Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear

Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear

Concentrating solar power better option than nuclear
Comment from Dr Gerry Wolff
April 10, 2007

Comment regarding Nuclear power plants are financially risky given high costs: Nuclear power plants are risky investments given rapidly rising costs of construction of nuclear fuel, reports a new study by researchers from Georgetown University, Stanford University and UC Berkeley. The paper, published in the April 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science and Technology, warns power companies that nuclear power may not be financially attractive even with generous government subsidies.

Dr Gerry Wolff writes:

Regarding “Nuclear power plants are financially risky given high costs” (2007-04-04), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in the US because there is a simple mature technology that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.

I refer to ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP), the simple but effective technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue at night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.

CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient ‘HVDC’ transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may be transmitted to anywhere in the US and Canada too. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US “could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***” (emphasis added).

In the ‘TRANS-CSP’ report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe.

Further information about CSP may be found at www.trec-uk.org.uk and www.trecers.net. Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm. The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm.

Gerry Wolff’s claims are not accurate
Comment from Michael Stuart

Dr Gerry Wolff’s claims would be wonderful news if they were true, but they are simply part of a misinformation campaign:



http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/cspnn.htm



In reality, CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy!



Concentrating Solar Power (or CSP) is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.



Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state’s electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and are therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.



Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity, hands down. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What’s more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.



Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this would disrupt the ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study (