Saudi Arabia Puts World's Biggest Solar Power Project On Hold (dw.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Deutsche Welle: Citing Saudi government officials, the U.S. business daily The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported Monday that Saudi plans to build the world's largest solar power generation facility had been shelved, as the desert kingdom was working on a "broader, more practical strategy to boost renewable energy." The solar project was expected to generate about 200 gigawatts of energy by 2030 -- more than three times the country's daily requirement. "It is easy to sway or grab one's attention, but difficult to do any execution," WSJ quoted a senior adviser to the Saudi government as saying. Now, no one was actively working on the project, the source added.
[T]he country's entry into the solar market is being hampered by high costs and logistical issues. The project's first phase alone was expected to gobble up $1 billion, and was due to be funded by the Vision Fund this year. According to the Saudi officials cited by WSJ, Riyadh hadn't yet made any decisions on the project's details, including land acquisition, the structure of development or whether it would receive subsidies from the state. "Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die," a Saudi energy official familiar with the matter was quoted as saying. Instead, Saudi officials said the government was now devising a broader renewable energies strategy to be announced in late October, which would help clarify renewable energy goals.
[T]he country's entry into the solar market is being hampered by high costs and logistical issues. The project's first phase alone was expected to gobble up $1 billion, and was due to be funded by the Vision Fund this year. According to the Saudi officials cited by WSJ, Riyadh hadn't yet made any decisions on the project's details, including land acquisition, the structure of development or whether it would receive subsidies from the state. "Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die," a Saudi energy official familiar with the matter was quoted as saying. Instead, Saudi officials said the government was now devising a broader renewable energies strategy to be announced in late October, which would help clarify renewable energy goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly wasn't cost: 1 billion USD to the Saudis should be a drop in the bucket.
The ironic (?) thing is, they're well poised to provide energy to the world for the foreseeable future. Even when their oil wells run dry some day, they have all the sand and sun in the world: sand to make the silicon to make solar panels, and sun to power them. They're set.
Smart Move (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Interest rates are low, money is cheap. So you get a higher rate of return by buying a piece of worthless land and putting solar panels on it, a better return than bank interest and the tax write offs means it is tax free. In the current economic climate solar panels provides a pretty solid return. Low interests rates makes all renewables a pretty good investment, just depends how long they will stay low. Solar provides a pretty good return upon land that would otherwise have very little value.
Fossil fuels
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah the people burning wood apparently haven't heard your sage words
https://www.acs.org/content/ac... [acs.org]
Nor has China which is still building new coal plants
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... [nytimes.com]
Hey please don't let reality interfere with your fantasy
Re: (Score:3)
Nor has China which is still building new coal plants
Except the actual and up to date source of the info in your article points otherwise.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/gu... [carbonbrief.org]
Planned new coal capacity has been cancelled around the world, with particularly rapid falls in China and India.
At the end of 2015, China had plans to build 515GW of new coal capacity. That figure now stands at 76GW. In India, the pre-construction pipeline has shrunk from 218GW in 2015 to 63GW today.
That's the main reason Chinese companies are scrambling around the world trying to sell their coal plants.
They already had them in the pipeline and now they can't just scrap billions of dollars already built into steam turbines.
So they are trying to get rid of them elsewhere while there's still time.
Coal is simply no longer economical.
Most notably, our figures show that less than 2GW of new coal capacity has been proposed in either China or India in 2018 - a significant development for the two countries that have been the site of 85% of the world's new coal power capacity since 2006.
While some analysts predicted the drop in China and India might be replaced with an increase throughout other parts of the world, the pipeline across the rest of the world also continues to decline. ...
Notably, Japan has called off 3.6GW of proposed coal capacity since 2017, while South Korea will stop issuing permits for new coal plants.
From January through to June 2018, nearly 20GW of new coal capacity was commissioned: 12GW in China (blue area in the chart, below) , 5GW in India (red), and 3GW in the rest of the world (South Africa, Pakistan, Vietnam, Philippines and Japan).
While significant, the amount of coal power capacity that began operating during the first half of 2018 (20GW) was nearly matched by the amount retired (16GW), for a net increase of just 4GW - the slowest rate of growth on record.
If the slowdown continues global coal capacity should peak by 2022, if not sooner.
Gas is cheap, solar is cheaper, wind is cheapest... it's
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
All of that is cute and all, and utter fantasy. Reality is, China is (supposedly secretly, but satellites exist and there are groups monitoring them) building new coal power en masse. BBC had a good story on this just a couple of days ago.
Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.
Re: (Score:2)
Activists desperate to keep narrative under control obviously keep doing the damage control, good example being your forbes links.
Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism.
But good job on revealing yourself as a moron AND a conspiracy loon there, with those secret Chinese coal plants - as if they could hide produced power.
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah... Forbes... that bastion of activism.
