
















Comments     Threshold


RE: solar
By dirtyfoot on 12/1/2010 5:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
u forget though that the tessera plant is only producing power for at most 12 hrs a day and peak performance of only 5 or so hours. also the Tessera plant will not last as long as comanche peak. also camanche peak did not cost 15b$ its was quite a bit less then that.

RE: solar
By texbrazos on 12/1/2010 5:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Every source I find estimates the cost at $12.8 to 15 billion for the Comanche Peak plant. If they expand it they are saying around 27 billion. Anyway they are not cheap. Also stirling engines can run off any heat source. If these things were fitted with nat. gas, biomass, hydrogen etc. they could essentially run all the time. Let's say the Comanche peak plant cost $12 billion on the low side. It powers 1.5 million homes.
The Tessera plant can power 500,000 homes at 2 billion. 12 billions dollars worth of Tessera plants could power around 3 million homes.
This tech is still in it's infancy and has huge potential, and I am not quite sure why you think it will last as long. Stirling engines are pretty simple devices that are easy to repair.

RE: solar
By Brodda Thep on 12/2/2010 9:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
The Tessera plant is 660 MW capacity at about 25% capacity factor. The commanche plant will be 3000 GW at 90% capacity factor (assuming you mean reactors 3 and 4). That's 165MW vs 2700MW. Not sure why you would use the bizarre comparison of 'homes powered by'. Nuclear is much cheaper. And the costs quoted for nuclear almost always include decomissioning costs + fueling costs up front.

