Sign in / up

back to article World's largest solar collection plant opened in Abu Dhabi

Shams 1, the 100MW solar collector plant that's a cooperative venture between energy investor Masdar, French oil firm Total, Abengoa Solar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), has officially opened for business. The 2.5 square kilometer Shams facility (named after the Arabic word for Sun) is technically the world's largest for …

COMMENTS

House rules Send corrections
This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Anonymous Coward
    Facepalm

    Follow the money

    Let's run the numbers. According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shams_solar_power_station) the plant will supply power to 20,000 homes. Total cost to build it is US$600 million.

    600M/20K = 30K USD per home, just to cover the startup costs. Seems pretty pricey, particularly considering the very cheap land and blazing sunlight available. Over the 25 year life of the plant, I would suppose the running costs would possibly equal the build costs (guessing here), so they need to recoup at least 2400 USD per year per home, under ideal conditions (yeah right). Clearly this won't happen without subsidies.

    And apparently a big chunk of the required tax subsidies are coming out of the pockets of Europeans?! Sounds like a sweet deal for those 20,000 homeowners...

    10 9
    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Follow the money

      It's a pilot plant - it's not supposed to be profitable.

      It's use it to avoid having to run gas turbine peak plants during the hot weather when everyone turns on their AC.

      Now, imagine other places with lots of hot weather, desert and masses of AC - like Texas, California, Australia.

      When they run out of places with oil to invade - who are they going to buy solar power stations from?

      Who has made the investment in developing these plants - hint it isn't Britain

      10 8
      1. Richard 12 Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Where in the world is there lots of sunshine?

        Hint - it isn't Britain.

        It would be genuinely stupid for the UK to invest significantly in direct solar energy, given the general lack of sun.

        I leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out why it's massively subsidised in the UK with huge amounts of money is being thrown at wealthy landowners to install it.

        13 1
        1. Dr_N
          Reply Icon

          Re: Where in the world is there lots of sunshine?

          "It would be genuinely stupid for the UK to invest significantly in direct solar energy, given the general lack of sun."

          If that's the case, how come Ecotricity is making someone very rich...?

          Oh yeah, FITs, my bad!

          2 1
        2. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: Where in the world is there lots of sunshine?

          You are allowed to develop technology that isn't used domestically.

          In many countries making things that you can sell to other countries is considered a good thing (tm)

          If you had a high tech manufacturing base you might be looking for new things to do with it - rather than just slush-funding it a new defence contract.

          0 0
      2. GitMeMyShootinIrons
        Reply Icon

        Re: Follow the money

        "Who has made the investment in developing these plants - hint it isn't Britain"

        And why would Britain seriously invest money in solar tech of this magnitude. You do know that the UK isn't known for its all year high sunshine levels.

        Britain does invest ridiculous levels of subsidy in wind power, which at least has the merit of being more relevant in Blighty, even if throwing the cash into a money-burning power station would probably be more useful.

        5 1
      3. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Follow the money

        > It's a pilot plant - it's not supposed to be profitable.

        Pilot plants are supposed to demonstrate the possibility of profitability. The are also supposed to have all the problems and issues already worked out and the pilot is just to iron out the kinks.

        The plant doesn't contain any revolutionary new technology. Mirrors and motors to point them in the right direction is old tech. Heating fluids up and circulating them is old tech. There is nothing new here that is going to substantially decrease in costs as the "technology" evolves.

        > It's use it to avoid having to run gas turbine peak plants

        From the article the oil is heated another 200 degrees using a natural gas burner...

        I haven't been able to find out how much gas they use to generate 100MW as opposed to a standard CCGT but it would be interesting to find out how much gas this 30K USD per home is saving us.

        8 1
        1. Tim Parker
          Reply Icon

          Re: Follow the money

          "The are also supposed to have all the problems and issues already worked out and the pilot is just to iron out the kinks."

          One mans kinks are another mans issues or problems - the pilot plants in different industries i've known about most certainly had shake-down of inherent issues, and looking for additional ones due to scaling and extended running times, as part of their remit.

          1 0
        2. James Micallef Silver badge
          Reply Icon
          Facepalm

          Natural gas burner

          "the oil is heated another 200 degrees using a natural gas burner..." That phrase caught my eye as well... firstly, why is the oil at 300 degrees not suitable to boil water that they have to heat it another 200 degrees? Something to do with steam pressure generated or efficiency?

