Equivalence production of solar, wind and nuclear

Renewable energies except solar electric or thermal (seeforums dedicated below): wind turbines, energy from the sea, hydraulic and hydroelectricity, biomass, biogas, deep geothermal energy ...
georges100
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 338
Registration: 25/05/08, 16:51
x 1




by georges100 » 14/06/08, 19:22

if you speak of small ok ...
I thought of the big ones :D

in any case there is a difference with the nuclear power plant it is the speed of construction :D ke goes south of caen on friday, nothing ... i go back on tuesday they were there :D
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Equivalence of solar, wind and nuclear production




by Remundo » 14/06/08, 23:10

Hello everyone !

Christophe wrote:Figures found in this doc: photovoltaic technology

Quantity of energy supplied per year (8760 hours) compared to the installed power (for an industrial installation):

- 1 MW wind power supplies around 2 to 4 GWh
- 1 MW solar PV about 0,8 to 1,5 GWh
- 1 MW nuclear approximately 7 GWh


Which gives respectively load factors of:
- wind: 22.8% to 45,7%
- solar PV: 9,1% to 17,1% (ie 1,3 to 5 times less than wind)
- nuclear: 80% (without comment)


Knowing the investment costs of each energy (roughly equivalent for wind and solar and 50% more for nuclear) and when we tell you that PV is clearly not a sustainable / profitable solution, it may not be for nothing ...

And a 1MW coal-fired power plant will produce ... 8,76 GWh as long as there is coal to put in and we remove the ashes (continuous feeding / cleaning systems), or ... : Cheesy:

It's coal, the CO2 emitted is not polluting, it's a natural gas that we all exhale : Cheesy:

The PV is clearly a sustainable and ecological solution.
The profitability economic, it is debatable, certainly 8)

The very good is thermodynamic solar, and the best is PHRSD : Cheesy:
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 15/06/08, 10:41

1) A coal-fired power plant also has variations in power demand and maintenance phases, I think the load is of the same order as that of a nuclear power plant. I will even tend to say a little less ... coal fouls faster than nuclear : Mrgreen:

2) 20 to 25 years of life of PV, is it really sustainability? This limitation is not found on the thermodynamic solar (central or solar stirling) but at the cost of regular maintenance but which, moreover, has a better overall efficiency (maybe> 50% against 15% !!!). I'm going to the renewable energy fair in Paris next week, we'll see if there are manufacturers who offer them for individuals (but I'm not dreaming too much)
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 15/06/08, 15:12

Hi Christopher,

I agree with you on the maintenance of coal-fired power plants, although their refueling is very simple in comparison with nuclear power plants.

On solar, having studied the question for some time, the solaroelectric efficiency of sun to the network current crystalline or polycrystalline PV is around 10%, and for thermodynamic solar (cylindroparabolic or Dish Stirling), less than 30%. It is still 3 times better.

The PHRSD should exceed 50% in standard equipment, and even approach 60% for those who have land in the Mediterranean, adequate materials and servocontrol ... (ie not me ...).

That is to say 2 to 3 times better than the current art in thermodynamics at (20 to 30%) concentration, and 5 to 6 times better than PV (8 to 12%).

On the other hand, it cannot be mounted flat on roofs and convert diffuse solar like PV. However, 1 or 2 dishes less than 2m wide cover the needs of an average household.

@+
0 x
Image
User avatar
olivierdauch
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 33
Registration: 22/03/05, 13:16
Location: Planet Earth, Auvergne, Cantal

Re: Equivalence of solar, wind and nuclear production




by olivierdauch » 16/06/08, 12:27

Christophe wrote:and when we tell you that PV is clearly not a sustainable / profitable solution, it may not be for nothing ...

Profitable without any doubt but durable ??
Why photovoltaics is not sustainable energy?
Overall get along!
Have you heard of the Nanosolar brand which should arrive on the market in 2009 with much lower cost per Wc (3 to 4 times -) thanks to an original silicon-free production technique (announced shortage) close to the printing press.
We find a report here: http://leblogdelenergiesolaire.com/repo ... eneration/
0 x
Passionate about alternative habitats in general and yurts in particular, the eco-construction, self-construction and ingenuity that often goes with it, as well as the great challenges we have to face in order to leave the planet roughly in good shape. state and a world a little better! At work !
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 16/06/08, 12:28

Ben durable = long longevity right?

For me 20 years is not sustainable ...

Yes nanosolar we talked about it here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/nanosolar- ... t4816.html

We expect concrete ... for the moment these are the effects of announcements ... more:

olivierdauch wrote:We find a report here: http://leblogdelenergiesolaire.com/repo ... eneration/


The sentence which claims that the energy received by the sun in one minute from the Earth can cover the needs of humanity is false ... it is of the order of the hour.

So if there is already a coef error. 60 in the intro ... the rest does not inspire me too much confidence ... : Shock:

I think it's better to turn to solar concentration:

https://www.econologie.com/forums/cellules-s ... t3873.html
https://www.econologie.com/cellules-phot ... -3437.html
Last edited by Christophe the 16 / 06 / 08, 12: 36, 3 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 16/06/08, 12:34

I confirm, it's around the hour.

Finally there is such a solar abundance that it does not matter : Idea:
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 16/06/08, 12:38

If Remundo, for me it matters ... because of the guys who claim to revolutionize the world of solar PV and who do not know precisely what is solar radiation and the needs of humanity ...lose all credibility.
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 16/06/08, 12:44

Uh ... I'm going to play devil's advocate : Cheesy:

It's the journalist who says it ... and ...

In "our needs", she thinks of those of the USA, known for their low perception of the rest of the world :P

That said, this technology seems to be unproven. give it a chance anyway: it seems flexible and less expensive. On the Wc / m² yields, that remains to be seen !! 8)
0 x
Image
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 16/06/08, 12:52

Certainly, but is it journalism or a promotional film from the firm?
0 x

Back to "hydraulic, wind, geothermal, marine energy, biogas ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 248 guests