Regarding the new APS Solana plant, it’s supposed to cost $1B to build and will generate 280 MW. Considering that one of PVNGS units generates 1400 MW, that would put Solana very conservatively at $5B with NO cost overruns for construction to generate an equivalent amount of power. Figuring that it only can generate about 1/3 of the time that PVNGS does and giving them the benefit of 100% conversion efficiency in their molten-salt storage facility, that would put construction at $15B for comparable output. And again, unless you overbuild to store power for the time you can’t generate, you need another power source to generate when there’s no sun.

The cost of nuclear energy is dominated by the capital construction cost – fuel cost, decommissioning and handling used fuel are in fact very small relative to the capital cost. Here we have just considered the construction cost, as with the solar energy plant, which similarly has its costs dominated by the cost of construction.

If Olkiluoto-3 does cost $6 billion, for 1.6 GW of capacity, and the solar thermal plant as mentioned above generates energy at a 95% capacity factor, then they are expected, in fact, to be effectively equal in terms of capital costs.

Anyone care to estimate what a GW of nuclear power costs nowadays (and please include waste disposal and decommissioning). Costs of the finnish plant in Olkiluoto (1.6 GW) now stand at about 7 billion dollars, and further cost overruns are inevitable. Of course, these costs do not include fuel, and more importantly, waste disposal and decommissioning. Furthermore, AREVA was so keen on building a new plant that it’s making a huge loss with these numbers anyway (paid by their gullible or powerless customers).

None of the “get solar thermal energy fast” schemes seem to address the water issue.
Any comments.

Spain has some too? Really, is that so? I can only conclude that you didn’t even read my post.

The SEGS facilities in the Mojave desert are not baseload generators, they are designed as peaking units, and what’s more, they are backed up by a good old environmentally destructive fossil fuel fired boiler on cloudy days.

All the SEGS installations have a total nameplate capacity of 310 MW – with a capacity factor of 26%, which we’ll assume, the same as Solnova I, that’s 706.5 GWh of energy generated in a given year – that’s only about 9 percent of the energy output of a typical nuclear power plant (or coal fired generator), with a 1 GW nameplate capacity and a 90% capacity factor. That’s pretty small indeed – and this is one of the biggest solar energy installations in the world.

How much did it cost to construct these facilities?

The FPL promotional fact sheet for SEGS, here, gives the 310 MW figure quoted above, and explains how it is a peaking unit, backed up by a natural gas fired boiler.

http://www.fplenergy.com/portfolio/pdf/solar_factsheet.pdf

Then again, it has never failed to amaze me how many people working as engineers don’t really know the fundamentals. It wasn’t that long ago (about 5-10 years ago) that I was teaching young engineering students. It was scary to discover how little they know of what I consider to be fundamental concepts — and these were the “bright” students!

Be afraid for the future. Unless something changes soon (and it might, with more students coming to western Universities from places like China and India, where the students are hungry to learn), we’re in for some rough times. Rigor is not dead, but it’s on life support in many fields these days.

What are they smoking?