          The solar collectors are heating the oil from approx 40 degrees to 300 (260 degrees), and the gas is adding another 200 degrees, that means almost half (43%) the energy is coming from gas not from solar. So does the 100MW total output of the plant mean that actually a bit over 50MW of that are really solar, with the rest coming from the gas?

          I guess there were sound technical and/or economical reasons to do it this way, but this certainly is not renewable energy!

          10 0
          1. IglooDude
            Reply Icon

            Re: Natural gas burner

            I'm working from long-buried memories of naval ship steam plants, but if I recall correctly it's not just a matter of the water being in its gaseous phase, but rather getting it very hot and "dry" (also called superheated steam) in order to #1 maximize turbine efficiency, and #2 reduce wear and tear on the turbine blades.

            The article may just be deficient in not referring to the natural gas burner as a proper superheater.

            5 0
            1. James Micallef Silver badge
              Reply Icon

              Re: Natural gas burner

              @IglooDude - Thanks for clearing up, that makes more sense.

              Also, I understand that they could be using 'free' gas from oil wells that otherwise would be flared off, so it's good that they're making use of resources that would otherwise be wasted.

              At first I got to thinking that a major downside to this is that it wouldn't work unless there was a free gas source, and thus has limited scope to be replicated... but then again on further thought, most of teh world's big oil producers in Middle east, West Africa, South/Central America, Southeastern US etc are in good climates for solar, so maybe this has legs after all.

              1 0
        3. Psyx
          Reply Icon

          Re: Follow the money

          "From the article the oil is heated another 200 degrees using a natural gas burner..."

          Which beats just burning it off, which is what used to happen. Essentially it was 'free' gas.

          3 1

      4. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Crypts Bloods
      Reply Icon

      Re: Follow the money

      Running cost equal build cost? Really? My guess would be a small fraction of that. But let us assume that your inflated figures are correct. I get $178 in capital repayment (5%) and $100 in maintenance (so they collect 200K a month in maintenance. Guess they pay well. ) I don't know where you live but my electric bill is currently more that 270 a month so I am not sure what the subsidies you speak of are for. Thermal solar is very competitive.

      1 4
    3. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Follow the money

      "Let's run the numbers.... I would suppose the running costs would possibly equal the build costs (guessing here)..."

      You didn't run any numbers. You guessed a few and it turned out that they supported your existing opinion.

      And you realise that oil and gas plants are about a billion and nuclear considerably more? Obviously they kick out more power, but have fuel costs, while this is a development technology.

      "so they need to recoup at least 2400 USD per year per home, under ideal conditions (yeah right). Clearly this won't happen without subsidies."

      Clearly you don't have much experience with living in the Gulf States. Every utility there is subsidised, and often completely free. Taxes are pretty much non-existent. Why? Because we are stupid enough to be entirely dependant on the fossil fuels they sell us and we are subsidising their ENTIRE NATION.

      So before complaining that our fuel bills subsidise 'green' companies, remember that they currently subsidise the entire Middle East.

      7 6
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Follow the money

        > And you realise that oil and gas plants are about a billion.

        Where do you get that figure? CCGT (Combined Cycle Gas Turbine) plant cost about $600/kW which makes 100MW cost about $60M which leaves you with $540 million dollars in change.

        3 0
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Follow the money

        > So before complaining that our fuel bills subsidise 'green' companies, remember that they currently subsidise the entire Middle East.

        The Middle east has a product that they sell. We buy it. That is not a subsidy.

        You may as well claim that we subsidise the USA because of the coke we drink and MacDonalds we eat.

        1 3
        1. Psyx
          Reply Icon
          Boffin

          Re: Follow the money

          "The Middle east has a product that they sell. We buy it. That is not a subsidy."

          If you'd actually read what was written, people in the Gulf don't tend to pay much/anything for water, electricity and petrol. It's all massively subsidised or provided free by the government, who own the oil. So essentially and very directly we are subsidising the utilities of the common man in the Gulf States.

          1 2
          1. Anonymous Coward
            Reply Icon
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Follow the money

            > If you'd actually read what was written

            I did read what was written.

            You said:

            > So before complaining that our fuel bills subsidise 'green' companies, remember that they currently subsidise the entire Middle East.

            You are saying that "our" fuel bills subsidises the Middle East. There is no mistake. Just in case you have any doubt as to what you said here is the previous paragraph:

            > Clearly you don't have much experience with living in the Gulf States. Every utility there is subsidised, and often completely free. Taxes are pretty much non-existent. Why? Because we are stupid enough to be entirely dependant on the fossil fuels they sell us and we are subsidising their ENTIRE NATION.

