News on China's scientific and technological development.
- Thread starter Quickie
- Start date
I thought that's an Australian company.
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
There's hardly a success for CSP in any area, tbh.
I have my friend in college who now has been working on EPC contract in ACWA Power's Dubai CSP project for 3 years, and he said that he didn't think CSP will outcompete other forms of renewable energy, e.g., photovoltaic and wind turbine. They are not so reliable.
Nowadays, onshore wind turbine prices in China has fallen to 2000 RMB/kilowatt, namely $320/kw (ex work). In Statista the cost of turbine in 2020 is $1355 in case you wonder (may include installation).
I am currently in the wind turbine sector, and I know the cost very well. Even in central Asia area where logistics take a heavy part in the total cost structure of WT projects, price can hardly exceed 5000 RMB or $790/kw.
Thus, CSP is far more sensitive than wind and PV when the plant underperform. Power Purchase Agreement, or PPA, is the main source for developers to have cash flow. The parties of PPA generally includes developers, grid companies and financiers. As customers, grid companies generally require stable renewable energy so not to disturb the grid, otherwise they will not pay for the electricity that plants generate. So CSP is easier to perish because of longer construction period and higher cost. Sadly, renwables are not so reliable as coal-fired power plants, and they underperform from time to time.
from IEA.
There are some interesting talks about Gou Zhongwen, who is the director of the State Sports General Administration. I used google translate for the English version.
I'm a noob on this, so I'm just asking.
I would've thought the fact that CSP allows storage of heat underground would be a big advantage in smoothing power production vs photovoltaic and wind? I seem to remember reading that some of the projects stored enough heat that production was possible even at night? In terms of reliability, I'm guessing some kind of sterling engine or steam turbine is used, which would be comparable to what thermal power plants use? In terms of cost, isn't it just chicken and egg in that more adoption => lower cost => more adoption and so forth, so eventually, it'll be cost competitive? Just wondering.
1. I’m not professional in CSP either, but at least in wind and PV sector, smoothing and storage issues are largely solved by full power converters and energy storage systems. Electrochemical (battery), supercapacitor, or even simple hydro-lifting are cheap, feasible and reliable. Molten salt, meanwhile, requires highly sophisticated engineering and construction to design the cycle and watch out for corrosion and heat waste.
CSP also has stricter working condition. When sun is shining and wind is blowing, good; but when sun is not so shiny, and wind is not blowing so hard, well, turbines and photovoltaics still have some output, although in a poor quality and efficiency. However, as I mentioned, they can have the energy converted to meet grid code standard or stored in their batteries for night output, or even used to produce green hydrogen. But for CSP, no. Molten salt requires to work between 220 °C to 500 °C otherwise it won’t produce electricity. If sun doesn’t shine for a long time, the cost for keeping salt molten may be huge, or the whole cycle will be blocked. That’s why CSPs are built on flat Gobi or desert with minimal precipitation and vegetation.
2. Stirling engine is widely used in AIP submarines to recharge the battery, and steam turbine is a must-have in coal-fired power plants, they are not opposed to thermal power plants, because thermal plants convert energy in accordance with Carnot Principle, and both Stirling and steam turbine are parts of the cycle. For geothermal, Stirling may be preferred, for it doesn’t require good quality (which is higher temperature) of heat source, and geothermal usually has only 150 °C which is unfeasible for water to generate high-quality steam. For coal-fired, or combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), steam turbine provides far higher output.
3. You can say so. It’s both the development of technology and market competition due to lower threshold. Taking wind turbine generator (WTG) as example, the first onshore wind farm contains 20 sets of 30 kW turbines in USA in 1980, now the capacity of single onshore turbine is more than 6 MW thanks to the fierce competition between Chinese company (offshore can be as big as 14 MW per unit). Wind market didn’t reach 4 MW in 2015 because the Chinese haven’t reached the global market yet. WTG is all about making generator bigger while making towers withstand the heavier load, it’s quite simple, configurations are more or less the same. With new material for generators and new technique and design for towers, WTG can be cost effective.
What about CSP? CSP has one more conversion of energy, two cycles, and a lot of trouble in construction. Higher threshold, longer repayment period hinders investors from participation.
Thank you for your response.