Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
NCSH
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 203
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
Location: Orbiting Venus
x 135

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 23/10/22, 15:34

sicetaitsimple wrote:
NCSH wrote:See graphs on pages 32, and 126, 133 for thermodynamic solar. To taste without moderation!
Maximum latitude of implantation: around 40°, including the south of Europe if one accepts to lose during the winter months. This loss is less strong for power stations with towers and adjustable mirrors.


So basically not in Europe, except in the far south of Spain. The south of Italy is generally sunny, but due to the seas surrounding it does not benefit from a correct average DNI for CSP. As soon as there is a bit of mist or cloud, the performance drops.
Moreover, to my knowledge (I could be wrong, correct me with source) there is no significant CSP installation in Italy, which has nevertheless been quite generous in terms of solar subsidies.


Absolutely. Italy had a few years ago projects with cylindrical-parabolic mirrors, but does not seem to have followed up. There remains above all Spain, which recently decided on 3 MWe of projects by 000.
Each year, Eurobserver reports on developments for each type of electricity production since 2010. See the site of the same name.

Regarding solar thermodynamics in general, we could witness the great return of the solution of the 1970s: tower and adjustable mirrors, thanks to the possibility offered by day/night storage of 16 hours which, despite the production costs of electricity that will remain higher than photovoltaic, can produce at night. With molten salts or later silica or alumina particles (to reach temperatures above 700°C and therefore yields of 50%) as thermal storage materials.

Current typical example, completed in 2018, the integrated complex of Ouarzazate, with power plant n°3.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexe_ ... Ouarzazate
Morocco has 3 other similar projects, and the ambition to reach 52% of its renewable electricity production in 2030, many export projects of energy vectors from PV and wind to Europe...
This is not at all in line with the letter of Désertec, but it is in line with the spirit, with the dynamics that this kind of mega-projects may have generated.
0 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 23/10/22, 15:54

sicetaitsimple wrote:
Obamot wrote:*
For thermodynamic solar, redundancy is required, you put that as a disadvantage,...


Where did I mention redundancy?
: Arrowd:
sicetaitsimple wrote: and of course a doubling or tripling of the collector surface and the receiver, we can only store the surpluses that we generate during the day to use them at night.
So yes, I extrapolated... Is that wrong?
sicetaitsimple wrote: I said that if you wanted to produce day and night with solar thermodynamics, you obviously needed a substantial heat storage but also, for the same power generated, a solar field and a receiver at least doubled in size, in order to produce during the day the heat which is necessary for the production of the day but also to produce and store the heat necessary to produce at night.

As for thermodynamic solar which would produce only the day, circulate there's nothing to see, the PV does that very well and very simply for a cost at least 3 times lower.
Your argument stands, except that with a belt of thermodynamic solar power plants, when it's still daylight, you still produce enough for the next time zone already plunged into darkness, and that's just enough to pass the peak of night consumption ( when people have gone home (evening meal then some TV, or PC, after which people usually go to bed and this is where the “thermal buffer sources” of heat storage are very useful and take over, when the demand is much lower!

On the other hand, from 4 a.m., the area concerned already receives (with a ladle) tens of thousands of MW available from time zones where the Sun is already shining (enough to charge EV batteries with high-speed sockets, dormant refrigerators at wake up and the compressors happily resume producing cold and everything is ready for the coffee machine ball... Standing in there... the night was calm because the load factor was under control! in the morning or in the evening, the parabolas of the well fields are automatically oriented, while the collector surfaces of the solar panels, which are optimized for the zenith, have been collecting almost nothing for hours with a declining power supply , unable to overcome the nocturnal consumption peak...

And thank you for superbly ignoring the coupling with geothermal energy (I wouldn't have done “better”) : Wink: :D
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 16:19

Obamot wrote:
Your argument stands
Goods.
Obamot wrote:, except that with a belt of thermodynamic power plants, when it's still daylight, you produce for the time zone already plunged into darkness, and that's just enough to pass the peak of night consumption (when people have returned home ( evening meal then a bit of TV, or PC, after which people generally go to bed and the demand is less!

Will you understand one day that the CSP only works correctly in a limited band of latitudes, and that subject to a correct DNI, say in semi-desert or desert areas? In fact where there is hardly anyone, let alone TV or PC?
Obamot wrote:And thank you for superbly ignoring the coupling with geothermal energy

Do we have to respond to stupid rantings?

Edit: I replied to your initial post, if you modify it along the way, we inevitably lose the thread.....
Last edited by sicetaitsimple the 23 / 10 / 22, 16: 24, 1 edited once.
0 x
NCSH
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 203
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
Location: Orbiting Venus
x 135

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 23/10/22, 16:21

Obamot wrote:
sicetaitsimple wrote:
Obamot wrote:*
For thermodynamic solar, redundancy is required, you put that as a disadvantage,...


