New Record Set for World's Cheapest Solar, Now Undercutting Coal (bloomberg.com) 164
Anna Hirtenstein, reporting for Bloomberg: Solar power set another record-low price as renewable energy developers working in the United Arab Emirates shrugged off financial turmoil in the industry to promise projects costs that undercut even coal-fired generators. Developers bid as little as 2.99 cents a kilowatt-hour to develop 800 megawatts of solar-power projects for the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, the utility for the Persian Gulf emirate. That's 15 percent lower than the previous record set in Mexico last month, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The lowest priced solar power has plunged almost 50 percent in the past year. Saudi Arabia's Acwa Power International set a record in January 2015 by offering to build a portion of the same Dubai solar park for power priced at 5.85 cents per kilowatt-hour. Records were subsequently set in Peru and Mexico before Dubai reclaimed its mantel as purveyor of the world's cheapest solar power. "This bid tells us that some bidders are willing to risk a lot for the prestige of being the cheapest solar developer," said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BNEF. "Nobody knows how it's meant to work."
"Nobody knows how it's meant to work." (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
somebody should trademark that.
Yeah, the US Patent Office.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We could get Insane Clown Posse on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn submission without proper previewing!
A "bid"? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you mean a bet? A wager? Speculation? I think we should wait to see what is produced...
Re: (Score:2)
"This bid tells us that some bidders are willing to risk a lot for the prestige of being the cheapest solar developer,"
It looks like there's still a subsidy needed to make it "cheap". In this case the builder is paying part of the cost (or expects to make up the difference by raising the price tag later).
Re: (Score:2)
get the bid,
get the start money (50%)
start the project (3-10%)
hide the money
declare bankruptcy
govt gets another contractor bid to finish
start a new company
bid a realistic amount
finish the project with some over runs
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the important parts:
get caught
put into jail
probably tried
probably more jail
And who wants to be in a jail in Saudi Arabia?
loss-lead, loss-follow, or loss-get-out-of-the-way (Score:5, Insightful)
"This bid tells us that some bidders are willing to risk a lot for the prestige of being the cheapest solar developer," said Jenny Chase, head of solar analysis at BNEF. "Nobody knows how it's meant to work."
Well, I'm neither an economist nor an... electrician? But I have bought a lot of printers that I palmed off on the thrift store people after the original ink cartridge ran out, because it was cheaper to just buy a new one. So I'll take a shot.
The low bidders are selling their electricity for less than it costs to produce because, at some point in the future, they hope to charge a higher price for it, after all of their competitors have had to exit the industry, and, due to inertial effects, would find it difficult to re-enter.
No other industry does this, of course. Oh, wait, almost every other industry does this now.
Re: (Score:2)
In government projects, bid cost has only a fleeting correlation to actual costs. See, for example, any major weapons system.
I imagine that the government of Dubai is not immune to this sort of behavior on the part of it's contractors.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not really applicable here, because the governments aren't buying kW of capacity - they're guaranteeing purchase of kWh of produced electricity. Now, there's an advantage on the builders side that they know they have a buyer for every last drop of juice they're going to produce, whether or not there is demand for it, but generally they're not going to get paid unless the taps are flowing.
Re:loss-lead, loss-follow, or loss-get-out-of-the- (Score:4, Interesting)
Contract is for 2.99 cents /kwh for energy delivered. Contractor eats any overruns. This is not the US Military pork barrel cost+ contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that the contract sounds like the contractor gets to sell the power at 2.99c whether or not there is a demand. In some cases cost of power can go to 0 if baseload plants are providing excess capacity into the grid cannot ramp down production. So the plant gets 0c/kwh. In this case, even when the power must be dumped somewhere at 0 value to the utility, the solar producer gets paid. Conversely, when there is demand, and the solar producer has no additional capacity, nat gas peaking plants or some other
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of 2.99 cents / kwh don't you understand?
They get 2.99 cents for every kwh they deliver.
Re: (Score:2)
which part of whether there is a demand for the power or not do you not understand?
