Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 05:27:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rich Lynch <rw_lynch at yahoo.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Fw: 760 GWH/Y power plant visible from 50 miles
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>

Have to wonder who did the economic analysis of this
project.  760 gigawatt-hours per year is 760 billion
watt-hours per year of electricity.  If you assume
100% onstream factor, that's 8,760 hours per year.  Do
the division, and that works out to only about 87
megawatts -- not even the equivalent of a small gas
turbine power plant.

Normally, an investment like this one is expected to
return between 15 and 20% per year on the investment.
If the financial model shows the ROI is less than
that, the outside investors will take their money
somewhere else.  A web search shows that the price of
electricity in NSW and Victoria is about A$20-30 per
megawatt-hour. Given that A$1 = US$0.55, that means
the yearly gross revenue from the power plant would be
somewhere around
US$10 million.  If you factor in O&M costs, to keep
the place running, the net income probably would be no
greater than about US$9 million per year (and that's
very optimistic).

If we assume all of that income is used to pay back
investors at the minimum 15% ROI rate, that means the
capital costs of the project can be no greater than
US$60 million (or else you drop below the 15%
threshold).

No way that monstrosity gets built for $60 million.
It probably can't be done for ten times that.  So why
is it being done at all?  Australia is not energy
deficient -- it exports coal.  If it wants to make a
statement for "green" power, wind energy is far closer
to being economically competitive with fossil fuel
than solar energy is.  If we assume that no outside
investors would be interested in such a white
elephant, the money must be coming from the state
treasury.  Things are pretty flush down there, I
guess, if they can afford to fund boondoggles like
this.

Rich Lynch
----
MIMOSA web site: http://www.jophan.org/mimosa/

--- ronkean at juno.com wrote:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 14:16:58 EDT
> To: extropians at extropy.org
> Subject: [WSFA] Power Tower and Greens
>
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992688
>
> Kilometre-tall power tower approved
>
> 14:35 19 August 02
>
> NewScientist.com news service
>
> Plans for a one-kilometre tall "Solar Tower" that
> would provide clean
> energy for up to 200,000 homes have been approved by
> the Australian
> government.
>
> But some environmental campaigners are questioning
> the practical benefits
> of the scheme.
>
> The 130 metre-wide tower would produce electricity
> using currents of air
> heated by the Sun's rays.  The tower itself would be
> surrounded by a vast
> greenhouse, seven kilometers across.  Hot air inside
> the greenhouse would
> be effectively sucked up the tower through turbines
> at its base.
>
> Heat-storing material inside the greenhouse would
> continue to heat air
> during the night.
>
> The massive structure would be more than twice as
> tall as the Petronas
> Towers in Kuala Lumpar, and visible from 80
> kilometres away.
>
> Australian company EnviroMission plans to build it
> in the desert on the
> border between New South Wales and Victoria.
> Australia's federal
> industry minister put the £308m project into a
> fast-track planning
> process on Thursday.
>
> Fossil fuels EnviroMission says the building would
> generate 760
> gigawatt-hours of energy per year.
>
> Roger Higman, senior climate campaigner for Friends
> of the Earth, is
> concerned that construction costs could outweigh the
> potential benefits.
>
> "If they're planning to build a truly enormous tower
> they could use a lot
> of fossil fuels," Higman told New Scientist.  "It's
> not as if we are
> short of ways to generate electricity without using
> fossil fuels."
>
> Higman adds that a conventional wind farm could
> produce a comparable
> amount of power without requiring so much
> construction work.
>
> A smaller 200 metre tall prototype Solar Tower was
> built by a Spanish and
> German team in Spain in 1982.  If the New South
> Wales state authority
> gives approval for the new tower, construction work
> could begin in 2003
> and the structure could be completed by 2005.
>
> Will Knight .
>

=====
Rich Lynch
==========
MIMOSA web site: http://jophan.org/mimosa/
1960s Fan History Site: http://jophan.org/1960s/

__________________________________________________