost, so any tax money used is magical free money that can turn a bad idea into a good idea".
If it's not cost effective, it's not, period. Forcefully taking the citizens paychecks to pay for it, aka subsidy, does not magically make it cost effective. It just makes it forced cost rather than a voluntary one.
There was a Back to the Future 4?
They have robots for this now:
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/e...
It's basically a Roomba for solar panels
Didn't I read on Slashdot not too long ago that the US military was investing in solar research? Here. Junk science, indeed?
This generation can be used to offset the additional load of air conditioners - it is not going to be the only power source. Considering that air conditioners use the most power when it is sunny, it actually works out all right.
They are installing these panels on salt flats. It's not really a waste of space if you can't use the area for anything else.
As for using the "reactor" in space: we don't have to worry about it blowing up (technically, it's already exploding), we don't have to worry about it leaking out into the environment, we don't have spend effort to maintain the reaction in any way, and we don't have to deal with the spent fuel.
You claim that it will produce less energy that stated in the article. Have you seen the blueprints or something? How are you are in a position to know more about it's capacity than the people who designed it?
I don't think the power requirement has anything to do with the time.
Like most questions, the answer is in TFA. The plant will produce about "6.4 billion kilowatt-hours per year". This averages out over a year at 730 MW, so tp1024 was actually being generous with 800 MW.
...will be providing shade and partial shelter for the millions of homeless. That is priceless. I really wish this project well.
Yes. In the future, there was a Back to the Future 4.
Its in the future.
It's hundreds of miles from Pakistan. It's also hundreds of miles south of Kashmir.
General Sherman is the largest plant. India's solar thingie isn't even alive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even 8 hours would be too short, because you'll need 2 or 3 factories working in parallel for 8 hours a day to produce as much as a single factory can in 16 or 24 hours.
India recently announced a National Electricity Grid with southern grid joining, the north, east and west. So its a single grid which is supposed to do all sort of wonders (which I don't know much about, but sounds good anyway.)
Plus Rajasthan borders Delhi and Gujarat...two of the most industrially developed states which will consume any electricity thrown at it, and Madhya Pradesh - one of the backward states - think of Appalachia - where your contention "what air-conditioning in India" rings somewhat true.
So me thinks the people behind the planning and execution are on to something...and definitely they know better about the local conditions than we on Slashdot.
Tat Tvam Asi
Pakistan and India had equal opportunities to develop after partition. They both took different directions.
Now one has its flag on the moon and the other has a moon on its flag.
They can fit a few million people under the panels.
Because no one has demonstrated a commercially viable fusion reactor yet? Good enough reason?
What makes you think a giant solar power project is "investing in solar research"?
The bit where the summary of the old discussion says the US military are hoping to increase efficiency from 20% to 50% ?
Incorporating solar panels into low income housing doesn't sound like a bad idea so long as the panel infrastructure were stable and went undamaged by the residents. They get housing, and they provide themselves and others energy.
Here's a clue for the clueless. Despite urban myth nonsense about US oil companies suppressing more efficient car engines and the like, if there was ANY possible real benefit to a giant solar plant, the USA would be there first. When the usual suspects have no interest in this form of engineering, you can take it for granted that it is junk science.
So no, you aren't giving a counterexample.
Why are you pretending to be so stupid as to not consider operating costs, such as fuel? Do you have so much invested in the idea of dismissing new technology that you do not mind the embarrassment so long as you manage to fool a few naive children?
Quite well in the middle of a desert.
East to west is pretty damn good providing you with a moving peak. Not having centralized power grids is bad when the local power station drops out completely. Not having centralized power grids is bad when you have to burn crappy brown coal or oil and there's cheap hydro just off your grid.
Here's a graphic example of that:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/08/solar-to-reboot.html
Even what is possibly the coldest place on Earth with a very long dark winter is a good place for solar panels - even if they are just tied vertically to poles!
