Kuwait signs $385 mn solar energy project

September 10, 2015
Kuwait has signed a $385 mn deal with Spain's TSK Group for a 50 megawatt solar energy project
Kuwait has signed a $385 mn deal with Spain's TSK Group for a 50 megawatt solar energy project

Kuwait signed a contract worth 116 million dinars ($385 million) with Spain's TSK Group on Thursday for a 50 megawatt solar energy project as part of its renewable energy drive.

The oil-rich Gulf state has a multi-billion-dollar plan to meet 15 percent of power demand from renewables by 2030.

Electricity and Water Minister Ahmad al-Jassar told reporters the target is to produce 4,500 megawatts from solar and by 2030 when demand is expected to rise to 30,000 megawatts from the current 12,000 megawatts.

The latest is due to start production in December 2017, said Salem al-Hajraf, head of energy research at the Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research.

Two smaller projects of 10 megawatts each, which were signed earlier, are expected to come onstream in May and July next year, Hajraf said.

The first three projects have been funded by the government but future ones will be awarded to the private sector as Build-Operate-Transfer schemes, he said.

Production is expected to reach at least 2,000 by 2025, Hajraf said, adding that more projects will be offered rapidly afterwards to meet the target.

The pioneer project will be built on a 100-square-kilometre (39-square-mile) area in Shagaya, a desert zone 100 kilometres (60 miles) west of Kuwait City, near the borders with Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

When complete, the project will meet the of 100,000 homes and save about 12.5 million barrels of oil equivalent per year, Hajraf said.

Explore further: Morocco launches solar mega-project at Ouarzazate

Related Stories

Morocco launches solar mega-project at Ouarzazate

May 10, 2013

Morocco on Friday officially launched the construction of a 160-megawatt solar power plant near the desert city of Ouarzazate, the first in a series of vast solar projects planned in the country.

Philippines approves three new wind farms

May 20, 2013

The Philippines has approved three wind farm projects that will generate 208 megawatts, enough to power more than 40,000 middle-class homes, an energy official said on Monday.

Kuwait invites bids for first solar energy project

June 12, 2013

Kuwait invited bids on Wednesday to build a solar farm to produce 70 megawatts of electricity by 2016, the first phase of a plan to generate 2,000 megawatts from renewables in 2030, the project supervisor said.

Dubai launches 200-Megawatt solar plant project

January 15, 2015

Dubai launched a project Thursday to build a solar plant to produce 200 megawatt of electricity, as part of plans to generate five percent of the emirate's power from renewables by 2030.

Mali to build west Africa's first solar plant

July 10, 2015

Mali has signed an agreement with a Norwegian renewable energy specialist to build west Africa's first industrial-scale solar power plant, the company announced in a statement on Friday.

Recommended for you

Sponge creates steam using ambient sunlight

August 22, 2016

How do you boil water? Eschewing the traditional kettle and flame, MIT engineers have invented a bubble-wrapped, sponge-like device that soaks up natural sunlight and heats water to boiling temperatures, generating steam ...

Apple issues update after cyber weapon captured

August 26, 2016

Apple iPhone owners on Friday were urged to install a quickly released security update after a sophisticated attack on an Emirati dissident exposed vulnerabilities targeted by cyber arms dealers.

49 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 10, 2015
Rich in both oil and intelligence, the Kuwaitis choose to take the intelligent route.

What does this say about the future of petroleum?
WillieWard
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2015
Rich in both oil and intelligence..
intelligent route
oil is needed to compensate wind/solar intermittence.
Rich
subsidies
"Solar Industry Admits Green Energy Only Exists Thanks To Government Subsidies" - Sep 1, 2015
"The industry is lobbying for an extension of its investment tax credit so it can continue to profit at the taxpayer's expense."
http://www.forbes...bsidies/
"Solar farms will still need subsidies far beyond 2020, industry admits"
http://www.telegr...its.html
"Big Solar's Subsidy Bubble"
http://www.wsj.co...40975764
Solar/wind is so cheap thanks to subsidies, poor taxpayers. Also thanks to fossil fuels for compensating the intermittence.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (2) Sep 10, 2015
Not so sure about intelligence at that price.
At 8$ per watt it's almost 3 times the cost per watt as the solar rig on my roof.
Scaling up usually makes systems more cost effective.
gkam
1.4 / 5 (15) Sep 10, 2015
"oil is needed to compensate wind/solar intermittence."
------------------------------------