Re: (Score:2)
The contractor is just responsible for generating the power, not managing the grid. That's a problem for Dubai to handle.
Re: (Score:2)
baseload plants are providing excess capacity
Base load plants never provide excess capacity.
Perhaps you should read what a base load plant actually does.
Hint: they provide base load, hence the name. However: I have the sad feeling you don't grasp what I just wrote.
2.99c whether or not there is a demand
We are talking about solar power, obviously it is daytime, obviously there is always demand.
Solar plants never get 0c price as they always provide power when there is high demand. Your reasoning is idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not like they are right next to major oil fields where natural gas is currently flared off at prodigious rates.
I suspect they will be getting at least some of the first 'solar' power that is generated at night.
Re: (Score:2)
Not likely they can get (much) more for their power, I guess they're counting on reducing cost through advancing technology or economies of scale, something like that. Just like your typical dotcom.
Re: (Score:2)
But if they can use the power that time of day, which is likely, it might be a very good deal. Considering they have very high costs for coal, which
Re: (Score:2)
They are doing it to get in with the Dubai Electricity and Water Authority, which has a large budget and will likely keep paying them to build more stuff and maintain it maintenance for decades to come. Happens in every industry, companies with capital buy contracts by making an initial loss on them in the expectation that it will reward them later.
For example, in my own industry (water) a company lost a couple of million supplying data loggers to a large French company, but how they have an installed produ
power plants (Score:5, Interesting)
Still solar plants have been popping up all over, and this will only encourage more of them, which is a good thing because coal pollution sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
because coal pollution sucks.
If there is anything we can hope for with this, and renewables in general, is that it will bring the end of extracted carbon based energy systems sooner.
Re: (Score:2)
Solar won't do that alone because it's intermittent, but it can definitely play a part.
Re:power plants (Score:4, Insightful)
How someone could defend burning coal is beyond me...
Re: (Score:2)
About fifteen years ago, when I started hearing the warnings about fishing in certain lakes because of the mercury levels, thats what really did it for me. I'm talking very remote lakes out in the booneys of the west(where I live). The coal pollution travels hundreds and thousands of miles(Seattle gets Chinese coal pollution).
How someone could defend burning coal is beyond me...
With proper filters, coal could be perfectly clean. The problem is that the government has been loosening the pollution rules instead of tightening them. People want cheaper power from plants that are owned by for-profit corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In that document, what is a "Mill"? Is it 1/1000 of a dollar?
Not sure how to interpret this one . . . (Score:2)
Probably not the second one. Now - give me back my mod point . . . it was a bad moderation to begin with.
This is great news (Score:2)
This is truly excellent news that solar can compete and win on a cost basis, since short term $$$ is apparently literally the only thing that decision makers ever care about.
It's Dubai... (Score:2)
That's like saying a Hydro plant has been built on Niagara Falls, forever proving Hydro's dominance over Coal!
Unless of course you don't have a massive water source.... or you live in the freaking desert.
Sun Edison can tell you how that works (Score:2)
http://economictimes.indiatime... [indiatimes.com]
How it works is you underbid a bunch of stuff, build half of it, then go bankrupt.
It's a proven model.
Re:Except at night. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't rain in Dubai.
But it does where sane people live. (SoCal isn't sane.)
molten sodium to store the energy
Doesn't that jack up the cost?
Re: (Score:2)
You're right! It jacks it all the way up to 2.99/kwh.
Re: (Score:2)
But it does where sane people live. (SoCal isn't sane.)
I don't think sane people exist. We're all a little wired.
Re: (Score:2)
If we could improve electrolysis of water splitting, we could generate raw hydrogen which we could then transport efficiently to where it is needed. The problem is, that process isn't really efficient. And it has energy density that is highly functional. The danger is that it is really dangerous when exposed to O2 (see Hindenburg for example).