But good job on revealing yourself as a moron
You almost got it. Forbes is a bastion of moronism. The magazine and core content are real but most of the content on Forbes.com is unvetted op-eds... and they are almost universally garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not looking to hide produced power. They're just looking to hide the fact that they're being made, as to help with negotiations. This isn't really news, as China operates like this on many fronts. They weren't straight up hiding what they were doing on the man made islands in South China Sea, a much more controversial and contested area. They just looked for plausible deniability for as long as there was some chance that this could go the other way.
Same goes for coal plants being built. While they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Umm.. no.
Sorry, I'm lazy.
I'll just link to the other part of the thread where I point out and explain that you are basing your assumptions on faulty reading of data. [slashdot.org]
I.e. BBC is wrong. People they are quoting say so.
Re: (Score:2)
People they are quoting are activists. They obviously say so, because this confirms the problems with Paris agreement, and Paris agreement is widely embraced by them for ideological reasons.
Problem being, this one confirms the point they really didn't want confirmed, that Paris agreement giving China blank cheque to build more CO2 emitting power generation for upcoming years until 2030 (iirc) cut off. Hence "we confirmed it, but we don't really believe it".
First part of that sentence is a fact. Second is op
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah coal is so uneconomical
https://qz.com/1404934/chinas-... [qz.com]
https://www.chinadialogue.net/... [chinadialogue.net]
Oh apparently you are just as knowledgeable about the profitability of mining coal
https://www.montelnews.com/en/... [montelnews.com]
U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is slowly becoming uneconomical for electricity production but it is absolutely essential for primary steelmaking in a blast furnace.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal is slowly becoming uneconomical for electricity production but it is absolutely essential for primary steelmaking in a blast furnace.
If you are making good steel you are using electricity you need finer control of carbon content.
Yawn... look up sources. (Score:3)
Your article comes from CoalSwarm.
CoalSwarm, a global network of researchers tracking fossil-fuel infrastructure, analyzed satellite imagery as of July 2018, and discovered that the construction of around half of those 150 plants is still proceeding, despite the government orders.
Just like that OP NYT article, which sources Urgewald, [coalexit.org] which again, sources CoalSwarm Database.
We also included companies listed in the CoalSwarm Database as they are planning new coal power plants.
Getting that? Got that? Good.
Now go read the very first line in the link [carbonbrief.org] I quoted above, debunking those numbers. Well... putting them in context.
It goes kinda like this...
Dr Christine Shearer is a researcher and analyst for the US-based energy research group CoalSwarm.
The stuff you're quoting is accounted for - AND THE COAL PLANT NUMBERS ARE STILL DECREASING.
As for this...
U.S. Exports expected to be up 60% in 2018 go figure.
Again... actually reading the article and looking up sources helps to put things in context.
(Montel) US seaborne thermal coal exports could surge 60% this year amid a shortfall in global supply and healthy import demand, the director of consultancy Perret Associates told Montel on Wednesday.
Guillaume Perret estimated the country's coal exports could rise from 36.7m tonnes in 2017 to 58m tonnes this year and 60m tonnes in 2019.
You are relyi
Re: (Score:2)
Your article comes from CoalSwarm.
Says the man who quoted an article quoting a report from IRENA
the international renewable agency ?
Re: (Score:2)
Reading comprehension not your forte, eh?
The source you quoted is using data from CoalSwarm.
The source I quoted is from a CoalSwarm RESEARCHER AND ANALYST. You know... the person who actually puts all that data together.
And who, unlike various "journalists" out there - actually knows what she's talking about and what all that data actually shows.
I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
I.e. It's the same source, but mine actually knows what she's talking about.
This is called cherry picking. Can you say that ? "Cherry Picking" I knew you could.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're Saudi, interest rates are high. They're broke.
Solar isn't a slam dunk (yet) (Score:2)
So you get a higher rate of return by buying a piece of worthless land and putting solar panels on it, a better return than bank interest and the tax write offs means it is tax free.
Getting a higher rate of return than bank interest making at least some amount of profit. Just buying solar panels and some otherwise unused land doesn't automatically equal profit. Solar panel installations have a large up front capital cost which has to be recouped over a period of YEARS. Breakeven isn't going to happen immediately even in the best of circumstances. I don't think I've ever seen a solar installation with a breakeven faster than 5 years and over 10 isn't uncommon.
Tax incentives on solar
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Smart Move (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would they use solar cells? Photovoltaics are not the cheapest way to get energy from the sun on an industrial scale. Concentrated solar into molten salt storage would be the only sane way to build a generation plant this large.
Re: (Score:2)
Photovoltaics are not the cheapest way to get energy from the sun on an industrial scale.
Actually, they already are. And without some serious progress in CSP plant technology, they will most likely stay being the cheapest way.
Re: (Score:3)
Why doesn't Slashdot block repetitive spam cr@p like this? It is the same posts over and over, day after day. This is a five minute exercise in Perl to kill this spam.