It is nice to have a backup for the real sources. But that won't last long.
Physgirl
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2015
Part 1

Excluding wind, 4,500MW rounded = 5,000MW. 5000 / 50 = 100 Solar Plants
$385M rounded = $400M. Total cost = 400 x 100 = $40,000M or $40B

One Subiya power plant, running at 2,000MW, then three Subiya power plants will yield 6,000MW. One Subiya power plant, costs $2.2B say $3B, then three Subiya power plants will cost $9B say $10B.

Problems:
1) Area of a solar farm compared with the area of a Subiya power plant I will let you work that out. Guess which one uses more?
2) Solar does not shine 24/7/365 days a year, so other forms of power (oil, coal and gas) will be needed. Then you have the subsidies, degradation of the panels, operational costs
3) Solar is at least ($40B / $10) 4 times more expensive

Regards
Physgirl
Physgirl
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 10, 2015
Part 2

Rich in oil yes, intelligent? debatable and as for "What does this say about the future of petroleum?" It's a dead end path and so is wind and solar. Thorium based nuclear power is the future for mankind and it is going to happen whether you like it or not.

Regards
Physgirl
gkam
1.4 / 5 (15) Sep 10, 2015
Will it be "too cheap to meter"?
RealScience
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2015
oil is needed to compensate wind/solar intermittence.


Not in this case. This is a solar thermal plant that includes 8 to 10 hours of storage, and can thus cover the entire time of high demand (which in Kuwait is due to air conditioning and thus is when the sun is shining and for several hours after sunset).

For a reference: http://social.csp...-project
howhot2
3 / 5 (6) Sep 10, 2015
2Phygirl, there is a reason thorium is not used for an energy source, and that is in the nuclear world, uranium works better. Thorium is an interesting idea, but in the end, it's just as nasty as any nuclear plant, or coal plant for that matter.

The Sun dumps Terrawatts of energy on the planet each minute, so if you can harvest that, you can power world cleanly and cheaply.
Physgirl
4 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2015
@howhot2

"There is a reason thorium is not used for an energy source, and that is in the nuclear world, uranium works better."

Absolute unmitigated crap. Let me educate you on Thorium vs Uranium

1)https://en.wikipe..._reactor
2)http://www.whatis...ium.html
3)https://en.wikipe...periment
4)http://www.world-...Thorium/

Regards
Physgirl
ScottyB
1 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2015
If Kuwait can do it then why cant countries like the US or UK?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Sep 11, 2015
If Kuwait can do it then why cant countries like the US or UK?

A more pressing question would be: If Kuwait is doing it, shouldn't other countries start getting scared? Does Kuwait switch over because they suddenly found their 'green heart' (yeah....right)? Or are they starting the switchover because they know their deposits are running out?
Physgirl
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2015
@howhot2

"Thorium is an interesting idea, but in the end, it's just as nasty as any nuclear plant, or coal plant for that matter."

Which one would you pick if you only had a choice between Nuclear vs Coal

1) Thorium is 3 times as abundant than Uranium
2) Thorium and Uranium supplies will last thousands of years. Search Google for pad11983cohen.pdf (Substitute Thorium for Uranium to get results for Thorium)
3) Coal has only 112 years left according to worldcoal org and is not renewable.
http://www.worldc...l-found/
4) Death from coal is 3 orders of magnitude than nuclear. Search Google with this term "deaths fron coal vs nuclear"

I know which one I would pick and it certainly is not Coal.

Regards
Physgirl
ScottyB
5 / 5 (1) Sep 11, 2015
Or are they starting the switchover because they know their deposits are running out?

You have a very good point
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2015
Go ahead and try to deprecate the reasons for their advances. The fact is we are all running out. Their decisions show more wisdom than we have in many of our utilities, stuck with polluting and uneconomical coal and nukes.