Personally, I would love to see the whole energy system opened up into a huge competition, between traditional fuels / energy generation and new renewables in the form
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen really isn't that bad, it's so much lighter than air that it dissipates very quickly; leaking through most metals because the molecule is so small and metal embrittelment are bigger problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
According to wikipedia [wikipedia.org], HVDC has about 3.5% losses per 1000 km, or 96.5% is kept. This means, on a hypothetical, 20 000 km long power line that spans half the globe to the other side where the sun shines you would have a ratio of .965^20 == .49. I'm no physicist, perhaps you would require stations on the path to convert the sunk current back up to more efficient levels. But even with this simplistic calculation, you have 51% losses.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AC is far more efficient at cross-planet ranges. HVDC exactly halfway around the planet would lose about half its power. Higher-voltage AC would lose maybe 10%.
Re: (Score:2)
not so fast. https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
How many molten sodium plants are operational? There are lots of issues with using molten sodium as a heat transfer mechanism, given it's reactivity with water, and the inevitable corrosion and leakage from running hot liquids through steel pipes. The US and Soviet navies had nuke subs that ran such a plant but gave up on the problem due to the technical issues; one of which is the need to always keep the coolant hot to avoid is solidifying and thus rendering the plant inoperative. I would get the Emirates
Re: (Score:2)
There's lots of issues with using coal, but somehow that doesn't count in this equation?
Re: (Score:3)
There's lots of issues with using coal, but somehow that doesn't count in this equation?
Not sure what is your point. What does coal have to do with finding a way to store excess solar production for use when solar isn't generating power?
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with reactors is that if the salt solidifies the reactor won't cool properly when restarted and can go into meltdown if not properly moderated. With molten salt solar plants it's not much of an issue since the heat just re-liquefies the salt and if the tower somehow gets too hot you just angle the mirrors away from it, and even if that fails at worst you have a nasty but not terribly dangerous fire.
Re: (Score:2)
The issue with reactors is that if the salt solidifies the reactor won't cool properly when restarted and can go into meltdown if not properly moderated. With molten salt solar plants it's not much of an issue since the heat just re-liquefies the salt and if the tower somehow gets too hot you just angle the mirrors away from it, and even if that fails at worst you have a nasty but not terribly dangerous fire.
While reactor cooling is an issue the problem with molten salt is once it solidifies throughout a loop it is very hard to re-liquefy the loop. The Soviets rocked up 4 of their Alpha class submarines, despite their best efforts to keep the salt liquid. As for a fire, the Na-H2O reaction can be quite nasty.
Re: (Score:2)
How many molten sodium plants are operational
I was able to find two that were operational: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Plan - US Gemasolar Thermosolar Plant - Spain
which isn't as much as I would have expected. However, the these types of plants are relatively new, and molten salt is the latest and greatest in the industry, so it's not a total surprise.
If you are worried about heat loss, molten solar only loses 1 degree F per day. source: http://www.solarreserve.com/en... [solarreserve.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"molten salt is the latest and greatest in the industry,"
Wrong. molten salt has been around for two decades. The latest and greatest is Lithium-Ion and its derivatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait!! Molten salt or molten sodium? Molten salt doesn't have the same series of problems as molten sodium. (It has a different set. But fires aren't even nearly as dangerous.)
Re: (Score:2)
The OP is wrong, I think. It's sodium chloride that they heat up, not sodium. It reacts with water in the sense of dissolving, rather than exploding.
As far as I know, it's used for concentrated solar power sources, and rather than photovoltaic cells.
Re: (Score:2)
He means molten salt. This is being used in some thermal solar plants, such as Ivanpah in California, to store power for off hours.
What plans does Dubai have to get around the low-output problem that is plaguing Ivanpah, which is located in the same desert climate zone and is a short transmission line away from large energy markets?
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that software doesn't run forever either!
Now fix my copy of Lotus 1-2-3!
Re: (Score:2)
And wind, snow, etc. It doesn't take much imagination to guess what would happen if you installed one of these anywhere it snows more than an inch a year, or there's strong winds and heavy rain.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. When it blows clouds in the way. Additionally wind kicks up sand which tends to coat everything in a desert.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you cost just doubled. What now?
