Comparison
After the December 2009 Copenhagen COP-15 Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, the future of non-polluting electricity supply seems to rest with huge renewable energy projects such as the Desertec Solar project in North Africa aiming to supply only 15% of Europe’s electricity demand by 2030, and a proposed North Sea Wind Farm Grid.
These solar and wind projects are entirely dependent on opportunistic multi-billion Euro investment in new long-distance grid infrastructures needing to be built, and publicly funded long-term high Feed-in Tariffs.
To distinguish and compare between the three renewable energy methods NewHYDRO™, wind and solar the relevant comparison factors span a wide spectrum, including:
- Ability to instantaneously generate electricity demands to supply Peak load requirements,
- Production losses over long-distance-transmission-grids i.e., local or remote location,
- Size of land footprint required for the power station,
- Ability to interconnect with existing grid infrastructure, or requiring new grids to be built,
- Operational capacity efficiency, dependent on, or independent of prevailing weather conditions,
- Operating & maintenance costs, and
- Capital costs.
Being independent of prevailing weather conditions, NewHYDRO™ has an operational efficiency factor of 96%.
Solar and wind production is entirely dependent on prevailing weather conditions and productivity fluctuates in a range fo anywhere from 19% to 45% depending on location. Wind is generally considered vastly superior to solar both in terms of productivity and the lowering of capital costs.
It is therefore relevant to compare the template NewHYDRO™ Power Station with stated operational data of the current best wind power alternative to get some idea of the differences.
What is Nameplate Capacity for Installed Renewable Energy Equipment?
About Electricity Capital Cost Terminology:
There is considerable internal inconsistencies [false data] and resulant confusion in the literature in the field of electrical power units relating to what is a Nameplate Capacity Rating for installed equipment?, and what is the forecast output of the equipment measured over a time interval?. The false data that does exist has grown with solar and wind power plants being specified as so many Megwatt [MW] of installed capacity to compare the capital costs of project costs with traditional fossil fuel burning thermal power plants.
Let’s look at an example, say for a Nameplate Rated Capacity 1,000 MW hr plant with solar having an effective operating efficiency of 20%, and wind 40% [sunshine hours and heat intensity, and favourable winds at some unpredictable speed].
In this case, 1,000 MW hrs from a solar plant is actually an effective 200 MW hrs of output [1,000 x 20%], and a wind plant 400 MW hrs [1,000 x 40%] – nothing like the Nameplate Rated Capacity of 1,000 MW hrs. It is false and misleading to say that the 1,000 MW hr solar plant has a capital cost of Euro X millions per MW hr, and the 1,000 MW hr wind plant a capital cost of Euro Y millions per MW hr – that is just a confusion that states a stupidity. It’s comparing apples and oranges as the same thing. To put it another blunt way it is mistaken.
Whereas, in contrast, with a NewHYDRO plant output is actually the Nameplate Rated Installed capacity of 1,000 MW hrs operating 24×7 – do you get the point?
Due to the preponderance of thermal methods of generation, most commonly the capacity of an installed coal-run power plant is rated in Megawatts [MW]. For example, utility scale thermal plants have traditionally started at a rated capacity of 1,000 MW. However, this rating bears no direct comparison to the actual output of the power plant as coal-run plants cannot operate at 100% efficiency. The Nameplate [rated] capacity is never realized and must be reduced for fuel sources that do not burn properly and other operational inefficiencies.
Similarly with solar and wind plants being stated in terms of MW of installed capacity is non-sensical for two reasons. Firstly, they are not thermal thermal plants being inherently intermittent, and secondly, solar and wind plants operate at efficiencies of around 20% and 40% at the very best due to the inconsistency of weather patterns – sunshine and prevailing winds.
So one could put this another way and say that apples are being compared to oranges, resulting in thermal versus solar & wind project capital cost comparisons being meaningless.
To compound the above confusions and add a further layer of untruth to stated capacities, some people commonly confuse the nameplate rated capacity stated in MW of output with the actual output which must be measured over a time interval to make sense. The most common time interval is one hour. So we see output correctly stated as so many MW hours -[MW hrs] which means that so many Megawatts are produced consistently for the period of one hour. To say that 1 MW of power is needed is meaningless without stating the time interval, be it output by the second or by the hour.
Small volumes of electricity output are denominated in kilowatts [kW; kW hrs]; larger volumes of output are stated in Megawatts [MW; MW hrs], Gigawatts [GW; GW hrs], and Terawatts [TW;TW hrs]. Electricity pricing is another factor Retail (consumer) electricity prices paid by consumers are most commonly denominated in kW hrs, and Wholesale electricity prices paid to Independent Power Producers for electricity fed into a Grid, or supplied directly to an end user, are most commonly denominated in MW hrs.
1 kilowatt [kW] = 1,000 [one thousand] watts;
1 Megawatt [MW] = 1,000,000 [one million] watts;
1 Gigawatt [GW] = 1,000,000,000 [one billion] watts;
1 Terawatt [TW] = 1,00,000,000,000 [one trillion] watts.
PCV calculates the output potential of NewHYDRO™ per second and multiplies that by 60 seconds in the minute, and then 60 minutes in the hour to arrive at a stated output figure of kW hrs, MW hrs, GW hrs or TW hrs on a per hour basis.
The only valid basis to compare thermal power plants or solar and wind renewable power plants rated capacity is on the basis of actual output per unit of time.
As NewHYDRO™ does not burn any fuel, is not weather dependent, and operates at 100% efficiency – it is not valid to compare it to thermal, solar or wind on any other basis than actual design output capability per second, or per hour.
Based on the above To say that “an actual solar plant cost per MW [not MW hrs] is about € 1.2M” is totally false and misleading – if it is not stated as MW hrs of output it is a lie. No doubt the solar industry wants to spread such lies. How can one say the MW [not MW hr] output equals so much Euro capital cost; do not people realise the sun only shines 12 hours a day or so, and that it’s heat varies in temperature etc? Think it over?
The reason we use a specific GE Wind Farm in the comparison below is that it is a specific example and the figures for the project as presented by GE are available for independent scrutiny.
Following is a comparison of the NewHYDRO™ Power Station forecast operational data [ for 899 MW capacity ] to GE’s announced 845 MW Wind Farm. “GE Receives $1.4 Billion Contract to Supply Turbines for Largest Wind Farm Ever Built in the US”
In summary the comparative results are:
INCOME
- NewHYDRO™ Power Station 90% Capacity Factor is 3.15 times higher than GE痴 Wind Farm.
- This means NewHYDRO™ project revenues will be 3.15 times higher than GE痴 Wind Farm.
CAPITAL
- NewHYDRO™ capital costs for installed capoacity of MW hr rated plant are 55% lower than GE痴 Wind Farm.
- This means 2.22 NewHYDRO™ Power Station can be built for the price of one GE Wind Farm.
LAND AREA
- NewHYDRO™ Power Station required land area is 5,000 times smaller than GE痴 Wind Farm.
- This means NewHYDRO™ Power Station is like a factory as opposed to an Environmental Impact Project.
PER MW hr COST of Installed Capacity
- NewHYDRO™ Power Station effective capital cost per 1 MW unit installed is 5 times lower.
- This means NewHYDRO™ Power Station capital costs could be 5 times higher.
Click here for our “Renewable Energy Power Plant Development Template”
