California Energy Commission Approves World's Largest Solar Power Project

[Nathanael]

The project still has some steps to go before construction can begin, though.


California state regulators have unanimously approved Solar Millennium's US$4 billion Blythe solar power project.

The solar thermal power plant will be the world's largest, and is expected to produce 1,000 megawatts of energy -- enough to power 800,000 homes. The plant will be located on public land near the Arizona border.

Link: http://www.energyboom.com/solar/california-energy-commission-approves-worlds-largest-solar-power-project

[phantom power]

1. (Solar Millennium) Blythe Solar Power Project (Application For Certification)

The project will utilize solar parabolic trough technology to generate electricity. With this technology, arrays of parabolic mirrors collect heat energy from the sun and refocus the radiation on a receiver tube located at the focal point of the parabola. A heat transfer fluid (HTF) is heated to high temperature (750°F) as it circulates through the receiver tubes. The heated HTF is then piped through a series of heat exchangers where it releases its stored heat to generate high pressure steam. The steam is then fed to a traditional steam turbine generator where electricity is produced.

The project site is located approximately two miles north of U.S. Interstate-10 (I-10) and eight miles west of the City of Blythe in an unincorporated area of Riverside County, California. The Blythe Airport is about one mile south of the site. The applicants have applied for a fight-of-way (ROW) grant from the U.S. Bureau of Land Management for about 9,400 acres of flat desert terrain. The total area that will be disturbed by project construction and operation will be about 7,030 acres. The area inside the project's security fence, within which all project facilities will be located, will occupy approximately 5,950 acres.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/solar_millennium_blythe/index.html

[tinrobot]

2. I've driven through Blythe many many times.

I know exactly where that plot of land is located. It's right on the edge of the 100 mile strip of farmland between Parker and Blythe that uses Colorado river water for irrigation.

[NNadir]

3. What an incredible waste of money. Four billion bucks for a plant with a capacity utilization of

15%?

[DrGregory]

4. ...the saddest are these; it might have been...

What an incredible waste of money. Four billion bucks for a plant ...
=======================================

For $4 Billion, one could have a nuclear power plant as
long as the anti-nukes don't file lawsuits and protest
so that the construction / licensing drags out to be
decades...

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

5. Except that the $4B price isn't all inclusive.

That's the "overnight cost" which doesn't include finance costs during the construction phase. Since the solar project can be broken down into a number of smaller, discrete phases - each financed individually. That dramatically reduces overall costs compared to nuclear projects, which take an average of 11-19 years to complete with vast sums of financing up front. Also, the going overnight price for 1GW of nuclear right now is closer to 10.5 billion than to 4 billion.

[DrGregory]

6. If it were France...

That dramatically reduces overall costs compared to nuclear projects, which take an average of 11-19 years to complete with vast sums of financing up front.
====================================

That's why I added the proviso that anti-nukes should
not interfere. The ONLY reason it took 11-19 years
for some nuclear plants in the USA is that we
had lawsuits and protests.

There's NO reason from a technical standpoint to have
a reactor plant take that long. In France, nuclear
power plants were built in 3 - 5 years.

The damn idiot anti-nukes are the CAUSE of the
11-19 year delays and the cost overages that result.

It's rank HYPOCRISY for the anti-nukes to CAUSE the
problem - and then use it as a reason for not building
nuclear power.

The $4 billion cost is NOT the overnight cost - it is
the TOTAL cost - IF the unit were built in France.

If the French can do it for $4 Billion - there's no
reason we can't - except for the fact that the French
don't put up with the delaying antics of the anti-nukes.