Here's another:
http://icestories.exploratorium.edu/dispatches/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/pn31.jpg
Daytime industrial demand dwarfs everything else.
... if there was ANY possible real benefit to a giant solar plant, the USA would be there first. When the usual suspects have no interest in this form of engineering, you can take it for granted that it is junk science.
The US is behind the world in a number of areas, high-speed internet being the first that comes to mind. That said, the US has multiple large solar power plants, including, but not limited to, Avenal, Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada Solar One, Ivanpah, Solana, and multiple SEGS. There are multiple ones under construction, and many more planned. Most are thermal, not PV, and they are not as large as the proposed one, but solar plants make a great deal of sense in the right location (say, Arizona or Nevada or CA desert). It's also hard to get approval for exceptionally large projects in the US, it turns out to be easier (environmentally, financially, etc.) to make large projects. You can see a list of concentrating thermal plants here.
so, your argument that the US would be doing it if it was of any possible real benefit doesn't work.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
No, place in question is near Jaipur, the state capital... nowhere near the Pakistani or Kashmiri borders
You know for all of the SI-wits on this site, you think they would at least take advantage of it...
4,000 megawatts == 4 gigawatts.
There, doesn't that convey the same value, but with 4 less characters needed?
If you're going to beat everyone over their heads with it, at least use the FUCKING thing..or does 4,000 of something sound much more impressive than 4 of something?
Injits.
Or they could have claimed it was...4 million kilowatts.
Even more impressive: 5,361,930 HP!
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
A salt lake in the middle of nowhere is probably the best choice for pure insolation, but why not build in some almost-as-sunny place near population? If each element of the solar array were built into a structure that could serve as a roof for a self-built house, conditional on observing minimum building standards and keeping dust cleaned off the panel, you could draw a lot of people out of the slums and on to the start of a better life.
I'd take a few 4.4 billion off of millitary budget to get some real southwestern solutions to energy.
Because low educated superstitious louts can't be trusted to take care of them, or at least not destroy them.
This goes for anyplace with low education superstitious louts, not just India
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think GP meant that they could build a solar plant in NV for powering US grid. not India
Anyway NV may have betteer weather for solar generally, I don't know how much a solar plant works in the monsoon season.
It's a dry lake bed. Presumably it is dry for a reason.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
4.4 billion for the equivalent of 4 nuclear reactors + free fuel + zero pollution. Seriously why isn't every country doing this as fast as they can?
What you describe has a long chain of "if this, then maybe that, so maybe that, which could mean ..."
It's just as likely that a sudden demand for a huge amount of solar panels, followed by that demand suddenly dropping to ~ zero when the project is complete would be a BAD thing. In general, instabilities are bad for an economy.
So the assumption isn't that there are NO network effects. The assumption is that there could be good and bad network effects, and there's no reason to think that politicians accurately predict third order network effects 10 years out, then have everything play out exactly according to this elaborate plan.
Sure there could be good side effects. There could be bad side effects. Once you get to the side effects of the side effects of the side effects, you're just guessing.
There is a cool solar thermal plant just south of Vegas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_Solar_One
Unfortunately it's only 65MW and it's owned by a Spanish company.
Harry Reid has called Nevada the "solar Saudi Arabia". Unfortunately, building things in the middle of nowhere is expensive and getting that power onto the grid is expensive.
The area of concern gets to 40C during the summer time, and with air conditioners running at full blast, its eats up a lot of power.
My bigger worry is that despite everything, a lot of the planning and monies dedicated for this project will get eaten through the pipeline.
The only power capacity India has really added in the past few years to the grid,except for individual gen-sets, is wind power. India has not been able to really add large power plants due to one faction, protest, or corruption...
You're basically saying that India is corrupt, so a new project has to be literally all about corruption.
You support this idea by basically saying that the US will always be the first to do any beneficial thing, even when the return isn't great.
If you're trolling, you're not doing an entertaining enough job of it.