            See? You state that "THEY" don't pay because "WE" subsidise them by buying fossil fuels.

            0 4
            1. Psyx
              Reply Icon
              Facepalm

              Re: Follow the money

              So you're now arguing about syntax, after I explained to you what was meant?

              1 1
              1. Anonymous Coward
                Reply Icon
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Follow the money

                > So you're now arguing about syntax

                Seriously? You say "If you'd actually read what was written". I did read what was written. I demonstrated how what was written was what I commentated on. I showed how you are making a ridiculous claim that because we buy oil we are subsidising them.

                Now you want me to ignore what you write and somehow guess what you actually mean.

                I know that Middle Eastern countries subsidise energy. I know that we buy oil from middle eastern countries. Those 2 facts do not mean that *WE* subsidise *THEM*. What *THEY* do with their money is their business.

                2 3
                1. Psyx
                  Reply Icon
                  Facepalm

                  Re: Follow the money

                  /facepalm.

                  That money is directly subsidising. It doesn't matter whose money it is, whose business it is, what it's printed on or whatever. It's a direct chain of money from our petrol pumps to people in Gulf nations turning up the A/C and not having to worry about how it costs.

                  Personally, I'd rather subsidise an investment in technology than support a subsidy structure on the other side of the world. Hell: I'd rather subsidise the utility bills of our own pensioners than I would every Tom, Dick and Harry in another country and encouraging them to burn more of our finite fossil fuel reserves.

                  0 2
  2. Martin Budden Silver badge

    Not the usual suspects!

    This isn't a typical bunch of tree-hugging hippies: it's a petrol vehicle manufacturer, an oil company, and an oil-rich Arab state. That these three are taking solar seriously is noteworthy.

    6 2
    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the usual suspects!

      It's got nothing to do with Mazda (the car company) it's masdar (the UAE's venture capital arm)

      Remember the author is american so they often get things confused, especially in the middle east

      12 0
      1. Cliff
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not the usual suspects!

        Masdar makes a lot more!

        Having just returned from Abu Dhabi myself I think this is great news - apart from oil, they are rich in space and hot. Everything is air con, you just can't live or work much past March without it, and that's just when a solar plant will be most effective. Be good to see some allied research into desalination too, again it's the ideal place to do it, coastal, rich, plenty of space and sun, and everything to gain from it.

        3 0
        1. Psyx
          Reply Icon

          Re: Not the usual suspects!

          "Be good to see some allied research into desalination too, again it's the ideal place to do it, coastal, rich, plenty of space and sun, and everything to gain from it."

          Errr... they do. It's where a lot of the drinking water comes from. Seawater is renewable, whereas deep desert boreholes and aquifers are now.

          However, the de-sal plants aren't big ponds running off solar energy, but gas-powered industrial sites. Essentially it's 'free' gas for them, as otherwise it'd be burned off and wasted.

          Ironically in these nations, natural gas is less of a precious resource than desert water.

          1 0
      2. Martin Budden Silver badge
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not the usual suspects!

        "It's got nothing to do with Mazda (the car company) it's masdar (the UAE's venture capital arm)"

        Ooops! My bad. Thanks for pointing that out.

        Even so, it's still not a bunch of hippies: it's oil-people looking to the future by preparing for the switch to renewables: this is a Big Deal™.

        0 0
    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not the usual suspects!

      "This isn't a typical bunch of tree-hugging hippies: it's a petrol vehicle manufacturer, an oil company, and an oil-rich Arab state. That these three are taking solar seriously is noteworthy."

      Who do you think are building all those other solar projects, the tree huggers? Uh uh, it's the corporations, and they only do it because of the tax subsidies that put them in the black.

      I see a similarity between the dreams of renewable energy and fusion energy; They are always just a few years away from becoming viable. Dream on...

      5 0
      1. ocratato
        Reply Icon

        Re: Not the usual suspects!

        The reason that this is expensive is because the parts are not yet being mass produced, and because its new the cost of financing is high (banks don't like experimental stuff). Since interest rate are at historic lows it is the best time for governments to subsidise infrastructure development.

        2 2
    3. Richard Boyce
      Reply Icon

      Re: Not the usual suspects!

      Being noteworthy is the whole point for many participants. It's PR.

      Plus, I imagine, if you're a large and wealthy family, you might be on the lookout for interesting projects for the younger members to get involved in.

