Slashdot Mirror
The World's Largest Solar Farm Rises in the Remote Egyptian Desert (latimes.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report: In 1913 on the outskirts of Cairo, an inventor from Philadelphia named Frank Shuman built the world's first solar thermal power station, using the abundant Egyptian sunshine to pump 6,000 gallons of water a minute from the Nile to irrigate a nearby cotton field. World War I and the discovery of cheap oil derailed Shuman's dream of replicating his "sun power plant" on a grand scale and eventually producing enough energy to challenge the world's dependence on coal.
More than a century later, that vision has been resurrected. The world's largest solar park, the $2.8-billion Benban complex, is set to open next year 400 miles south of Cairo in Egypt's Western Desert. It will single-handedly put Egypt on the clean energy map. That is no small feat for a country that's been hobbled by its longtime addiction to cheap, state-subsidized fossil fuels and currently gets more than 90% of its electricity from oil and natural gas. [...] The Benban complex, which will be operated by major energy companies from around the world, is expected to generate as much as 1.8 gigawatts of electricity, or enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. It will consist of 30 separate solar plants, the first of which began running in December, and employ 4,000 workers.
More than a century later, that vision has been resurrected. The world's largest solar park, the $2.8-billion Benban complex, is set to open next year 400 miles south of Cairo in Egypt's Western Desert. It will single-handedly put Egypt on the clean energy map. That is no small feat for a country that's been hobbled by its longtime addiction to cheap, state-subsidized fossil fuels and currently gets more than 90% of its electricity from oil and natural gas. [...] The Benban complex, which will be operated by major energy companies from around the world, is expected to generate as much as 1.8 gigawatts of electricity, or enough to power hundreds of thousands of homes and businesses. It will consist of 30 separate solar plants, the first of which began running in December, and employ 4,000 workers.
Fossil fool plants also cause bird deaths. Y'know, science...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/...
So. they're going to get 1.8GW of the ~25GW they produce in total? For 12 hours per day, or less, of course.
That seems to translate to maybe 4% of their electricity production.
Color me unimpressed....
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration the US currently generates 1.4 percent of it's energy from solar, Egypt is about to cover 4% of it's energy needs from solar in one fell swoop. I'd say that's rather impressive, especially since the Egyptians have by now probably caught on to the fact that (A) sunlight, unlike oil and gas, carries no extraction costs with it, (B) it comes with no geopolitical baggage and (C) Egypt has a fantastic abundance of both sunlight and cheap desert land to put solar plants on. Meanwhile in the US, the nation's president thinks the future of the nation's energy generation lies in coal and natural gas of which one is being out competed price wise by Wind and Solar and the other soon will be.
That's fewer than 1% of the birds killed by hunters in Texas every single day. And just about the same as the number of birds killed by airplanes every month in North America.
Don't be a dope. And please, don't pretend you give one blessed fuck about birds getting killed when all you want is to spread FUD about solar energy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
- "But night!!"
- "But this won't immediately cover all electricity generation, so it's useless."
- "Nuclear is the only answer. Please ignore the multiple nuclear plants under construction that have been abandoned in multiple countries."
- "I suddenly really, really, really care about birds, yet have completely forgotten about harm to birds from pollution."
- "What we really need is a physically impossible electrical grid that covers (insert very large geographic area here)."
- Elon Musk is a hero or a villain.
- "My calculations based on retail power costs in a different place, as well as a massive overestimate of the maintenance costs, indicate this plant could never possibly be profitable."
Egypt also has a ton of wind turbines along the coast of the Red Sea, which I was surprised to learn. These are positive steps.
That said, Egypt is also in the process of opening not one, but three gas power plants totaling 14.4GW of new capacity, dwarfing their solar initiative.
I have friends who sell and install private solar in Egypt, but with grid power directly owned and subsidized by the state, it's hard to compete. Which is a shame, because Egypt's air pollution and AQI is right up there with India and China, and has only gotten worse over the past decade. Unfortunately the government seems about as keen to actually address air pollution as it does to support human rights, which is to say, not very much at all.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
No extraction costs? What do you call the $2.8 billion to build the thing?
I'm not a geologist or anything, but I call that a construction cost. Which applies to any power generation station.
Really, this isn't hard. Most of the same costs like construction and transmission will apply to any power generation station. But with things like solar, wind, and hydro, you only need to build them in the right location, you do not need to pay to get the fuel.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration the US currently generates 1.4 percent of it's energy from solar, Egypt is about to cover 4% of it's energy needs from solar in one fell swoop.
No, they're not. The capacity factor of solar electric is pretty shit. If we assume that the CF of this plant will equal the best place in the USA (Arizona) then the annual output will be about 19% of the rated output. This means a total of 2,995 gWh per year. Since Egypt currently produces about 170,000 gWh per year of electricity, this new plant will only equal about 1.7% of their total electrical production.
It will of course be an even lower fraction of total energy production.
No extraction costs? What do you call the $2.8 billion to build the thing? That doesn't even count transmission.