That's a function of which specific subculture of people you're dealing with. Apply varying values of "we'll build a house for you under the collector..." and "a competency test is required to homestead here..." to the specific population near the array.
You seem to have missed the 400 MW Ivanpah solar thermal plant just west of Las Vegas: http://ivanpahsolar.com/
Oh crap. The facility that I thought was Nevada Solar One is actually this Ivanpah plant. Cool. Thanks for the info.
"Unfortunately, even with the best technology we have on the planet, you'll need at least 3kWh electricty to get 1kWh of electricity back out of storage."
That's just not true. Pumped hydro averages about 70% efficiency (3 kWh in to get 2 kWh out) and new pumped hydro where evaporation isn't a problem is about 85% efficiency (5 kWh in to get 6 kWh out).
But that's irrelevant -- if there is enough daytime demand for 4 GW in that region of India, and if their dispatchable power plants can ramp sufficiently quickly, than they don't need storage. This need not be a "power" unit -- it could simply be an "energy" unit, replacing coal with solar, thereby saving money and pollution.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Nice backtrack - so you are suggesting that you ARE so stupid as to not think of ongoing costs? I'm not convinced. Your second line certainly makes it look like you are advocating based on that false information.
Could we please keep the stupid lying to push a political agenda (namely opposing new developments in power generation to protect the established money in power generation) off this site and move it onto political discussion sites instead? Let's hear about new technology instead of silly bait and switch accounting tricks to try to scare the naive away from new technology.
I repeat - you can not possibly be that stupid but nice attempt to try to look as if it was all just an "honest" mistake.
I also work in the traditional energy sector and it's "evangelizing" political piles of shit like you that are giving us all a bad name.
Let's keep it technical and not political in this place please.
Several things are wrong with what you just said.
First comparing solar (or wind) with base load generation is and apple oranges comparison. As in they shouldn't be. Like nuclear, gas is always on (should you want to pay the gas bill). Solar is not.
So you also might want to factor that into your KW calculation, in that it is basically half of that, as you can only run it when there is sun in sky.
By the time all the palms get greased, it will also cost 10 times as much, and will be eventually just canceled.
One of the reasons it seems much of India is still in the stone age is that it is nearly impossible to do any kind of infrastructure project due to all the corruption at every level. With an "Ultra" project like this, I can only imagine that it will magnify this effect several fold.
Other the other hand this would stifle the people who complain that the problem with PV solar is that it doesn't work at night.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I remember in Nepal people not being familiar with the concepts of vacuums and insulation. They couldn't understand that a big hole in the vacuum of the hot water storage means you're going to lose all your heat. That, and solar hot water heaters actually require sun, not just the fact that the sun exists! Perhaps a little understandable since they didn't seem to use any of the hot water themselves.
Then not only take a look at shacks that people have built in developing countries but actually talk to the people. Most of them 'believe' in the safety of their construction, hence why they live there! You know what your test will net you? People already smart enough to already have decent housing instead of a 1 square meter closet in the middle of an oven.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Congratulations, you're smarter than all of India!!!*
*Only in your head though. In real life your just an ass assuming things.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Well, there are people who know that FOUR 1GW nuclear power plants produce about 32TWh per year.
Now if somebody says that their 4GW power plant produces 6.4TWh per year, then yes, I do have the audacity to claim that this is worse than 32TWh per year. It is also worse than the 8TWh a single 1GW nuclear power plant would produce.
That's not about thinking I'm smarter than anybody. It just means that I know enough mathematics to evaluate that 8 > 6.4 and 32 > 6.4.
In real life, you're just trying to avoid thinking about it, because writing insults on the internet is so much more fun than thinking.
Does India need more power at night? How much would it cost in waste or storage to produce a whole bunch of energy when it's not needed? Oh wait, your brilliant brain couldn't comprehend that more isn't always better? Must be a USian.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Already been done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...