      1 0
    4. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Not the usual suspects!

      > This isn't a typical bunch of tree-hugging hippies

      You mean like the multinational called greenpeace that has an annual income of over 200m Euros? Or perhaps you mean like that other multinational called WWF that has an annual income of 525m Euros?

      There aren't that many tree hugging hippies left.

      6 0
  3. praos

    Nomen est omen, shams is plural of sham, first in the row. And I can't see the point in using this stupid thermodynamic cycle while there is a PV-glut, and cloudless & sunny Arabia is an ideal place for their deployment. It's probably nothing more than lip service to Greens and an attempt to undermine development of the only serious competition to fossils -- i.e. nuclear energy.

    2 4
    1. Tim Parker
      Reply Icon

      @praos

      "It's probably nothing more than ... an attempt to undermine development of the only serious competition to fossils -- i.e. nuclear energy."

      You're right - only the FOOLS whose hats are made of THIN TIN cannot see this !!

      (although I agree to a large extent with your PV comment)

      2 0
  4. mfritz0
    Happy

    Eventually there will be massive solar arrays in space permanently fixed on the sun transmitting the power back to Earth via microwaves to central distribution points. The problem is, all this could be avoided if they would just come up with zero-point energy or, reliable fusion. So the question is, is this all a waste of money? Just how far away is fusion power? It would be nice if we could convert sea water into power. We certainly would have enough to last us until we do develop zero-point energy.

    The smiley face because it looks the most like the sun, the biggest fusion plant around.

    1 5
    1. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Eventually there will be massive solar arrays in space permanently fixed on the sun transmitting the power back to Earth via microwaves to central distribution points

      Not sure I'm going to be very happy with that. Strikes me as an ideal idea for terrorist or rogue governments to point the nice beams elsewhere..

      2 3
      1. Psyx
        Reply Icon

        "Not sure I'm going to be very happy with that. Strikes me as an ideal idea for terrorist or rogue governments to point the nice beams elsewhere.."

        I think they might think of that.

        You might as well claim that the problem with ICBMs is that terrorists could just break in and launch them.

        1 0
        1. Colin Millar
          Reply Icon
          Mushroom

          The real problem with ICBMs

          is that some gung-ho cowboy with a communist/islamist/blackist phobia might get a bad case of twitchy finger

          0 1
          1. Psyx
            Reply Icon
            Thumb Up

            Re: The real problem with ICBMs

            50+ years and it's not happened yet!

            0 0
      2. MrXavia
        Reply Icon
        Mushroom

        @AC

        Read up on the proposals, the beams are to be sent to a large receiver, such a low strength that you could walk under it and just feel a bit warm.. It is the efficiency of rectenners used on the ground that make it better to capture the solar in space and beam it down vs building the PV/Solar Thermal collectors on earth...

        so no big explosions, no frying people with the beam... and If current military satellites are secure enough to not be hijacked, I am sure they can make this secure...

        1 1
        1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
          Reply Icon

          Re: @AC

          Damn. There go my plans for world domination.

          Oh well, back to Linux then :)

          1 0
      3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Reply Icon
        Flame

        "Not sure I'm going to be very happy with that. Strikes me as an ideal idea for terrorist or rogue governments to point the nice beams elsewhere.."

        It made a great plot device for a Ben Bova novel.

        IRL it's b****it

        JPL have been lead researchers on this and you can look up why the terrorist hijack idea is rubbish yourself.

        0 0
  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    space mirrors etc

    I find it slightly perplexing that Reg readers seem to be on a general downer about the prospects of solar power and other renewables (for cost reasons), yet are generally enthused about putting mirrors and solar plants in space (the ISS cost $100 billion).

    I live in Dubai, just down the road from this plant. There is loads of empty desert and it's sunny 360 days per year. Maybe you can get 3 times the power from the same sized panel in space (stronger sunlight, less dust), but it'll cost you 1000 or 10,000 times as much to get the whole thing up there, and to run it. When it breaks you need to send a $50 million dollar servicing mission, when the thing breaks in the desert, you send some fat, sweaty bloke with a spanner.

    If you cannot make solar power viable here, it's not going to work anywhere, and certainly not in space.

    21 0

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Reply Icon
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: space mirrors etc

      The primary reason solar power isn't viable is it only works when the sun shines (I'm not going to rehash the argument over energy storage here, suffice to say, no you can't store it in batteries for nighttime use). In space (with the right orbit) the sun shines all the time.

