France launches vast solar panel array

With a production capacity of 90 megawatts, the vast photovoltaic park features nearly 113,000 solar panels and was built at a cost of 110 million euros ($137 million).

If these prices are correct, somebody in the U.S. is ripping everyone.

That $137 million installed is about half the purchase price of the panels alone in the U.S., even without the heliostats and power cables, and of course doesn't even remotely cover install cost.

This same project in the U.S. would cost like at least 5 times, maybe even 10 times more money total.

Does our country suck that bad at everything lately?

@nano, considering how corrupt our country is, yes.

Um, whoever wrote the press release failed in their fact-check. Enfinity's 18.2MW, 36 acre subsection of the array cost 70m euros alone...
http://www.guardi...c-france

Um, whoever wrote the press release failed in their fact-check. Enfinity's 18.2MW, 36 acre subsection of the array cost 70m euros alone...
http://www.guardi...c-france

Twice as expensive as the article lets you believe.

And, the 26 million kWh yearly production gives you an average rate of 3 MW instead of 18.2 MW.

This is the problem with renewables. Their nameplate figures are wildly misleading because the output fluctuates all the time very strongly.

Yet you have to build your infrastructure according to the peak output, which means that you can't build more peak wattage than you can use. In this case it means that France will never be able to cover more than about 16% of their consumption with solar power in the optimal case.

Unless of course they ditch the "virtual battery" scheme and invest in some actual batteries.

Monaco is only 500 acres?

I live in Texas - we call things that size "neighborhoods".

I'm with Nanobanano regarding thinking these things are way overpriced in the USA. I know it may be a supply/demand thing (which government interference always messes up), but I've got to wonder what the actual cost of production for these things is - not the wholesale or retail, but the real production costs. Just really curious...

Something is really screwy here.
From link in guardian.co.uk:
36 acres = 18.2 MW and $82,000,000.
Then 90 MW would equal 178 acres and $405,500,000, not $137,000,000.
If the 405 million is correct instead of the 137 million, then at $4055 per KW, this is in line with US installed prices of about 1 dollar per watt for the panel and $3 to $4 per watt for installation, wiring electronics etc.

It was optimal to build it on a hill so that it was closer to the sun on average.

Kudo's to the engineers.

solar cell are high maintenance items; has anyone thought of this? What could possibly be so expensive to maintain when all it does is sit there? The cells must be cleaned for optimal efficiency.

Evaporation might be a better mechanism for energy conversion since it would have more evaporation time than sun time. You know what I'm talking about right? Evaporation can be controlled, tapped and used for energy production, and not much water has to be lost. In fact, releasing water into the environment might be good for it. Dust should not be a problem here... think turgor pressure.

The cells must be cleaned for optimal efficiency.

Have you got cells on your roof? People in my family have them. They have had them for 10 years and never cleaned them.
The cells only now starting to degrade (down about 5-10% from original optimal output) - but that is most likley due to degradation caused by UV.

Now if you want to have really optimal efficiency then you can pattern the covering glass with a nanolayer that will give you the lotus effect. The occasional rainfall will be ample to keep everything spotless (and the mountains of France aren't exactly sandstorm country)

Evaporation might be a better mechanism for energy conversion since it would have more evaporation time than sun time.

New solar cells work well in ambient light. Cost per Watt used to be in favor of solar-thermal - that has changed recently with the drop in cost of PV. Solar-theraml doesn't use water but molten salt or oils with higher boiling points (better generator efficiency)

Hi I'm the project manager of this plant, I would to correct the article :
"With a production capacity of 90 megawatts, the vast photovoltaic park features nearly 113,000 solar panels and was built at a cost of 110 million euros ($137 million)."
In fact, all the plant on site represents a capacity of 90MWp, and our project represents 30.9 MWp for 113 000 solar panels and was built at a cost of 110 million euros ($137 million).