I do not know why some folk get politically manipulated into emotional states which have them go counter to their actual needs. But it works. "WMD!", anyone?
Physgirl
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 11, 2015
@gkam

"The fact is we are all running out" and "stuck with polluting and uneconomical coal and nukes" are just argumentum ad metum and "WMD!",anyone?" is just argumentum in terrorem.

"I do not know why some folk get politically manipulated into emotional states which have them go counter to their actual needs. But it works."

It works because people are ignorant and hence manipulated into emotional states People that have power and or money are using scaremongering tactics such as coal and nukes to control others and will do whatever to achieve their aims

Solar power is not going to supply all the energy that people on this planet need The technology, cost, efficiency and storage of solar is not there at the moment. Nuclear energy is basically the only energy that will be able to supply that need and hence provide the stability that mankind needs for the centuries to come

Regards
Physgirl
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 11, 2015
There are all kinds of alternatives, not just solar. We have to re-think what we are doing and how we are doing it.

We do not need dangerous technologies which need a super-educated class to maintain and a Police State to guard. They have had 60 years to play with fission, and have yet to clean up their messes.
Zzzzzzzz
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 11, 2015
Physgirl - if Thorium is so much better than Uranium, and these facts are known, where are all the Thorium Nuclear Power plants?
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2015
Physgirl - are you able to find any costs - in terms of the Kwh cost of power coming off a Thorium plant? While wind and solar is a moving target - it seems to me that they are going to win out on a cost basis. Here is a projection of what solar prices will be in 2025, and 2050 - http://www.energy...wh-2050/ There does not appear to be any reason why solar cannot meet our energy needs - just depends on the direction we choose to go. The future will probably hold a mix of sources - depending on local conditions.
Physgirl
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 11, 2015
No there are "not all kinds of alternatives", wind is pretty much useless, solar is just a bit better than wind. Hydro is a good alternative however dams can only be built where the terrain is suitable and then you have 'environmentalists' fighting against them from being built. China being one of the exceptions, where they are being built.

Thorium based reactors are currently the only way to go at the moment, these reactors will clean up the current mess left behind by Uranium reactors.

There is only one alternative that will have any chance of becoming mainstream and its a big if at the moment and that is Fusion. Not ITER, that is a big white elephant. I'm talking about Polywell Fusion (my favourite) or General Fusion, Tri Alpha or even Lockheed Martin Skunk works.

If and its a big if that Polywell Fusion works with H and Boron reaction (aneutronic) then Mankind will be sitting pretty till the sun becomes a red giant.

Regards
Physgirl
Physgirl
4 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
@Zzzzzz

Physgirl - if Thorium is so much better than Uranium, and these facts are known, where are all the Thorium Nuclear Power plants?


1) Hiding in the Closet (just kidding)
2) Uranium reactors basically had a head start
3) Thorium reactors were bypassed for political reasons
4) The nuclear industry today, basically consists of companies like Westinghouse, General Electric, and Toshiba and they are pursuing water cooled reactor designs fuelled by solid uranium dioxide. Hence they are unlikely to start from scratch building Thorium reactors which are liquid fuel based.

Regards
Physgirl
greenonions
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
Physgirl - you are ducking the question about cost. If wind is 'pretty much useless' you better tell countries like Denmark. You are wrong about the viability of alternatives - just sit back and watch over the next 50 years.
Physgirl
3.5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
Greenonions

Benny Peiser, GWPF ( http://www.thegwp...olicies/ )

Germany's renewable energy levy, which subsidizes green energy production, rose from 14 billion euros to 20 billion euros in just one year as a result of the fierce expansion of wind and solar power projects. Since the introduction of the levy in 2000, the electricity bill of the typical German consumer has doubled.

As wealthy homeowners and business owners install wind turbines on their land and solar panels on their homes and commercial buildings, low-income families all over Europe have had to foot the skyrocketing electric bills. Many can no longer afford to pay, so the utilities are cutting off their power. The German Association of Energy Consumers estimates that up to 800,000 Germans have had their power cut off because they were unable to pay the country's rising electricity bills.