      0 0
      1. Badvok
        Reply Icon
        Mushroom

        Re: space mirrors etc

        " (I'm not going to rehash the argument over energy storage here, suffice to say, no you can't store it in batteries for nighttime use)"

        Interesting attempt to avoid the obvious argument by preemption with a spurious assumption. No one in their right mind would suggest batteries for storage of this kind of energy. Most likely solution is to turn the excess energy obtained during the day into hydro-carbons for storage and possibly distribution.

        0 0
      2. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: space mirrors etc

        You can store the heat of a solar thermal plant in oil, molten salt or supersaturated salty wate and draw the heat from them to keep turbines spinning.

        3 0
      3. PyLETS
        Reply Icon

        solar thermal heat storage

        "suffice to say, no you can't store it in batteries for nighttime use"

        Apart from the fact that nighttime demand is lower than daytime due to aircon, also the fact that evening lighting demand is much greater than pre dawn demand, this kind of solar thermal plant lends itself to storage of the heat in the form of hot rocks and hot sand. That's much cheaper than pumped water storage in this kind of situation, and also integrates well between the operations of the heat collection and electricity generation plant design, without needing so many expensive external components and systems. Lower loss of heat from a thermal store for early evening demand also compared to pre-dawn demand, based on given insulation values.

        That's a possibility where solar thermal is likely to give better storage options than solar voltaic. The cost of heat storage or any kind of electrical storage for that matter is also trivial compared to orbital launch and maintenance costs.

        0 0
      4. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: space mirrors etc

        AC >>>> The primary reason solar power isn't viable is it only works when the sun shines (I'm not going to rehash the argument over energy storage here, suffice to say, no you can't store it in batteries for nighttime use). In space (with the right orbit) the sun shines all the time.<<<

        Ok, so let's say you get 10 times as much average power from your panel in space than you would with it in the desert here. Which is going to be cheaper - putting one panel in space, or 10 similar panels in the desert here?

        I'll give you a clue. $10,000 dollars per kilo to low earth orbit. I can fill my 4x4 up here with a full tank for about 20 quid and carry several hundred kilos in the back out to the desert.

        0 0
    3. Elmer Phud
      Reply Icon

      Re: space mirrors etc

      How much are they paying for the 'water' part of the operation and where does it come from?

      0 0
      1. Psyx
        Reply Icon
        Boffin

        Re: space mirrors etc

        "How much are they paying for the 'water' part of the operation and where does it come from?"

        The sea?

        1 0
    4. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      Thumb Up

      Re: space mirrors etc

      "If you cannot make solar power viable here, it's not going to work anywhere, and certainly not in space."

      Yup.

      And it can be viable here, too. Even if we don't create super-efficient solar panels, we have an awful lot of land that's not usable for anything better, and the sun isn't going to run out on us any time soon.

      For me, turning empty desert into the power-stations of the world and doing away with 'local' national stations is one of the more viable ways of powering our civilisation in future years.

      1 0
  6. jake Silver badge

    But what happens ...

    ... when the natural gas runs out?

    Seriously? A "solar plant" that relies on natural gas? That makes sense. Not. I wonder who pocketed the largest wad of cash on this particular boondoggle.

    5 2
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      Stop

      Re: But what happens ...

      "But what happens ...... when the natural gas runs out? Seriously? A "solar plant" that relies on natural gas? That makes sense. Not."

      In context, it does. Don't look at it as solar powered, but as a hybrid technology. And now add into the equation that gas is essentially free in the Gulf States. It's a by-product of oil production. They use it in their conventional power plants and de-sal plants, and burn off any excess.

      3 0
      1. Fred Flintstone Gold badge
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: But what happens ...

        @Psyx, thanks for the explanation, I was wondering about that. I'm a bit surprised they can't make it 100% solar driven in the one place where there isn't exactly a shortage of sun :).

        0 0
        1. Colin Millar
          Reply Icon

          Re: But what happens ...

          They could make it 100% solar powered but that would be wasting a resource that is otherwise just going to get burned for nothing.

          I am surprised that so many people are failing to see this point. All that NG is just sitting there being burned to no useful purpose - al they are doing is using another heat source that is already available locally as part of the energy production cycle.

          When it runs out (the NG) you still got a 50MW plant.

          3 0
  7. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    Good place. Not so good tech.

    The EU has done quite a lot of work on solar thermal systems and this area and North Africa are the preferred locations.

    Solar intensity can be 2x the average for Earth solar and its pretty constant day in day out.