Re: (Score:3)
Are you sure it's sodium (the highly reactive metal), not sodium chloride (the much more inert kitchen salt)?
Plus carbon or metal = explosions (Score:2)
> It looks like most plants use a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate.
Which are the same oxidizers used in making fireworks. Nitrates + carbon = black powder. Nitrates + metal = flash powder (a few mg of which provide the bang in a firecracker) .
Large quantities of potassium nitrate and sodium nitrate heated to very high temperatures will undoubtedly provide some pretty impressive explosions from time to time.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't rain in Dubai.
It might . . . all they need to do, is build a giant mountain there . . . or maybe a giant badger . . . oh, never mind . . .
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't rain in Dubai. Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy, which then use it to create steam to run generators.
The project appears to be PV, not CSP. CSP has seen its share of challenges, and it is more expensive than PV. CSP is pretty much dead in the US;
https://www.technologyreview.c... [technologyreview.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Also these solar plants generally use molten sodium to store the energy
No, they really don't. Molten sodium would be very dangerous. And molten anything would be much more expensive than the ever-more-economical photovoltaic technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
especially in Dubai where AC has to compensate for being a bazillion degree outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish people would stop using this stupid argument. Solar works fine when connected to a grid with other power sources, because *demand* goes down at night too. Guess when peak demand for power is in Las Vegas in the summer? That's why they built a 400 MW solar plant about 10 miles away, it produces the most power exactly when it's needed to run air-conditioners.
Re: (Score:2)
My kingdom for a mod point!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As the poster suggested, there are ways to store energy. Pumped water storage is a pretty interesting one, where the solar or wind energy is used to pump water up, and then more typical hydroelectric generators produce the power. There are solutions out there, some need work, but they sure won't get the investment they need while fossil fuels like coal are subsidized heavily and protected financially from the ill effects they cause.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Except at night. (Score:5, Insightful)
Until we get more solar power than our day-time consumption your point is moot. Night/rain isn't a problem when 99% of your energy comes from fossils fuels which must be the case in UAE. They'll simply burn less coal/oil/gas when it's sunny. And on average, that means 3/kWh which is fantastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Well there is still solar collection when it is cloudy. There is very few times where it rains so hard that it is like night outside. While it may produce a lower output that could affect the cost calculation. However night is probably factored into the cost, with storage of excess.
Cloudy == 99% less energy. Eyes perceive exponenti (Score:2)
> Well there is still solar collection when it is cloudy. There is very few times where it rains so hard that it is like night outside.
Unfortunately your eyes are tricking you. Your eyes perceive brightness exponentially. It looks like a cloudy day is maybe half as bright as a sunny day, and your house maybe half as bright as that. In fact, a sunny day is around 100,000 lux, a cloudy day around 1,000. Inside your home is probably around 50 lux.
So the cloudy day has only 1% of the energy as a sunny day.
Re:Cloudy == 99% less energy. Eyes perceive expone (Score:5, Informative)
My solar panels would beg to differ. Very cloudy days production goes down but I still get 25-50% of full sun days.
Then you're missing out on 96% of sunny (Score:2)
The energy striking the surface per square meter of full sun is in fact about 100 greater than the energy striking the surface on of overcast day. That's a fact. Look it up anywhere you like.
If instead of capturing 100 times as much, your system only captures four times as much, that can only mean that your system is failing to capture 96% of the available energy on sunny days. That of course assumes you aren't mistaken.
It wouldn't be terrible unusual for a home solar-electric system to be extremely ineffi
Re: (Score:2)
"The energy striking the surface per square meter of full sun is in fact about 100 greater than the energy striking the surface on of overcast day. That's a fact. Look it up anywhere you like."
Field Scout Quantum Meter and LiCor Quantum Meter and power charge statistics on my solar systems all say you're full of shit.
Re: (Score:3)
I really don't understand what you're saying... it's gibberish.
Today was full cloud cover and my solar panels captured 7 kwh... on full sun days it's 20 - 25 kwh.
Didn't your mother warn you to put on sunscreen even on cloudy days?
