mspohr
Well-Known Member
Shuttered coal plants are good sites. Usually lots of land and most important, grid connections. They are also "brownfield" which if fine for solar but may not be good for other uses.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
mspohr
Well-Known Member
SmartElectric
Active Member
Sure, but being realistic, the solar plant can't make use of Gigawatt level grid connections, the below was one of the largest coal plants in the world, 4000 MW, whereas the below very large solar field now occupying the site is 44MW ... 90x smaller. I LOVE that they did this, but it does not at all make use of the massive transmission capacity to this industrial site.
Our story > Nanticoke Solar now generating renewable power for Ontario | OPG
Sadly the government put a law in to appease the red meat base and disallow offshore wind on Lake Ontario, which would have been a far larger opportunity to reuse the transmission capacity. So only this smaller onshore wind farm of 105 MW was built out to use some of the transmission capacity.
Port Dover & Nanticoke Wind - Capital Power
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I was thinking about this. What is the panel width required ?
I presume the buckets were designed back when panels were 300 - 350 watts. Perhaps a future bucket will have the dimension for 400 - 450 watts. It would be a boon for the "racking" cost.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
The max inside width is 940mm. That's between the inside bottom lip.
My panels are 960mm.
Their panels are narrow enough but 2000mm long to achieve 380W
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
So close !
The lack of standardized panel sizes must cause them quite the headache. I was looking at panels at renvu.com and found a Trina that fit that is 415 watts (~ 20.5% efficiency.)
I was thinking about my application on the side of a hill, and due to hill curvature I started thinking that I should design for 3 buckets per two panels. If each bucket shipped is $90 - $100 and I can set 415w*2 on 3 buckets, the pre-tax credit cost works out to 34 cents +/- 5% a watt for 'racking.'
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
I understand your meaning, that land at the coal plant is limited. I wonder though if the the entire length of the power line are potential power feed in points.
And if not GW at the coal plant with PV, then batteries !
SmartElectric
Active Member
44MW of solar can theoretically produce 240MWh of electricity in one day, if all of that was stored in expensive batteries and then discharged in under 4 minutes, then yes, you could make use of the 4GW peak transmission line capability at the site... not "practical".
Frankly, the amount of land needed for 4GW of solar is large, Ontario has approximately that much solar with both distributed (residential roof) and industrial (fields) deployed over 15 years.
My point stands. Solar in former brown field coal plant sites is not the proposition it might seem in terms of making use of existing deployed transmission infrastructure. Massive offshore wind is really the better option, as coal sites are almost always on large water ways due to the need for cooling water intakes and hot water waste output. GW level off shore wind production requires significant transmission and electrical voltage conversion on land, both of which are great uses of former coal sites.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
IEEFA: Repurposing coal plants into solar and battery can pay up to 5 times more than decommissioning - Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis
First, repurposing reduces decommissioning costs because it avoids some of the environmental remediation requirements and allows partial re-use of existing assets such as the degraded land, as well as the generators, substations and grid connections. Second, it reduces the cost of commissioning greenfield renewable capacity at the same site. Third, for coal plants located in urban and semi-urban areas, repurposing manifests in multiple end uses leading to economic diversification and industrial rejuvenation, benefiting local economies and the workforce. Fourth, it could provide a lucrative exit strategy for stranded and stressed coal plants. And fifth, repurposing coal plant equipment (e.g. the turbo-generator) allows for retaining a part of the reactive power service for voltage control originally provided by the coal plant, a valuable service when rapidly adding renewable energy.
US utility seeks proposal to build 500 MW of solar at a retiring coal plant
Xcel Energy said it wants to add around 500 MW of new large-scale solar generation near its coal-fired Sherco Power Plant in Minnesota.
‘Solar For Coal’ Swaps: A Financial Innovation That Could Accelerate The Carbon Transition
New solar facilities provide most of the required power when they replace coal plants, paired with a mix of market-sourced resources to meet reliability requirements. Replacement solar power can be located near retired fossil plants, tapping existing switchyards and transmission, and partially replacing the coal plant’s tax and employment base.
Solar firm buying land rights near coal plants with eye toward transmission
A utility-scale solar developer is acquiring land rights near U.S. coal-fired power plants, hoping the facilities will close sooner than expected and open up lucrative transmission connections.