    But WTF is it with the hot oil. Most of the US pilot plans (and AFIK the Spanish ones) use reflectors to heat a central tower loaded with salt. (sort of similar tech to molten salt reactors but different chemical composition, like the one in the film Sahara).

    Salt can run to 500c, which is just right to interface to use COTS steam turbine/generator tech, so no "topping up with natural gas (I'm guessing they use that rather than oil because they just burn it off otherwise?)

    An interesting question is are the gaps between the reflectors as big as the reflectors themselves to allow swapping out if damage. A smarter replacement machine (like a narrow aisle stacker crack) could substantially reduce this.

    People point out this is a solar thermal system, not a photovoltaic. Bottom line reflectors, being passive are cheap. Much cheaper than any Earth affordable PV grade. A poor thermal plant (like a gas, oil or coal fired power station) can get 30% efficiency easily 30% efficiency PV panels are top drawer tech. And remember (according to people who do combined PV/water heating panels) a 4c rise in PV temp -> 1% loss in conversion efficiency.

    Something you might like to factor in if your planning a domestic array somewhere hot.

    Thumbs up for someone putting such a plant in the right place.

    4 1
    1. The Axe
      Reply Icon
      WTF?

      Re: Good place. Not so good tech.

      Cheap? $600M cheap? The energy it generates it is not cheap. Anything but. Someone is taking the proverbial if they are using cheap passive collectors.

      0 0
  8. Knochen Brittle
    Facepalm

    Towards codifying the ElReg Law of banjaxed units

    Let's see, if a mW is a thousandth of a watt, then wot or whatt is a Mw ??

    2 0
    1. IglooDude
      Reply Icon
      Coat

      Re: Towards codifying the ElReg Law of banjaxed units

      "Let's see, if a mW is a thousandth of a watt, then wot or whatt is a Mw ??"

      That'd be a Megawit, and it is the average output of a standup comedy show routine, or a night with a thousand people that think they're funny.

      1 0
    2. Michael Dunn
      Reply Icon
      Joke

      Re: Towards codifying the ElReg Law of banjaxed units

      Obviously a million little watts!

      2 0
  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Questions

    Surely heating water to drive the steam turbine would be more sensible? I assume that they could heat the water more easily than the oil.

    Even if they still need to heat it with gas, why not use the gas to heat the water directly?

    What is the advantage of using the oil as an intermediary?

    0 1
    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Questions

      "Surely heating water to drive the steam turbine would be more sensible? I assume that they could heat the water more easily than the oil."

      No.

      300c oil is a hot chip pan and is at normal atmospheric pressure (IE 1 atm) as it has not boiled (depending on the grade).

      300c water is at 85 atmospheres pressure at that temperature. That raises the materials properties of the oil carrying tubes substantially. You can play with the numbers yourself.

      http://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/fluid.cgi?TLow=250&THigh=350&TInc=10&Applet=on&Digits=5&ID=C7732185&Action=Load&Type=SatP&TUnit=C&PUnit=MPa&DUnit=mol%2Fl&HUnit=kJ%2Fmol&WUnit=m%2Fs&VisUnit=uPa*s&STUnit=N%2Fm&RefState=DEF (caution needs Jave enabled).

      4 0
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: Questions

        Thanks, everyone. It's an education.

        1 1
    2. an it guy
      Reply Icon
      Boffin

      Re: Questions

      Oil when hot is a liquid. Water when hot becomes steam and takes up more space.

      Water when hot as steam is also a tad more corrosive, but oil and metal becomes just warmer and flows better. I'm in favour of the molten salts thing, but it may ot be as easy to service in a desert state where oil flows well.

      The reason you want it as hot as possible is thermodynamics. Efficiency of work (electricity generation in this case) due to heat transfer between a hot reservoir and a cold reservoir is related to the temperature difference of the two reservoirs. So, heating the oil makes sense, but I'm surprised they need to use natural gas to do that.

      2 2
      1. Nigel 11
        Reply Icon

        Re: Questions

        I imagine that the problem with making the oil very hot is that losses to the surrounding air by convection increase rapidly with themperature.

        1 0
    3. jonathanb Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Questions

      Basically, you can store the hot oil and use it at night when the sun isn't shining.

      1 0
      1. Yesnomaybe
        Reply Icon
        Thumb Up

        Re: Questions

        "Basically, you can store the hot oil and use it at night when the sun isn't shining."

