Skip to main content

The Cost of Concentrated Solar Power

From today's edition of Electric Power Daily (no link):
EPRI estimates that a 500-MW solar plant would cost about $1.5 billion, or $3,000/kW, Bedard said. A just-built 64-MW solar plant in Nevada cost about $4,000/kW, he said. Nevada Power is buying the output from the Nevada Solar One project.

EPRI has had little involvement with solar power in the last decade, Bedard said. But climate change and renewable portfolio standards have renewed utility interest in the technology.

Currently, electricity from a CSP plant costs about 16 cents/kWh, compared with 7 cents/kWh for wind and 5.5 cents/kWh for coal, he said.
That's a serious chunk of change.


Anonymous said…
This is about the same estimated overnight capital cost range as new nuclear in the Keystone Center's recent report.
Rod Adams said…
I wrote a blog post about Nevada Solar One earlier this month. You can find it at Nevada Solar One Starts Up.

The real numbers provide a different story than the advertised ones. The plant has a name plate capacity of 64MWe, but an expected annual energy production of just 124 million kilowatt hours per year. If you divide that number by 8760 (hours in a year) you find that the average production will be just a bit more than 14 MWe (CF = 22%).

In contrast, if you built a nuclear plant with the same capacity, you would expect that it would produce approximately 475 million kilowatt hours per year assuming that the plant achieves a fairly modest 85% capacity factor - well below the current fleet average for the American nuclear power industry.

According to a recent report produced for Congress, the US Navy has estimated that the cost difference between a cruiser sized vessel powered with four new LM2500 type engines (with a total power output of a about 130 MW) and one powered with a proven PWR steam plant (essentially one of the two plants that now power aircraft carriers) is on the order of 600-800 million dollars.

This is not firm cost data and takes some interpretation, but it sure looks to me like there are available, proven, operating nuclear plants that are being built in the present tense that can come in for approximately the same cost per name plate capacity as a concentrating solar system.

The advantage that the nuclear plant would have is that it could produce and sell almost 4 times as many kilowatt hours per year.

I am also quite sure that there are ways to reduce the unit costs through increased production rates by spreading fixed costs over a larger number of plants than the one or two a year that are now being built for the Navy.

Only one problem - the Navy would have to have some encouragement to begin allowing its contractors to seek additional customers.

BTW - go ahead and make the "enrichment" argument if you wish. There is no reason at all for a commercial version of a carrier sized reactor plant to use HEU - the NS Savannah showed that a reactor large enough for a surface ship could do quite well with 5% enrichment even using what we knew about reactor fuel designs in the 1950s.
Regarding "The Cost of Concentrated Solar Power" (2007-06-28), there really is no no need for concentrating solar power in the US because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of concentrating solar power.

I refer to 'Nuclear Power' (NP), the technique of amplifying a neutron flux through the fission of heavy metals to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to run NP plants on demand so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days, or when the Russians decide to cut off the gas. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1957 and six million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. NP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

NP works best near cool shores and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to decrease outlet temperatures using highly-efficient 'natural draft' cooling towers. With plant efficiency losses at about 3% per cooling tower, NP plants may be placed anywhere in the US. NP plants at existing coal plant sites could easily meet the entire current US demand for electricity.

In the recent 'EIA Electric Power Annual' report commissioned by the US government, it is estimated that NP electricity, which does not need to be imported from exotic locales, is already one of the cheapest sources of electricity in the United States, including the cost of cooling. A large-scale cooling tower manufacturing infrastructure has also been proposed by Alstom as a means of optimising the use of NP throughout the world.

Further information about NP may be found at and . Copies of the EIA Electric Power Annual report may be downloaded from . The many problems associated with concentrating solar power are summarised at .

For those of you who aren't blog administrators, this is a parody.

KenG said…

That's brilliant. The only part lacking was that you didn't run fast and loose with the facts like the CSP fanatics. Since their claim of "half million
Californians" being powered by CSP is true only for a moment at peak generation and only for home use, not commercial/industrial, you could have easily said 15 or 20 million people get their power from nuclear.
Solar Power said…
Of course to use nuclear power is much easier now then solar power, but solar power is absolutely harmless. There should be a way to use it effectively, just we need some time to investigate it. Using of solar power has a big future in my opinion.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…