Might it cause the spam to mutate? It might, but the spam-message is clear and can be detected and blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
If the spam filter gets too aggressive it stops legitimate posts. There are solutions like beynesian filtering, but it's easier to just let such stuff get modded down to -1.
Sounds like a good idea (Score:2)
Seems that the best thing any country can do, is invest in energy that would last the people for the rest of their lives. Isn't this their main business now? $1 billion USD, seems cheap if that gets them 200GW of energy piped to the people.
--
Building a better mousetrap merely results in smarter mice. - Charles Darwin
Re: (Score:3)
1 billion was just Phase One. They'd have to spend several billion more to actually Do the project (buy land, buy panels, install panels). - Also "last the rest of their lives"? Solar panels lose efficiency with age.
- They drop to 80% after 25 years, at which point they are meant to be replaced (25 =/= typical human span of 75-to-80). I recall a solar panel I bought in 1985 to power a little toy windmill..... day after day the windmill spun, but after 10 years the panel had degraded to where it lacked
Re: (Score:2)
Even it they spent a trillion dollars on a solar farm, @ 80% return after 25 years on 4x their annual capacity, it still works out to make sense.
--
Of course, you don't have to take *my* word for it - LeVar Burton
Re: (Score:3)
Bio-fuels are not the solution to anything (unless you are reclaiming a waste stream that would otherwise be burned or something).
Photosynthesis is less than 1% efficient in producing electricity. Commercial solar cells are currently 21% efficient.
Re: (Score:3)
- They drop to 80% after 25 years, at which point they are meant to be replaced (25 =/= typical human span of 75-to-80)
No, it is not meant to be replaced. That would only make sense if the efficiency had drastically improved, e.g. the new panels give 130% or more power than the original ones.
Re: Sounds like a good idea (Score:2)
They have cheap gasoline (Score:5, Insightful)
$2 per gallon. It's hard to justify installing expensive solar panels, when they can just burn gasoline instead.
Gas is going to become worthless (Score:3)
Right now Saudi Arabia has a modern army thanks to weapons purchased with oil money. Take the oil money away and that won't last, and t
Re: (Score:2)
2 dollars a gallon is not cheap.
Re: They have cheap gasoline (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline is almost perfectly fungible. Everyone has access to cheap gasoline if their respective government decides to reduce the high taxes on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Gasoline? Most definitely not. Saudi Arabia gets nearly all its electrical energy from crude oil and natural gas burning. They are now building nuclear power plants, but for the foreseeable future, natural gas and crude oil is their primary source of electrical energy.
Gasoline absolutely not.
Re: (Score:2)
$2 per gallon. It's hard to justify installing expensive solar panels, when they can just burn gasoline instead.
Think of the opportunity cost instead. How much would they make selling the gasoline to others instead of burning it themselves.
They realized they can't dig for sunshine (Score:1)
Can we now do a Trump and proclaim them Persona Not Grata? If you buy/sell their oil you can't trade with us. At least until they join the 20th century. I'll settle for that, give them a while to join the 21st century.
Farking barbarians, got lucky with the oil.
Competition? Yeah right. (Score:2)
"Everyone is just hoping this whole idea would just die," a Saudi energy official familiar with the matter was quoted as saying.
Was it the oil sheikhs ritual of bathing in bathtubs full of crude oil that gave this idea a hint of doubt? Just curious.
Never trust the Saudis. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What got Elon in trouble wasn't trusting the Saudis. His mistake was running his mouth off on twitter, and his overarching desire to stick it to the shorts.
No shit? (Score:2)
entry into the solar market is being hampered by high costs
Who knew that a high-priced energy system cost a lot?
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not about costs. Those could be managed. The problem is that Saudis are currently massively overextended on the infrastructure projects in terms of actual ability of the state to manage them. With Bin Salman's megacity project in North-West of the country, even strategic upgrades like port facilities in Jeddah are getting stalled. Saudi bureaucracy is inefficient, and there's only so much that it can manage at a time.
This appears to be one of the many projects that simply is so low on the prio
Back to the normal business (Score:2)
Why is it on hold exactly? (Score:2)
gigawatts of energy? (Score:2)
And here I thought that "gigawatts" were a unit of power (energy/time)...
I remember reading some SF back in the day where the author used the phrase "(metric prefix)watts of energy" a lot. Always made me want to smack him one....
Re: (Score:1)
Also, there will be approximately 4000 days "by 2030", so generating three days' worth of energy is about one thousandth of country's needs, not really impressive I'd say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't Slashdot put in some type of cr@p filters? Why do we have to scroll past huge walls of racist spam that is exactly the same day after day?
Re: (Score:3)
I feel like it would be pretty easy to identify some statistical characteristics of this type of spam. For one thing, it's really long compared to a real comment. Basic token frequency analysis would probably show it to be clearly different from typical real comments.
One of the admins could pick out a bunch of obvious spam like this, GNAA, the weird shitposts I've seen recently describing the events of someone's day that looks Markov generated. There's plenty of volume of it, and it should be pretty easy to