        I misread that. Thought you said WHERE the sun isn't shining.

        2 0
    4. David Pollard
      Reply Icon

      Re: Questions

      Solar heating to 300 ºC doesn't incur too much loss but losses will increase quite rapidly at higher temperatures, particularly re-radiation of the captured heat. Meanwhile, the thermodynamic efficiency of the turbine increases with increasing temperature differential, so a higher input temperature is desirable.

      In effect they use the solar heating to do the 'easy' bit and with this cut down consumption of gas by over a half. Losses are minimised and efficiency is maximised rather neatly. And presumably by increasing the gas flow it would be possible to run the turbine at night if necessary.

      Oil is used because it can be heated to 300 ºC at atmospheric pressure, so, like the reflectors, the pipework is relatively cheap.

      2 0

  10. This post has been deleted by its author

  11. unwarranted triumphalism

    Emotional Involvement...

    A lot of people here seem to be investing effort in 'proving' that renewables don't / can't work.

    I wonder why that is.

    4 2
    1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge
      Reply Icon

      Re: Emotional Involvement...

      It is a bit odd. If the article was describing a new type of engine that was 30% more efficient, they'd be singing the inventors praises. Tell them there's a solar collector plant that can reduce the amount of gas required to drive turbines by (back of the envelope) 60% or so, and they'll tell you it's shit and really, what's the point? It still uses gas and the Emir is probably another bloody hippy and it's all for PR anyway, and we should concentrate on SPACE FUSION.

      3 0
      1. Michael Dunn
        Reply Icon
        Headmaster

        Re: Emotional Involvement...

        "we should concentrate on SPACE FUSION" Isn't that just what solar energy is?

        0 0
  12. TheWeenie
    Thumb Up

    I quite like the idea of this. Seems they're planning to use it as a dynamic generation facility as opposed to base generation, which kinda makes sense. Nuclear aside, I can't help but think that Solar - in the right location - has got to be the most promising of the renewables.

    2 0
  13. Tank boy

    Some of the smarter folks in the middle east have realized that sooner or later, the oil is not going to flow, but what do they have is an infinite supply of sun. Steep up front costs to shake out the bugs? Yeah. The technology will catch up.

    2 0
  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Your numbers are off

    100MW / 20,000 homes = 5KW per home...

    I don't think so. ...

    My average draw is under 1kw when occupied in the evenings. Much less through out the day. In fact in the UK a large fraction of the electrical energy is used by fridges and freezers unless people have other 24/7 loads such as servers, or large loads such as electrical heating.

    UK average household electricity consumption is 3,500kWh per annum, which is an average of 400w over 24 hours.

    It is much more likely that the actual number of houses supplied by this plant is 10x more than the press release stated - ie 200,000 houses, not 20,000. (500w average per home)

    0 1
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      Holmes

      Re: Your numbers are off

      "100MW / 20,000 homes = 5KW per home... I don't think so. ..."

      Outside the front door of the average UK home, it is not 40C. Homes in the Gulf have A/C on 24/7 for most of the year.

      We're talking much larger nuclear families, too. We have 2.4 children, Gulf States have about 7.

      Plus nobody there gives a flying feck about energy efficiency or saving power, because it's massively subsidised and cheap as chips. You buy a big-ass TV, leave the lights on, and leave the A/C blazing away regardless of if you are home or not.

      You can't just compare everything to the UK. It's a big world and some countries actually are different from our own.

      2 1
      1. Anonymous Coward
        Reply Icon
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Your numbers are off

        Yeah, power usage here is some of the heaviest in the world - I recall seeing CO2 emissions are even more than the USA.

        But it's not dirt cheap. Water and electricity is still fairly expensive. I live in a 2-bed flat, and the water and electricity is around 90 quid per month, excluding the air con (which is paid by the landlord as part of the service charge). Cooling a villa is *very* expensive (apartments are more efficient, less surface area to the outside for heat transfer).

        BTW, the majority of people here are not locals, they are expats, and while the locals do tend to have a lot of things subsidized, most expats are trying hard to save what they can.

        0 0
        1. Psyx
          Reply Icon
          Thumb Up

          Re: Your numbers are off

          Well, yes: Ex-Pats get REAMED for rent everywhere in the Gulf and fuel is pretty much the only thing that they'll get at subsidised prices. I can't remember ever paying less than a grand a month when I wanted to live off-site.

          0 0
  15. Aitor 1

    Clueless

    Some commentards seem to be clueless about the project.

