1,000,000 MWh/year. This means an average power production is 114 MW electric. Capacity factor is 0.31 or 31%.
At 2200 million USD, the project comes in at more than $19/Watt average electricity delivered.
This is 3x the cost of some recent nuclear powerplant builds that most environmentalists have accused of being prohibitively expensive.
The heliostats used in the project weigh in at 30,000 tonnes. That's 262 tons of heliostats per MW electric average. That's just for the heliostats, not even the foundations, not to mention the tower and power block.
The powerplant area that had to be bulldozed over is much larger than a nuclear reactor 20x the average (real) capacity (twin unit AP1000).
There are some fantastic black and white images showing the scale of the project in the link above.
These projects need to find a way to get the cost down that does not rely consistently on FiTs or other tariffs. Initially it's ok but that needs to be a short term fix. If you need energy at that wattage, on the cheap and now the temptation to build a CCGT is strong.
Post by David Walters on Dec 6, 2012 2:42:48 GMT 9.5
The chinese do NOT think coal is a 'safer' choice. If they did, they wouldn't be building out their nuclear. The "10 to 1" (and I think it's higher) new builds for coal over nuclear have zero to do with safety, other than nuclear represents a much safer choice as coal kills about 400,000 chinese a year that we know of and probably 20 times that number from generally COPD conditions.
The hold up...relative to coal...has to do with both component manufacturing and human resource development. They both have to be ramped up. In the middle of the next, 13th 5 year plan (2015 to 2020) you will see an actual exponential increase in Chinese nuclear deployment and all numbers are likely to be revised upward.
Post by adambodnar on Sept 25, 2013 14:36:52 GMT 9.5
Apologies on dragging up an old threat, the Ivanpah CSP just came up in discussion elsewhere, and I quickly came up with some numbers. Anyone care to gave look over my workings and a brief glance at my sources.
______________________________ Let's critically analyse this in an example to replace Adelaide's Torrens Island Power Station.
To replace the Torrens Island CCGT Power Station that powers most of Adelaide would require US$26.94 billion dollars and occupy 12244 acres (4955 hectares) - that's a track of lang about 50 kilometres long and 1 kilometre wide.
Firstly, the stats for Ivanpah Solar Thermal Power station:
From the Wikipedia article: Cost: US$2.2 billion  Name Plate Capacity: 392 megawatts Capacity Factor: 25%  Land Usage: 4,000 acres (1618 hectares) Cost / GW (Gigawatt): US$5.6 billion Levelised Cost / GW: US$22.45 billion  Land / GW: 10204 acres (4120 hectares)
Torrens Island CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) Power Station Cost: actual cost unknown, assume $1 billion  Name Plate Capacity: 1.2 GW Capacity Factor: 68%  Cost / GW: $0.83 billion Levelised Cost / GW: US1.22 billion Land Usage: 5 acres (2 hectares) 
3. Levelised Cost / GW is calculated as: Cost / (Name Place Capacity * Capacity Factor) - eg. for the Ivanpah Solar Thermal Plant the calculation is US$2.2 billion / (0.392 * 0.25) = US$22.45 billion
4. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle... - while the Wikipedia article states: offered by three major manufactures (Alstom, General Electric and Siemens) are roughly in the range of 50 MW to 500 MW and costs are about $600/kW
Post by QuarkingMad on Sept 27, 2013 15:30:25 GMT 9.5
Although Torrens Island is not a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine. It is a combination of 8 sub-critical steam turbines that can run both gas and fuel oil. The only CCGT's in South Australia are Osborne and Pelican Point power plants.