http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-10923.html

this solar power station has an average power of 21 kW. Woo-hoo!

And at €1.2M, that’s €57,000/kW, or about €0.80/kW·h.

http://www.solarserver.de/news/news-10923.html

this solar power station has an average power of 21 kW. Woo-hoo!

And at €1.2M, that’s €57,000/kW, or about €0.80/kW·h.

Also, when they say “solar”, was the refit with solar panels or a solar reflective concentrator facility (mirrors) to boil water to drive steam turbines?

The way the article is written, one could easily assume that for E1.2MM, the entire production capacity of the nuclear plant was replaced with solar. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Since the article is short on specific information, I’m making a few assumptions.

Given the current efficiencies of solar panels and the amount of money that was invested, I doubt it comes anywhere close to what had been produced.

IF only 1.2 MM Euros were spent on the refit, and assuming ALL of that was for solar panels, then doing some very rough calculations, it appears that the new facility has around a 450-500 KW generating capacity?

What about the planning capacity of the plant? A nuclear plant can run for many years 24/7 generating power. A solar facility can only generate for 5-6 hrs/day on sunny days. So the effective output of this plant is like bringing a squirt-gun to a raging forest fire.

I’m into solar, retrofitting existing homes. I think solar is a great local, point-of-use power-offsetting technology. However, for large-scale production that can be counted on for capacity planning and production capability regardless of weather and daylight conditions, we need much more efficient technologies that don’t consume massive amounts of land area.

Bottom line, this is a good PR project.

Also, when they say “solar”, was the refit with solar panels or a solar reflective concentrator facility (mirrors) to boil water to drive steam turbines?

The way the article is written, one could easily assume that for E1.2MM, the entire production capacity of the nuclear plant was replaced with solar. Obviously, that didn’t happen.

Since the article is short on specific information, I’m making a few assumptions.

Given the current efficiencies of solar panels and the amount of money that was invested, I doubt it comes anywhere close to what had been produced.

IF only 1.2 MM Euros were spent on the refit, and assuming ALL of that was for solar panels, then doing some very rough calculations, it appears that the new facility has around a 450-500 KW generating capacity?

What about the planning capacity of the plant? A nuclear plant can run for many years 24/7 generating power. A solar facility can only generate for 5-6 hrs/day on sunny days. So the effective output of this plant is like bringing a squirt-gun to a raging forest fire.

I’m into solar, retrofitting existing homes. I think solar is a great local, point-of-use power-offsetting technology. However, for large-scale production that can be counted on for capacity planning and production capability regardless of weather and daylight conditions, we need much more efficient technologies that don’t consume massive amounts of land area.

Bottom line, this is a good PR project.