Where did I mention redundancy?
: Arrowd:
sicetaitsimple wrote: and of course a doubling or tripling of the collector surface and the receiver, we can only store the surpluses that we generate during the day to use them at night.


sicetaitsimple wrote: I said that if you wanted to produce day and night with solar thermodynamics, you obviously needed a substantial heat storage but also, for the same power generated, a solar field and a receiver at least doubled in size, in order to produce during the day the heat which is necessary for the production of the day but also to produce and store the heat necessary to produce at night.

As for thermodynamic solar which would produce only the day, circulate there's nothing to see, the PV does that very well and very simply for a cost at least 3 times lower.
Your argument is valid, except that with a belt of thermodynamic power plants, when it's still daylight, you produce for the time zone already plunged into darkness, and that's just enough to pass the nighttime peak of consumption (when people are returned home (evening meal then a bit of TV, or PC, after which people generally go to bed and the demand is less!

And thank you for superbly ignoring the coupling with geothermal energy (I wouldn't have done “better”) : Wink: :D

What geothermal energy is it?
Deep geothermal energy produces baseload electricity.
If it is a question of storing solar heat for a few days, it is necessary to avoid Sodium for the usual reasons. Does water vapor remain?
This remains a solution with many losses.
To heat entire districts in inter-seasonal storage, the Germans have made numerous attempts for more than forty years, the cost of the heat returned is still too high.
I don't know of any underground project to store heat at very high temperatures in order to produce electricity by steam turbine.

For electricity consumption peaks from 18 to 22 p.m., parabolic cylinders with storage from 4 to 6 a.m. may also be suitable.
1 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 23/10/22, 16:31

All the means are good in the "energy mix" as long as they are appropriate to the request concerned, it is enough to make the good choice, after I am not a specialist as you seem to be. But honestly, PV at dusk or dawn produces almost nothing for “hours”...?
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 16:55

Obamot wrote:T But honestly the PV at dusk or dawn produces almost nothing for “hours”...?


Didn't you know that there are 1-axis trackers that allow you to follow the sun from morning to night?

And that even without a tracker, orienting the plant East-West, as is what is (or was until recently) the largest PV plant in Europe, that of Cestas near Bordeaux, makes it possible to optimize the daily production curve (more in the morning and in the evening, less in the middle of the day), but above all allows the best use of the available surface because there is no longer any shadow cast. Basically, it's easy to remember, 300MWp, 300ha, 300M€.

cestas.png
0 x
NCSH
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 203
Registration: 17/11/21, 18:15
Location: Orbiting Venus
x 135

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by NCSH » 23/10/22, 17:19

This kind of single-axis tracker is also suitable for producing Solar Hydrogen from PV and high-power electrolysers.
The investment cost of this type of solar field could drop to 500 €/kWp from 2025, and even 200 in 2050.
This would explain the cost of solar hydrogen as claimed by the reports from the small Finnish technical university of Lappeeranta (LUT) which is at the origin of these surprising projections: no more than 1.5 €/kg from 2030 and 0.75 or even 0.6/kg in 2050.

The current level of annual photovoltaic installation exceeds 130 GWp, it will be necessary to multiply by 15 / 20 to produce large volumes of non-fossil energy vectors.
1 x
To discover the parallel universe of non-fossil carbon energy carriers, take the time to browse (15 min) the website NCSH : http://www.ncsh.eu/language/fr/energie-et-matiere/
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by Obamot » 23/10/22, 17:39

sicetaitsimple wrote:Didn't you know that there are 1-axis trackers that allow you to follow the sun from morning to night?
You can orient the panels, if the solar intensity is not there, well it is not there,..
Afterwards, as I am not a specialist, I can only prostrate myself at the feet of those who master the subject... 8)
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 17:51

Obamot wrote:
sicetaitsimple wrote:Didn't you know that there are 1-axis trackers that allow you to follow the sun from morning to night?
You can orient the panels, if the solar intensity is not there, well it is not there,..

That's right, a PV plant produces more when there is sun than when there isn't.
But even when there isn't really any (diffuse light), it still produces, less of course.
While a CSP plant will produce nothing, it needs DNI (Direct Normal Irradiation) to operate.

Hence the fact that the CSP is really reserved only for certain territories, desert or semi-desert to simplify.
0 x
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9772
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Nuclear VS fossil fuels VS Solar .... Who wins?




by sicetaitsimple » 23/10/22, 18:59

NCSH wrote:The current level of annual photovoltaic installation exceeds 130 GWp, it will be necessary to multiply by 15 / 20 to produce large volumes of non-fossil energy vectors.


Maybe well, I did not calculate, but it joins what I said a little above:

Let's say at least that we have time to talk about it again, because initially it is the direct substitution of electricity for uses using fossil fuels that will occupy the ground everywhere. The potential is enormous, and despite its annual progress in volume, the production of PV panels is not infinitely expandable.
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 264 guests