Regards
Physgirl
Physgirl
4 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
Greenonions

Germany faces an energy crisis ( http://dailycalle...-crisis/ ). Michael Bastash [Daily Caller]:

'Problems will get even worse when Germany's last nuclear power plant is retired in 2022, reports Mittelstand News. For years, the government has subsidized solar and wind energy through energy taxes that have dramatically jacked up electricity rates.'

But at the same time, the flood of solar and wind energy on the grid has caused wholesale electricity prices to collapse — all while retail rates have skyrocketed. But the collapse in wholesale prices are cutting into the profitability of coal and gas plant operators that don't get the generous subsidies that green energy does.

Over the last decade, Germany's embarked on a costly $412 billion crusade to subsidize green energy production and reduce carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent by 2050.

Regards
Physgirl
Physgirl
4 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
Greenonions

I could go on and on, but would serve no purpose. People reading these two articles would hopefully realize what is going on. Electricity prices are going up, because Solar power is being subsidized to the tune of $412 billion

You point to Fraunhofer: Solar power will cost 2 cts/kWh in 2050. But my question is, how independent are Agora and Fraunhofer really are?

The two above articles basically contradict the fact that electricity prices are increasing in Germany. When one would expect them to be decreasing according to the article you pointed out.

When Solar and Wind power compete on the same level, then and only then can we discuss the true nature of the cost of producing Solar and Wind power versus Thorium and Uranium power.

Regards
Physgirl
PS Power from a thorium reactor would cost, by comparison, an estimated 1.4 cents/kwh. See " The Potential of Thorium for Safer, Cleaner and Cheaper Energy" http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ib149
Physgirl
4 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
Greenonion

The use of alternatives will be limited and as you say (and I agree) " The future will probably hold a mix of sources - depending on local conditions." For example geothermal and tide power.

These alternatives will not provide the base load power that mankind needs in the foreseeable future.

By the way I'm not going to tell Denmark that they have wind problems. That has already been done I presume. "A Problem With Wind Power" http://www.aweo.o...ind.html and "Wind Energy the case of Denmark" http://www.cepos....mark.pdf

But then again, this wind power as an alternatives works well in Denmark because of local conditions. Lots of wind and high cost of electricity.

Regards
Physgirl
greenonions
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2015
Physgirl
how independent are Agora and Fraunhofer really are?


Two quick points. You question their independence - and yet their analysis is very much in line with reality, and with other analysis - http://cleantechn...s-heres/

Then you reference The Global Warming Policy Forum, and the Daily Caller. Pretty transparent there Physgirl.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2015
Didn't Fermi I try Thorium first? That was before they tried Plutonium breeding which caused it to go out of control. It was abandoned, out of control, upwind from Detroit, without telling anybody in the city. It was watched from a distance until they thought it was safe.

Look up "We Almost Lost Detroit".

Thorium reactors are being built in India, I think.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2015
Why would Physgirl want to put us into another complex and dangerous source of power when we already tried it? I do not want my future to rest on hyperspecialists taming some ungodly source of power they can barely control, and which requires a Police State to guard.

You can keep your Police State and your radiation. I am a former utility engineer with knowledge of the systems. Nukes are last-century.
WillieWard
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 12, 2015
are last-century.
Windmills are medieval/prehistoric and, together solar, kill much more and cause more environmental impact than nuclear per gigawatt produced.
I am a former utility engineer with knowledge of the systems.
maniac fibber.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 12, 2015
Willie, are you one of the trolls referenced in the articles? If so, you should send the money back - you are a miserable troll, stuck with cut-and--paste, reciting the same old phrases discredited long ago.
WillieWard
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 12, 2015
old phrases
old truths that you, and your mates, abominates.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 12, 2015
I am a former utility engineer with knowledge of the systems. Nukes are last-century
Lie. You were a job-shopper who couldnt keep a job. And nothing about your 'education' or 'experience' or performance in these threads would indicate that you have anything knowledgeable to say about 'the systems'.

