Building Approval Granted for 40 MW Photovoltaic Project (Germany)

[jpak]

http://www.solarbuzz.com/News/NewsEUPR331.htm

The juwi group based in Bolanden in the state of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany, has received building approval for the world’s biggest photovoltaic (PV) power system. At a former military air base to the east of Leipzig, juwi is installing a 40-megawatt solar power system using state-ofthe- art thin-film technology, to be finished by the end of 2009.

The installation in the Muldentalkreis district in the state of Saxony in eastern Germany will be built on half of the location’s 220 hectares in the townships of Brandis and Bennewitz. The area is about one kilometre wide and approximately two kilometres long. It takes more than an hour to walk around it.

“The surface area of the PV installation compares to about 200 soccer fields,” says juwi co-managing director Matthias Willenbacher. The world’s biggest solar power plant at a glance:

The “Waldpolenz” solar park, as it will be called, is a milestone for the juwi group and photovoltaic (PV) technology in general.

<more>

[phantom power]

1. According to my calculations...

this installation will cost $173 million. (at today's euro/dollar exchange rate)

I got the cost off of this german release:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.iwrpressedienst.de/Textausgabe.php%3Fid%3D2428&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMuldentalkreis%2Bsolar%2Bjuwi%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

According to the same release, it will provide 40 million kW-hrs per year. If I assume a lifetime of 25 years, that comes to 17 cents per kilowatt-Hour.

They said they got this PV at 40% below normal market cost. (bulk rate?)

To obtain a peak-gigawatt, it would cost them $4.3 billion. For electricity that costs 17 cents/kW-hr, and isn't available at night.

[jpak]

2. PV doesn't produce electricity at night???

Who knew?????

Maybe they should use some cheap coal to make electricity...

:evilgrin:

[phantom power]

3. I was thinking cheap nuclear. Because of the CO2 thing that's killing us all.

Not that anybody is listening to me. Coal plants are springing up like mushrooms after a rainstorm.

[jpak]

4. Cheap nuclear???

There ain't no such animules.

If it was cheap, "they" would be building them...

[Nihil]

5. Sorry ... I'm missing somethiing ..

... why is 17c/kWh a problem?

Very soon we will have the choice between dying and paying real money for our power.

Personally, 17c/kWh isn't that bad price for my family's life ...

[phantom power]

6. I don't know if I would call it a "problem," however...

Suppose you are a government that has $4 billion dollars to spend on energy production. You could

a) build a solar installation of 25x the size of the one described in this article, and get a peak gigawatt, which produces power during the daytime, and less than peak for all but about 4 hours of the day. This power plant will last about 25 years, and the electricity will cost 17cents/kW-hr.

b) build (at least) one gigawatt nuclear reactor, that produces a gigawatt 24/7, and so each year will produce approximately 4x the energy that the PV plant will. It will last 40-50 years. The electricity it produces will cost about 5 cents /kW-hr.

Which do you choose?

[Nihil]

7. Depends on my perspective ...

> Which do you choose?

I choose the one that will give me and my children the best chance of survival.

The solar installation will currently have few objections (mainly NIMBYs of the
"oh my god, they've built a solar cell over Kenny" type).
The nuclear installation will currently have a huge protest organisation created
in order to obstruct and even prevent the construction of the nuke plant.

If the solar plant gets built on time, it provides a good example for future attempts.
If the nuclear plant gets built (at all), it provides a whipping post for anti-nuclear
protesters until the end of time.

I am pro-nuclear but accept the reality (right or wrong) that nuclear power stations
have a f*cking huge lead time in the UK or US (though not in more enlightened countries).
As a result, if it takes two years to get a PV installation in and fifteen years to
get a nuclear installation in, my vote is for the former.

I left Greenpeace due to my difference of opinion with them relating to nuclear
power stations. This doesn't mean that I am ignorant with respect to the chances
of new nuclear power stations being created in the next couple of years.

[skids]

8. And what happens at 25 years?

You think the plant just stops operation? Not quite. They refurb it with panels that cost much, much less, since the mounting brackets and trackers will still be good and there will have been 25 years worth of R&D to make panels cheaper and more efficient. I note this plant is going with a whole lot of cheap thin-film panels. By then, they'll be easily able to up the wattage of the plant when they refurb.

[jpak]

9. In 25 years, those PV panels will be producing at 80% of their new rated capacity

32 MW peak for the entire plant - but they will still be producing power...

...and their useful service life is ~40 years.

[skids]

10. True I was just humoring.

On a related note, how's $3/watt-peak sound? Just so long as you have an abundance of surface area :-)

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/partner/story?id=47542

[phantom power]

12. Maybe, maybe not. That's the thing about predicting the future.

The bit about 80% capacity is true, to the best of my knowledge. Although the last time I saw an aging curve, it dropped off faster and faster as time went on.

Either way, you can obviously replace panels as they age. And you still have to either build a redundant power plants for night time, or spend additional money on massive grid storage. Both are obviously possible, but both equally obviously make the total package less attractive.

If I wanted to build base-load power today that was affordable and won't kill us with GHG emissions, I know what I'd spend my money on: a nuke plant.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. So, they've cancelled all those new coal plants? nt