Slashdot Mirror
World's Largest Solar Power Plant Planned For Chernobyl Nuclear Wasteland (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via Electrek: Chernobyl, the world's most famous and hazardous nuclear meltdown, is being considered for the world's largest solar power plant. Even though nearly 1,600 square miles of land around Chernobyl has radiation levels too high for human health, Ukraine's ecology minister has said in a recent interview that two U.S. investment firms and four Canadian energy companies have expressed interest in Chernobyl's solar potential. Electrek reports: "According to PVTech, the Ukrainian government is pushing for a 6 month construction cycle. Deploying this amount of solar power within such a time frame would involve significant resources being deployed. The proposed 1GW solar plant, if built today, would be the world's largest. There are several plans for 1GW solar plants in development (Egypt, India, UAE, China, etc) -- but none of them have been completed yet. One financial benefit of the site is that transmission lines for Chernobyl's 4GW nuclear reactor are still in place. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has stated they would be interested in participating in the project, 'so long as there are viable investment proposals and all other environmental matters and risks can be addressed to the bank's satisfaction.'"
this seems such a great idea at 1st, but why build a solar plant there?
just because land is wasted and unused? but so are lands in much hotter places 'wasted'? there is no inherent reason why that place should be chosen over any other place with unused land. (ok its position in power-grid integration may have had some validity because there was a power-station there, but that was years ago.).
decision to build or not a solar plant should be made based on factors (such as weather) that make that location better than others.
There goes the wildlife preserve that was doing so well. Honestly, why not build another nuclear plant there? It's all shielded anyway.
The plant's not going to build itself, which means thousands of people kicking up dust over those six months, and even after it's complete there will need to be people there to maintain it.
It will be the first twenty four hour solar power plant since the place already glows in the dark.
https://www.thestar.com/news/w...
Depends on the study. Wind does beat pretty universally. Also must add in costs for backup since the sun does not shine at night. For northern climates like ukraine this gets more problematic as demand at night is higher in winter. Shoot even in texas, peaks on cold nights can get very close to daytime summer loads. For texas, usually ok as wind is blowing out west on those nights, but I recall one brief cold spell where ERCOT was worried about satisfying demand during the night time peak and was worried they would need to do rolling blackouts.
Solar is half the cost of nuclear (per kWh) and getting cheaper.
Nuclear just keeps getting more expensive.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Out of 12 months a year that region might have seven months in which construction is possible. Ice and snow take up almost half a year so a one year period is simply not at all realistic. Imagine trying to keep the snow off of those panels to generate power in the cold months over there.
As I said in my post, it depends. Wikipedia and other sources note nuclear/solar depends on the study and what factors are accounted for. Batteries alone cost more per kwh if you need to store the juice. It is a complicated problem and everyone seems to pick a side and hrumpf away.
Chernobyl is at 51 degrees North latitude. That far north, the angle of the sun and the earth's tilt significantly reduces the the available solar power throughout the year. It's about the same latitude as Germany, which only manages a solar capacity factor of about 0.10 (i.e. if you have a fixed panel with 100 Watts peak generating capacity at that location, over a year it will on average generate 10 watts). Capacity factor incorporates weather, night, average angle of the sun, and less sunlight reaching the ground because it has to travel through more air due to its oblique angle through the atmosphere.
The continental U.S. sits closer to 40 degrees North latitude, and has an average solar capacity factor of 0.145. The best locations for solar are closer to the equator, and in arid environments with few clouds. Solar capacity factor in Southern California and Arizona for example is about 0.185. That is, you can get nearly double the energy production of Germany for the same surface area of panels, simply by putting them in a better location. Chernobyl sits along Ukraine's northern border. Unless there are huge differences in average cloud cover, Ukraine would be much better served by building the solar plant along its southern border.
New nuclear can't be delivered at less than 16 cents per kwh. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... Solar alway comes in at less than 8 and is typically 4 these days.