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

7. France averages 14 years

Likewise, perhaps because official US national policy and the relevant federal agencies are pro-nuclear, even US-government agencies trim cost data on nuclear plants, as the Tennessee Valley Authority did recently. It used (p. 11) ‘‘overnight costs only’’ to quote prices for its reactors (Du and Parsons 2009). Following most analysts, the authors of the 2009 MIT study also quote (pp. 5–6) total nuclear-plant costs as ‘‘overnight costs’’ and say that ‘‘this total cost, which is exclusive of financing cost, is $4,706/kW’’; noting that the earlier (2003) MIT analyses also compared overnight costs, ‘‘as described in the MIT (2003) Future of Nuclear Power study,’’ the 2009 MIT authors attempt to justify their interest-cost-trimming procedures by saying that using overnight costs "represents the standard basis for quoting comparable costs across different plants" (Du and Parsons 2009). Likewise, when the 2009 MIT authors assume a reactor-construction-time period, they again follow the 2003 MIT authors and say (p. 4) nuclear-plant ‘‘construction is planned to occur over a 5-year period’’ (Du and Parsons 2009).

However, most experienced nuclear operators, like Florida Power and Light, say US new-nuclear-plant-construction time is 12 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007), not the 5 years assumed by the MIT authors. Likewise, the US National Academy of Sciences estimates at least 11 years (Smith 2007). The average UK-nuclear- plant-construction time is 11 years (House of Commons Energy Select Committee 1990); in France, 14 years (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) 2007); in Japan, 17 years (Stoett 2003); in Eastern Europe, 15 years (Bunyard 2006; International Energy Agency (IEA) 2001). Nuclear proponents admit that building the latest US reactors took 23 years (Herbst and Hopley 2007).

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest

[DrGregory]

8. France averages 14 years - I think NOT

Shall we go down the list of French plants:

Flamanville - construction start 1979 Operation 1985
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Paluel - construction start 1977 Operating 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluel_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Penley - construction start 1982 Operating 1990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penly_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Gravelines - construction start 1974 Operating 1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravelines_Nuclear_Power_Station

Chooz - construction 1960 Operating 1967
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chooz_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Cattenom - construction 1979 Operating 1986
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattenom_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Nogent - construction 1981 Operating 1987
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nogent_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Saint-Laurent construction 1963 Operating 1969
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint-Laurent_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Dampierre - construction 1974 Operating 1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dampierre_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Blayais - construction 1976 Operating 1981
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Bugey - construction 1964 Operating 1972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bugey_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Goftech - construction 1982 Operating 1991
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golfech_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Tricastin - construction 1974 Operating 1980
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricastin_Nuclear_Power_Center

Cruas - construction 1978 Operating 1983
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruas_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Civaux - construction 1988 Operating 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant

They had ONE and ONE only - Civaux that took 14 years;
and you claim 14 years as an AVERAGE?

Must be the new "liberal math"

Dr. Greg

[kristopher]

9. I guess it depends on where you draw the boundaries.

The reference given cites 14 years and while that isn't an overall average of all of their plants, it does look to be true of current generation plants (13.88 years average). Time to construct a plant includes more than the time noted (and more than is EVER cited by the nuclear industry). As evidenced by nnad's recent post on the 50 million pound EDF contracts in England, outlays (and the time costs of money) begin in the early years of planning. The following list does not include what is usually 3-5 years of planning; the time indicated refers only to the period from the commencement of construction until the beginning of commercial operations.
An interesting point is that France is being forced out of the market with their EPR design because it is TOO EXPENSIVE; said expense being a product of safety improvements and time required for construction. Their solution, they are going back to offering their second generation design.


List of plants beginning commercial operations since 1985


1986 ST. ALBAN-1
7 years 4 months

1986 (FBR permanently shut down 1998) SUPER-PHENIX
10 years

1986 PALUEL-3
7 years

1986 PALUEL-4
6 years 4 months

1986 FLAMANVILLE-1
7 years

1987 ST. ALBAN-2
7 years 8 months

1987 FLAMANVILLE-2
6 years 10 months

1987 CHINON-B-3
6 years 5 months

1987 CATTENOM-1
7 years 6 months

1988 CHINON-B-4
7 years 2 months

1988 Nogent 1
6 years 9 months

1988 CATTENOM-2
7 years 7 months

1988 BELLEVILLE-1
8 years 1 month

1989 BELLEVILLE-2
8 tears 5 months

1989 NOGENT-2
7 years 4 months

1990 Penley 1
8 years 3 months

1992 Penley 2
8 years 3 months

1990 CATTENOM 3
8 years 8 months

1991 CATTENOM-4
8 years 4 months

1996 CHOOZ-B-1
16 years 5 months

1997 CHOOZ-B-2
14 years 9 months

1997 CIVAUX-1
13 years 3 months

1999 CIVAUX-2
11 years

http://www.iaea.org/programmes/a2/index.html

[Dead_Parrot]

10. That's a double edged sword, though

There will have been time and costs involved with Blythe before this announcement, also.

