$14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide

[boffin]

You have to include the water reservoir which was built to cool the plant.

Look, I have measured fukushima for boffin and you: 11584700 ha 

You what the difference is?  Some people provide references:

https://www.foronuclear.org/en/nuclear-energy/nuclear-energy-in-spain/almaraz-ii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almaraz_Nuclear_Power_Plant

1683 ha

[Marco]

Deserts are big enough, the world is small enough for HVDC.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

OK, thread can be closed now.

 

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Deserts are big enough, the world is small enough for HVDC.

You "only" need 170e3 TWh/year of PV energy... Do the math @ 100W/m²

[Marco]

Sahara desert, 10e12*100*356*10 = 3.5 exa-Wh/year ... as I said, deserts are big enough.

[apis]

Sahara has an average insolation of closer to 240 W/m², some places over 300 W/m².
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_irradiance

240*365*24 = 2102 kWh/(m² year)

"In 2016, world total final electricity consumption reached 20 863 TWh"
https://www.iea.org/statistics/electricity/

20863e9/(2102 * 0.10) ~= 100e9 m2 = 100 000 km² (assuming 10% efficiency)

Sahara is 9 200 000 km²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara

Edit: changed "100 km²" to "100 000 km²"

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

And the Sahara has 24 hours/day of sun?

[apis]

240 W/m2 is the average for an entire year, i.e. nights included.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

And what do we do at night, shut down everything?

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"In 2016, world total final electricity consumption reached 20 863 TWh"
https://www.iea.org/statistics/electricity/

No, if you want to get rid of FF, you need to generate more electricity: 170e3 TWh/year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

...and convert everything to electric.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

20863e9/(2102 * 0.10) ~= 100e9 m2 = 100 km² (assuming 10% efficiency)

And you've got to put aisles between the PV rows...

[apis]

And what do we do at night, shut down everything?

That's why we still need nuclear.

No, if you want to get rid of FF, you need to generate more electricity: 170e3 TWh/year:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

...and convert everything to electric.

Fine: 100000*(170/20) = 850 000 km², still smaller than Sahara.

And you've got to put aisles between the PV rows...

Say we need as much space for aisles: 2*850000 = 1 700 000 km². Still smaller than than Sahara.

Edit: corrected conversion error.

[nctnico]

But how about the people living in the Sahara? Don't go thingking that nobody lives in a desert because you'll be sadly mistaken.

[apis]

They really are not that many, but they will probably be happy because they now have lots of new employment opportunities and an export product.



Anyway, the world will never depend solely on solar from Sahara, there are plenty of other places to put PV panels. The point is that space is not a limiting factor.

The biggest problem with solar is that the sun doesn't always shine, i.e. we need storage which doesn't exist yet. So for the time being we will also need either coal/gas or nuclear. Of those nuclear is really the safest and most environmentally friendly option, and it is also the only option that is CO₂ neutral.

[george80]

Of those nuclear is really the safest and most environmentally friendly option, and it is also the only option that is CO₂ neutral.

 

You know the greenwashed mentality has really gone over the top when they are reccomedning something they traditionally always protested and produce's the most deadly poison know to man.

They are so hell bent and tunnel visioned on the Co2 fallacy they will back something far more potentially deadly and dangerous in order to avoid the demon they have blown out of all proportion.

The hypocrisy would be laughable if it were not so sad.   

I'm going to need a LOT of tyres!   

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

"In 2016, world total final electricity consumption reached 20 863 TWh"

20863e9/(2102 * 0.10) ~= 100e9 m2 = 100 km² (assuming 10% efficiency)

Your numbers are off by three orders of magnitude...  1 km² = 1e6 m²

Fine: 100*170/20 = 850 km², still nothing compared to all of Sahara.

And you've got to put aisles between the PV rows...

Say we need as much space for aisles: 2*850 = 1700 km². Still less than one percent of Sahara.

So let's make that 1000x bigger: 1.7 million km² or a square whose side is 1303 km.

How much would that cost?

It almost fits into Saudi Arabia:

[Marco]

That's not really the point, there's all sorts of problems. Mostly cost, storage and autarky ... it's just that area isn't really the problem.

For the US the autarky part isn't a problem either,  they've got plenty of high sun-day deserts within their borders.

[apis]

For the US the autarky part isn't a problem either,  they've got plenty of high sun-day deserts within their borders.