First, repurposing reduces decommissioning costs because it avoids some of the environmental remediation requirements and allows partial re-use of existing assets such as the degraded land, as well as the generators, substations and grid connections. Second, it reduces the cost of commissioning greenfield renewable capacity at the same site. Third, for coal plants located in urban and semi-urban areas, repurposing manifests in multiple end uses leading to economic diversification and industrial rejuvenation, benefiting local economies and the workforce. Fourth, it could provide a lucrative exit strategy for stranded and stressed coal plants. And fifth, repurposing coal plant equipment (e.g. the turbo-generator) allows for retaining a part of the reactive power service for voltage control originally provided by the coal plant, a valuable service when rapidly adding renewable energy.
US utility seeks proposal to build 500 MW of solar at a retiring coal plant
Xcel Energy said it wants to add around 500 MW of new large-scale solar generation near its coal-fired Sherco Power Plant in Minnesota.
‘Solar For Coal’ Swaps: A Financial Innovation That Could Accelerate The Carbon Transition
New solar facilities provide most of the required power when they replace coal plants, paired with a mix of market-sourced resources to meet reliability requirements. Replacement solar power can be located near retired fossil plants, tapping existing switchyards and transmission, and partially replacing the coal plant’s tax and employment base.
Solar firm buying land rights near coal plants with eye toward transmission
A utility-scale solar developer is acquiring land rights near U.S. coal-fired power plants, hoping the facilities will close sooner than expected and open up lucrative transmission connections.
SmartElectric
Active Member
Bolded near.
^
That's all well and good, but here in Ontario, the land near the coal plant is located in one of the prime agricultural lands right off lake Ontario with direct access to fresh water for irrigation.
The land is worth significantly more than land further away from civilization which is not as suitable for agricultural use, and which would be better suited to solar.
Again, the best use of the transmission capacity is offshore wind for the site I linked.
I do wonder if the land cost for 500MW of solar would be the predominant factor, vs the lower cost of solar production and saving building out transmission.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Oil giant splits from powerful lobbying group over climate change - CNN
French oil company Total leave American Petroleum Institute over climate change differences.
French oil company Total leave American Petroleum Institute over climate change differences.
CleanTechnica: Texas Wind Power Dominates Coal In Crossover Year.
Texas Wind Power Dominates Coal In Crossover Year
Texas Wind Power Dominates Coal In Crossover Year
Sure, but being realistic, the solar plant can't make use of Gigawatt level grid connections, the below was one of the largest coal plants in the world, 4000 MW, whereas the below very large solar field now occupying the site is 44MW ... 90x smaller. I LOVE that they did this, but it does not at all make use of the massive transmission capacity to this industrial site.
Our story > Nanticoke Solar now generating renewable power for Ontario | OPG
Sadly the government put a law in to appease the red meat base and disallow offshore wind on Lake Ontario, which would have been a far larger opportunity to reuse the transmission capacity. So only this smaller onshore wind farm of 105 MW was built out to use some of the transmission capacity.
Port Dover & Nanticoke Wind - Capital Power
The solar installation at the defunct Nanticoke generating station appears to be limited to the land used by the old coal pile. There is an additional ~200 MW worth of grassy land available on the property (not currently occupied by the substation and remaining buildings). Add a beefy battery storage system and you could make use of maybe a quarter of the facility’s grid connection... still, small potatoes compared to what’s available. As you mentioned, offshore wind would make an excellent partner in cases like these.
Last edited:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Court strikes down Trump emission policy on his final day in office
the final day of Donald Trump's presidency, a federal appeals court struck down a policy that was set to undo Obama-era emission reduction efforts. The court ruled the 2019 Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) was “legally flawed.” ACE replaced President Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce U.S. power sector emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. Instead, ACE looked to lower power sector emissions by 11 million tons, roughly 0.7% and 1.55%, by 2030.
the final day of Donald Trump's presidency, a federal appeals court struck down a policy that was set to undo Obama-era emission reduction efforts. The court ruled the 2019 Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE) was “legally flawed.” ACE replaced President Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce U.S. power sector emissions by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. Instead, ACE looked to lower power sector emissions by 11 million tons, roughly 0.7% and 1.55%, by 2030.
Well, that makes things easier for the incoming administration.
As a long time lurker on this thread I have a question to some of the more informed posters here. How accurate do you feel like the numbers and predictions are in this video? The Formula That Will Determine Our Energy Future | Answers With Joe - YouTube It is a video from Answers with Joe and I am in no way associated with it.
I feel like one thing he mentions but doesn't extrapolate on is that even though he says coal is a mature industry and not a lot of future cost savings, he doesn't go into the expected cost curve of Wind & Solar.
I feel like one thing he mentions but doesn't extrapolate on is that even though he says coal is a mature industry and not a lot of future cost savings, he doesn't go into the expected cost curve of Wind & Solar.
Last edited:
Similar threads