And the less said about Cape Wind the better... ;)

[kristopher]

11. Cape Wind is a statistical outlier because it is a "first of kind"

An entire permitting regime was required to be constructed for the commercial use of offshore publicly owned lands.

It is a self evidently true proposition that projects of the complexity and scale of nuclear power plants would take a lot more time to accomplish than the much smaller and relatively simple projects that are characteristic of renewable energy; and no amount of nuclear industry propaganda nor wishful thinking by nuclear advocates is going to change that.

[Dead_Parrot]

12. lol

OK, so renewables are easier except when they're harder, but we're not counting those.

Cool.

[kristopher]

14. You aren't familiar with the concept of statistical outliers?

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/basic-statistics/#Correlationse

[Dead_Parrot]

15. Sorry, I thought you were being facetious.

Since no two wind farms are identical, they can all be considered outliers until you get the answer you want. I thought of doing the same for the EPR, but figured you'd spot that as cheating. :)

Which reminds me, how's Bluewater doing with their permits? Still on track for 2014, or have they gone all "outlier" on us?

[kristopher]

16. Bluewater & Cape Wind each represents about 1/4 of one percent of the sample size...

Just what sort of impact do you predict from their eventual addition to the statistical base? Global installed capacity is around 160GW, and both projects are proposed to be in the realm of 400MW.

You might also factor this slope into your conclusions.

[Dead_Parrot]

17. So, looking at individual projects is pointless?

Just for the record, you understand. ;)

Nice chart, though.

[kristopher]

18. Depends on the information you are trying to elicit, doesn't it?

If I'm trying to understand why an outlier has that status, it is important to compare and contrast it with the norm. If I'm trying to derive a meaningful understanding of the overall performance of a sector, it may not require as much attention.

In this case your line of discussion isn't significant to the issue at hand, which is the difference in time to deploy for renewables v nuclear.

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Oh, just wanted to check.

Nice to have ground rules.

So, is there a comprehensive list of actual wind planning times?

[kristopher]

20. If you have any evidence...

that renewable projects (in this case wind) take more time than the industry plans for, please share it. There are literally tens of thousands of projects that have been accomplished and the planning horizon is well known. If you think it is wrong, feel free to provide something besides obvious outliers to show that it takes longer. It is up to you to present it as I did with French nuclear plants.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. No, that's why I asked

Seems a bit pointless to be having a discussion on planning times if we don't actually have the planning times.

You raise an interesting point, however, that there need to be many more wind projects to produce the same amount of energy. If we ever get any data, we could factor that in.

[kristopher]

22. *You* don't have planning times.

They are well understood in the industry and if you want to show the industry is lying to the financial institutions and various regulatory bodies, then you need to delve into the historic record of project timelines that does exist and elicit the data. There are lots and lots and lots of raw data out there - go for it.

Delivered watt for delivered watt the renewables are faster.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. So you don't, then

Well, this is a monumental waste of time. Think I'll go find my crayons.

Edit: Out of interest, why did you say "Watt for Watt" and not "Joule for Joule"?

[kristopher]

24. No, *you* don't have it.

Actually I probably do have enough raw data in my library, but I'm not going to look for it and process it in order to placate a clown who is making a vacuous attempt to create a false impression.

[Dead_Parrot]

25. That's OK, just provide the data source(s)

I'm happy to crunch the figures myself.

:hi:

[kristopher]

26. You're going to have to research it yourself.

I tend to lack a cooperative attitude toward those engaging in obnoxious, small minded behavior.

[Dead_Parrot]

27. lol. nt

[kristopher]

13. Your grammar is somewhat off, but you've captured the important point...

...when you wrote of yourself, "I think NOT."