Same with Australia.

[nctnico]

Of those nuclear is really the safest and most environmentally friendly option, and it is also the only option that is CO₂ neutral.

They are so hell bent and tunnel visioned on the Co2 fallacy they will back something far more potentially deadly and dangerous in order to avoid the demon they have blown out of all proportion.

The numbers are stacked against you. Nuclear is and has been the safest way to generate energy. So far mostly electricity but the residual heat can also be used for heating.

It is kind of like the car versus airplane. Way more people die due to car crashes compared to airplanes. Yet if an airplane crashes a lot of people die at once. You have to let go of decades of fear mongering by Greenpaece et al and take a look at the facts and statistics. We have been collectively brainwashed to fear nuclear power just like Americans have been brainwashed to fear anything that reeks of socialism or communism.

[apis]

Your numbers are off by three orders of magnitude...  1 km² = 1e6 m²

Yes sorry, I've corrected it now. I thought it was a bit low, I was thinking cubes instead of squares for some inexplicable reason. It is still less than 20% of the Sahara, i.e. there is enough land area in the world (not only the Sahara) that could be used. (The usually cited number is ~3% so I might still have gotten something wrong, if you use 20% efficiency you could halve the area for example, but it's not only PV efficiency you also get losses when you transfer it to the grid.)

How much would that cost?
It almost fits into Saudi Arabia:

This is the entire worlds energy consumption we are talking about, so it's naturally very large figures. But continuing as we are now, building new coal power plants, mining for coal, trucking it around, also cost a lot of money. Coal causes pollution and global warming which is costing us a lot of money continually (and peoples health). Think about how much land will be lost due to sea level rise for example, and that is just one of many problems.

It would be expensive and you couldn't produce that many solar panels over night either. That is why I say we need every option available (solar, nuclear, wind and hydro mainly but probably also energy reduction) if we are going to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

[apis]

So far mostly electricity but the residual heat can also be used for heating.

Sadly because of the hysteria surrounding nuclear the heat is often just treated as waste and pumped into the ocean or rivers. We could have had nuclear based district heating today if it weren't for the anti-nuclear lobby. The Canadians developed a reactor called slowpoke that was intended just for that.
https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en/chemistry-and-chemical-engineering/slowpoke-nuclear-reactors-canada
http://cns-snc.ca/media/uploads/branch_data/branches/quebec/slowpoke/CHUS_dead_Record_21_12_88.jpg

[tautech]

That is why I say we need every option available (solar, nuclear, wind and hydro mainly but probably also energy reduction) if we are going to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Ain't gunna happen anytime soon.

The world is fully geared to use fossil fuels especially hydrocarbon based fuels due to their efficiency.
Supplement maybe but replace, not in my or my childrens lifetime.

[nctnico]

They really are not that many, but they will probably be happy because they now have lots of new employment opportunities and an export product.

That is what they thought when Israel got founded... driving people away is never a good option. AFAIK it is actually very hard to built stuff in a desert because people who feel it is their land will tear things down or sabotage it (or make others do that for them).

[apis]

That is why I say we need every option available (solar, nuclear, wind and hydro mainly but probably also energy reduction) if we are going to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

Ain't gunna happen anytime soon.

The world is fully geared to use fossil fuels especially hydrocarbon based fuels due to their efficiency.
Supplement maybe but replace, not in my or my childrens lifetime.

Won't happen by itself at least.

The problem is that certain leaders of some of the most powerful countries are personally heavily invested in coal, oil and gas. Consider for example the Bush family, Putin, the Saudis, etc. The world needs a global international agreement, but when e.g. the U.S. and Russia doesn't want to play along, other countries like China says there is no point they make large investments since it wont matter in the end. (We all share the same atmosphere and climate).

[apis]

They really are not that many, but they will probably be happy because they now have lots of new employment opportunities and an export product.

That is what they thought when Israel got founded... driving people away is never a good option. AFAIK it is actually very hard to built stuff in a desert because people who feel it is their land will tear things down or sabotage it (or make others do that for them).

That is something else entirely. In this case the people who own the land can build the solar panels and get rich, it's sort of like finding oil, if they can get the ball rolling and build the infrastructure to export it to Europe or south to central Africa. And again, the point wasn't that all the worlds energy should be produced in the Sahara, only that there is enough land area available for solar to cover the worlds energy needs. There are problems with solar but land use isn't one of them.