Slashdot Mirror
New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar, Now Undercutting Coal (bloomberg.com)
Anna Hirtenstein, reporting for Bloomberg: Solar power set another record-low price as renewable energy developers working in the United Arab Emirates shrugged off financial turmoil in the industry to promise projects costs that undercut even coal-fired generators. Developers bid as little as 2.99 cents a kilowatt-hour to develop 800 megawatts of solar-power projects for the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, the utility for the Persian Gulf emirate. That's 15 percent lower than the previous record set in Mexico last month, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The lowest priced solar power has plunged almost 50 percent in the past year. Saudi Arabia's Acwa Power International set a record in January 2015 by offering to build a portion of the same Dubai solar park for power priced at 5.85 cents per kilowatt-hour. Records were subsequently set in Peru and Mexico before Dubai reclaimed its mantel as purveyor of the world's cheapest solar power. "This bid tells us that some bidders are willing to risk a lot for the prestige of being the cheapest solar developer," said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BNEF. "Nobody knows how it's meant to work."
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
somebody should trademark that.
Don't you mean a bet? A wager? Speculation? I think we should wait to see what is produced...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
"This bid tells us that some bidders are willing to risk a lot for the prestige of being the cheapest solar developer," said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BNEF. "Nobody knows how it's meant to work."
Well, I'm neither an economist nor an... electrician? But I have bought a lot of printers that I palmed off on the thrift store people after the original ink cartridge ran out, because it was cheaper to just buy a new one. So I'll take a shot.
The low bidders are selling their electricity for less than it costs to produce because, at some point in the future, they hope to charge a higher price for it, after all of their competitors have had to exit the industry, and, due to inertial effects, would find it difficult to re-enter.
No other industry does this, of course. Oh, wait, almost every other industry does this now.
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
How many molten sodium plants are operational? There are lots of issues with using molten sodium as a heat transfer mechanism, given it's reactivity with water, and the inevitable corrosion and leakage from running hot liquids through steel pipes. The US and Soviet navies had nuke subs that ran such a plant but gave up on the problem due to the technical issues; one of which is the need to always keep the coolant hot to avoid is solidifying and thus rendering the plant inoperative. I would get the Emirates would use some other storage mechanisms, such as batteries, compressed air storage or even pumped storage on the mountain they plan to build to increase rainfall.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Are you sure it's sodium (the highly reactive metal), not sodium chloride (the much more inert kitchen salt)?
Note that these prices are for solar power plants, not for household solar. Here's a comparison with prices for some other types of electricity generation.
Still solar plants have been popping up all over, and this will only encourage more of them, which is a good thing because coal pollution sucks.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Until we get more solar power than our day-time consumption your point is moot. Night/rain isn't a problem when 99% of your energy comes from fossils fuels which must be the case in UAE. They'll simply burn less coal/oil/gas when it's sunny. And on average, that means 3/kWh which is fantastic.
There's lots of issues with using coal, but somehow that doesn't count in this equation?
Not sure what is your point. What does coal have to do with finding a way to store excess solar production for use when solar isn't generating power?
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
It's ironic that you didn't read your own link. 765kV transmission lines have losses of between half a percent and 1.1 percent per hundred miles, and the losses are even higher for lower voltages (according to the link you provided). Cumulative losses can become quite large if you are sending power too far away from the place where you generate it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
According to wikipedia, HVDC has about 3.5% losses per 1000 km, or 96.5% is kept. This means, on a hypothetical, 20 000 km long power line that spans half the globe to the other side where the sun shines you would have a ratio of .965^20 == .49. I'm no physicist, perhaps you would require stations on the path to convert the sunk current back up to more efficient levels. But even with this simplistic calculation, you have 51% losses.
Hydrogen is actually kind of obnoxious to deal with. It's not alien acid blood or anything; but such a small atom is capable of diffusing merrily through what any honest substance would consider a solid barrier(this usually requires elevated heat and/or pressure; but just merrily soaking into steel and reacting with the carbon in the steel to form little pockets of methane in the now-weakened iron matrix is a very cute trick). It's not terribly dangerous as a fire/explosion hazard unless allowed to build up in confined spaces. The Hindenburg's problems were at least partially down to having a giant envelope coated with aircraft dope; and 'nitrocellulose lacquer' is at least as unwise to mix with flammables as the name suggests.
My solar panels would beg to differ. Very cloudy days production goes down but I still get 25-50% of full sun days.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Contract is for 2.99 cents /kwh for energy delivered. Contractor eats any overruns. This is not the US Military pork barrel cost+ contract.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
I believe the competition was gas, which actually does come out of the ground in United Arab Emirates. So competition is not coal import.
New things are always on the horizon
"So the cloudy day has only 1% of the energy as a sunny day."
My god there's so much bullshit in this post I don't know where to begin.
First off, we perceive brightness in a LOGARITHMIC CURVE, not exponential.
Next, PHOTON FLUX DENSITY (which is what matters for solar, not lux which is weighted at green light) on full cloudless day is ~2,000 umol per square meter per second. On a cloudy, non-rainy day, you can expect about ~1,100 umol, about as bright as it is on Mars (Mars is like closer to 900 umol.)
You've got zero clue what you're talking about. Be quiet.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I really don't understand what you're saying... it's gibberish.
Today was full cloud cover and my solar panels captured 7 kwh... on full sun days it's 20 - 25 kwh.
Didn't your mother warn you to put on sunscreen even on cloudy days?
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?