What do you call $X billion to extract the oil and then $Y billion to build a refinery to process it into a usable state and/or ship it to the consumer? ... which is the process with oil, natural gas and coal. You don't have to dig up the sunlight, you don't have to refine it, you don't have to ship it to the power-plant, it just shines down on you from the sky, onto your solar panels allowing you to go straight to the convert-it-into-electric-enery step.
No extraction costs? What do you call the $2.8 billion to build the thing?
I'm not a geologist or anything, but I call that a construction cost. Which applies to any power generation station.
Really, this isn't hard. Most of the same costs like construction and transmission will apply to any power generation station. But with things like solar, wind, and hydro, you only need to build them in the right location, you do not need to pay to get the fuel.
Extraction costs is getting the coal out of the ground, processing costs is getting the raw coal into a usable state, shipping costs is loading it onto a barge and shipping it down to Florida, energy production costs is building a coal fired power-plant in Florida and buying coal at market prices so you can burn it and generate energy for Floridians to use to air condition their houses. Contrast this with solar, where the is no digging up the sunlight, no processing the sunlight into a usable state, no shipping the sunlight down the Mississippi on barges to Florida, you get to go straight to the power plant building part and there your costs are basically fixed since there are no fluctuations in the price of sunlight the price of sunlight is pretty much always $0.00. The real beauty of this idea is to use the sunlight you are trying to escape to cool down your house.
That's a decent, if not amazing price considering the output. LCOE comes out as around $50-60/MWh or something like that?
Ezekiel 23:20
Assuming a petite 65kg worker composed of 17% fat @37MJ/kg and 5% carbohydrates @17MJ/kg, burning one worker would produce around 450MJ, at least if you first get rid of the water content which is easy to do by letting them partly fossilize in the hot Egyptian sun.
To produce 1.8GW would require burning 4 fossil workers per second. 4000 workers would last you less than 20 minutes. The whole population of Egypt not even a year.
HTH.
And 4000 people employed there??? For less than 2GW peak?
When labor is cheap, you can hire a lot of people to do things that wouldn't be cost-effective in America. fwiw
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Seems like you have a bit of underdog syndrome going there blindseer. Nuclear has been going since the 50's when it was "too cheap to meter" and received billions of dollars of taxpayer funded subsidies - and still does.
I can't find the precise numbers right now but nuclear does get billions in subsidies, but wind and solar get many times more. Nuclear power produces about 20% of the electricity in the USA, while wind and solar produce less than 10% combined. That means we get much more electricity for each dollar spent on nuclear than from wind and solar.
You're all about blaming NIMBYs and greenies for the Nuclear industries woes instead of the fact that it isn't a cost effective investment.
Huh? I'm not sure what you are saying here. It's pretty apparent that the reason nuclear power is not cost effective is because of the NIMBYs and "greenies" constantly protesting and tossing wrenches in the works. The material and engineering costs for a nuclear power plant are comparable to that of a coal plant, which makes sense because the two kinds of plants are highly similar. The only reason nuclear costs so much is because of the lawyers having to fight constantly for a license to get issued. Since they keep fighting for these licenses, in spite of the legal costs, then they still must expect to get their money back somehow. It's cost effective, otherwise no one would bother to even apply for a license.
You're all about everyone else being too stupid to see how good *some new reactor technology* is when it is the oil and coal companies that comprehensively dismantled that technology by lobbying government.
Current third generation designs do just fine on being cost effective, safe, low carbon, and low waste. It's because NIMBYs have kept protesting and suing the government when a license for a new reactor is issued that we have kept these second generation power plants running for decades beyond their designed life span. We don't need "some new technology" to make nuclear power cheap and safe, we just need a government willing to issue licenses for new reactors to replace the old. But there's far less political risk to extend the license on an old reactor than issue a license for a replacement. We can thank the NIMBYs for that. So, we have dozens of second generation reactors, like at Chernobyl and Fukushima, instead of far safer third generation designs.
Oh, and there's political risk in not extending the licenses for old nuclear power plants. That would mean protests for new coal plants, or natural gas plants, that would have to replace it. Or even some NIMBY not wanting windmills to spoil their view of the bay. There would also be protests for lost jobs at shuttering a nuclear power plant. So, the NIMBYs backed the politicians in a corner, and the path of least resistance is quietly extending the license on a 40 or 50 year old nuclear reactor for another 10 years.
You're all about forcing lots of other people who have valid concerns to accept your worldview without addressing those concerns.
But they are not valid concerns. Nuclear power is safe. This is especially true with current third generation designs instead of the second generation designs that like to get "explody" when run by drunken soviet bureaucrats, or hit by a once in a century tsunami. We aren't going to get rid of the "explody" reactors without replacing them with new reactors, because even with the NIMBYs the path to a new reactor has lower resistance than coal power, bird killing and view destroying wind, or letting the lights go dark.
Nuclear Ideology, it's the false reality too expensive to maintain.
Nuclear power is the worst form of energy, except all the others. We are running out of choices and new nuclear power plants will have to be built. We can do that now or later, but it will happen. It would be nice to see some o
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.