    1. As someone commented, it is way better to use superheated "dry" steam than "normal" steam. Less corrosion, and better efficiency.

    2. Being able to use a tower with nat gas means that you can store energy and use it as a more conventional plant should the need arise.

    3. Nat Gas, as some have pointed out, is almost free there. What makes it expensive is the refining and TRANSPORT.

    4.The life plant is NOT 25 years. You will have to update/replace the turbine, and several other components, but most of the plant will be serviceable.

    5. 380ºC from the solar part (heat ex.) (incr. 350º) and 160 from the gas part. Assume 66% of electricity is "free".

    Assume 90% production, 10 "effective hours" (I expect more, but not all will be "100%", you won't be able to always work ant 100%...)

    60MWhx0,05$ KWhx10 hours= you save 30.000€ per day.

    30K*365= 10.950.000 per year. x25 years aprox 270 million (discount some costs).

    Still, more expensive than burning gas at TODAY prices. Maybe someone can refine my numbers, with more knowledge about this specific project, mainly insolation hours/equivalent, and I suspect that they can get 100% power not just for a single hours, but for several as they must have something like 120 or 130% capacity (they are limited in ºC by using an organic fluid and not molten salt).

    1 0
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      Pint

      Re: Clueless

      "Still, more expensive than burning gas at TODAY prices."

      With no more than a casual knowledge of the project, we're sticking our hands into hats and pulling numbers out. Unsurprisingly the numbers are agreeing with whatever opinion we had beforehand.

      I suspect that in the prior couple of years, at some point, some people on the project with the *actual* numbers have done the maths and decided that it's a good, viable idea.

      Who are we to argue with that based on some numbers scribbled on a fag packet?

      1 0
  16. xperroni
    FAIL

    I don't get it

    So they take up a huge estate and fill it with tons of kit in one of the hottest places on Earth – and still the "solar" station can't work without a little push from burning fossil fuel?

    Seriously, why bother with all those mirrors at all? Just commission a nuclear station and call it a day.

    0 3
    1. Psyx
      Reply Icon
      FAIL

      Re: I don't get it

      Go back and read the other comments. Of course it can work as a concept without gas. They just have their reasons for using gas in their hybrid design... because it's pretty much free.

      1 0
      1. xperroni
        Reply Icon
        Paris Hilton

        Re: I don't get it

        > Of course it can work as a concept without gas. They just have their reasons for using gas in their

        > hybrid design... because it's pretty much free.

        So the station is meant to demonstrate the viability of solar power, but the makers decided to give it an extra push with gas just because they had some lying around doing nothing?

        Oh, now it makes perfect sense!

        And surely these conditions (lots of sun year-round and free gas) are found the world over, so really this design is bound to see widespread deployment.

        Definitely a victory for solar!

        0 0
        1. Psyx
          Reply Icon

          Re: I don't get it

          "So the station is meant to demonstrate the viability of solar power, but the makers decided to give it an extra push with gas just because they had some lying around doing nothing? Oh, now it makes perfect sense!

          And surely these conditions (lots of sun year-round and free gas) are found the world over, so really this design is bound to see widespread deployment."

          Errr, no chap: It's supposed to power tens of thousands of houses, using free stuff that they have laying around, rather than burning oil that they could otherwise flog to us.

          And it looks like it's going to achieve its goals.

          Why do you insist on trying to put in in a much wider context? And why so anti the idea?

          0 0
          1. xperroni
            Reply Icon

            Re: I don't get it

            > Why do you insist on trying to put in in a much wider context? And why so anti the idea?

            From the article:

            "Shams 1 is a strategic investment in our country's economic, social and environmental prosperity," said His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, President of the UAE and ruler of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi.

            "The domestic production of renewable energy extends the life of our country's valuable hydrocarbon resources and supports the growth of a promising new industry. The inauguration of Shams 1 is a major milestone in our country's economic diversification and a step toward long-term energy security."

            So who put the idea in a wider context wasn't me, but its owners, who reckon Shams is the way towards a post-hydrocarbon, renewable-energy future. Only it isn't; it's just a gas power station that takes advantage of the fact it's located in a very sunlit place, though at a sizable material and estate cost. The idea might have its merits, but even if it does, it's a stopgap solution at best; it's certainly not "the future".

            0 0
  17. Danny 14

    Im sure that it can also run as a cheaper desalination plant too. The fact they have masses of NG (as byproducts) means they dont need to though.

    2 0
This topic is closed for new posts.