Must be 1992. Clinton is running, blaming Bush (Score:2)
> Dude it's not 1995 anymore
I was figuring it must be 1992; Clinton is running for president and the Democrats are saying all the problems are Bush's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
"So the cloudy day has only 1% of the energy as a sunny day."
My god there's so much bullshit in this post I don't know where to begin.
First off, we perceive brightness in a LOGARITHMIC CURVE, not exponential.
Next, PHOTON FLUX DENSITY (which is what matters for solar, not lux which is weighted at green light) on full cloudless day is ~2,000 umol per square meter per second. On a cloudy, non-rainy day, you can expect about ~1,100 umol, about as bright as it is on Mars (Mars is like closer to 900 umol.)
You've
Re: (Score:2)
The heat stored in the salt is there overnight and can be used to turn turbines to generate electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Except at night, when solar is a lot more expensive. Or when it rains.
I am sure the scientists and engineers here completely forgot about night time.
Well then it seems like the best option is to just burn coal or oil, because it has no draw backs.
Re: (Score:2)
Except at night, when solar is a lot more expensive. Or when it rains.
I am sure the scientists and engineers here completely forgot about night time.
Well then it seems like the best option is to just burn coal or oil, because it has no draw backs.
I know, right! Gosh, we should always consult our experts here on /. first before starting, like... anything!
Re: (Score:2)
Except at night, when solar is a lot more expensive. Or when it rains.
Sigh. Here we go again.
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile insolation in the absence of clouds is about a horsepower per square meter even in the high latitudes we are at here in Sweden. This will likely transform energy generation and electricity costs worldwide and may in the medium turn well even imp
Re: (Score:2)
Though, think of like this: all the food we grow is made with solar power
No, think of it like this: imagine that all of your crops would fail if they didn't get sun every day. Growing plants are a bad analogy, because they can coast (by slowing down their energy use) when they're not given good sun. But the electricity you need to run the refrigeration you need to preserve antibiotics or keep a hospital running or keep your food frozen and water flowing and datacenters up ... doesn't get to coast on cloudy days. All this talk about how a given solar panel's output being cheape
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting how folks on here are all too willing to put their engineering hats on for, say, nuclear, and come up with solutions to the problems with the technology. But when it comes to solar, suddenly there's nighttime! cloudy days!
Why are those not just engineering problems to solve. Certainly nuclear waste storage and potential theft / dirty bomb issues are bigger challenges than a source that's not 100% available all the time, but is essentially free during the times that it is available. Seem
Re: (Score:2)
Why are those not just engineering problems to solve
Who says they're not? That's not the point. The point is that disingenuous articles talking about how much cheaper per kwh a given solar device is than burning coal without mentioning all of the extra infrastructure needed to make all of that solar actually useful 24 hours a day, year-round, is just nonsense. It's deliberately misleading.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody who understands power grids proposes using *only* solar and nothing else for power. Rational grids use a mix of power sources. Since power demand is higher during the day, solar can supply "peaking" power, while other sources can fill in on "baseload" (the part of demand that's there all the time).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just get them to sign a contract that says if they don't meet the specified performance criteria within a year, and then for X years after that, they don't get paid a penny. Oh, and they have to supply the up-front cash.
See how quickly that offer gets retracted. The response to such an item will tell you exactly how confident they were of actually delivering.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the way I read it. It sounds more like the Saudis aren't buying a plant - they're promising to buy thge electricity generated by that plant. They don't give a flying fuck how much it costs to build - they're going to pay 2.99c/kWh generated, at up to 800MW delivery rate, for a set term - probably with an escalation clause in the out years. Whether the plant costs $1 or $1T to build doesn't matter to the Saudis.
BAN DHMO NOW! (Score:2)
We don't want some slipshod low-ball bid construction to cause solar energy spills that contaminate the environment and poison wildlife. If they don't correctly build the solar ash retention ponds, a rupture could pour hundreds of thousands of gallons of poisonous solar waste into the rivers.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe the competition was gas, which actually does come out of the ground in United Arab Emirates. So competition is not coal import.