Youve proven yourself to be a compulsive liar and fact-fabricator and people should keep this in mind when engaging you in discussion.
http://phys.org/n...ack.html
Zzzzzzzz
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2015
2015 marks 35 years in the Power industry for me. More than half of that time e involved with Nuclear Power, some with Renewables, and an more than 10 years with an assortment of Fossil technologies. My career has been spent in the Engineering, Procure, and Construct part of the business - I have never worked for a utiliy. All 35 years with one company.
I have gotten into a number of sides of the business, including some exposure to project proposing, cost, analysis, and financing arrangements, on commercial build projects, offshore government contracts, US government contracts, and new technology development work. My take at the moment is that Coal is very nearly dead as far as new projects are concerned, Gas is big right now, Solar (several different technologies) is coming into its own, and Windows is a growing player.
Physgirl, I think you're living in a bit of a dream world. Development on new Nuclear technobody is VERY expensive.....
Zzzzzzzz
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2015
Although I hope you're right & I am wrong, that's my heart talking, not my head. Gas is so cheap right now that government market intervention may be required to change that course, as it will be a few years before that market will see significant change.
To say that Wind is nothing and that Solar is nearly as bad is beyond dreaming, it shows a level of ignorance about the current state of power generation, not to mention possible future states. A cross country flight sitting by the window will show the fallacy of that statement even to a casual observer.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2015
What kind of people would use a technology which generates lethal radioactive wastes which last essentially forever in human terms, wastes we have yet to even find ways to store, but we will leave for all the rest of Humanity?

What kind of people can even think of doing that?
WillieWard
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 13, 2015
new technology development work
Development on new Nuclear technobody
Bill Gates is correct, the colossal subsidies, money from taxpayers, for costly green energy pipedreams, would be better diverted into R&D which could produce something worthwhile. The birds, bats, tortoises, the Nature would thank us.
http://www.thereg...into_rd/
WillieWard
3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2015
last essentially forever in human terms
gskam is always repeating/recycling his fibs even those already debunked.

Here is the truth again that he hates with all his heart and miserable ignorance.
"Radionuclides with long half-lives tend to be alpha and beta emitters – making their handling easier – while those with short half-lives tend to emit the more penetrating gamma rays.
Eventually all radioactive wastes decay into non-radioactive elements. The more radioactive an isotope is, the faster it decays."
http://www.world-...agement/
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2015
Yeah, like at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, our only repository for "safe" stuff. It has been closed for a while now since they proved they cannot even store old gloves, tools, and coveralls. It and the land around got contaminated by those materials. They failed the easiest test of all!

Who leaves these kinds of invented problems for others to fix?

What kind of person, Willie?

What kind?
Zzzzzzzz
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2015
Nuclear power generation is just as emission free (greenhouse gas emissions) as large scale solar or wind power generation. Fossil power generation is not. Gas fueled power generation is less emission intensive than other fossil power generation. Overall, power generation is moving toward cleaner power generation. New generation is showing signs of trending toward decentralization, which may lead toward a future in which the power losses resulting from long distance power transmission are reduced. All this could reduce the need for large baseload power generation. However the future mix of power turns out, the first priority needs to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions drastically.
It is very likely that the day comes when nuclear power generation is no longer in use, but to implement our first priority of driving emissions to zero we are very likely to need a second generation of advanced reactor generation stations.
Zzzzzzzz
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 13, 2015
Simply put, no credible environmentalist will deny the value that Nuclear power generation brings to the greenhouse gas emissions problem faced by humans today.
Moltvic
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2015
Strange and interesting. I recall Iran or Iraq investing heavily into solar energy and having that go horribly, horribly awry.
gkam
1.3 / 5 (15) Sep 13, 2015
Greenhouse gases? The ones created by the calcining of cement? That created in the mass manufacture of the specialty steels and other materials required to protect us from that dangerous technology?

Nuclear materials create problems which last for tens of thousands of years. Why are we creating more of the stuff which dogs us now? Who thinks it is a good idea to dump these tremendous liabilities onto the rest of Humanity?
greenonions
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 13, 2015
Moltvic
Strange and interesting. I recall Iran or Iraq investing heavily into solar energy and having that go horribly, horribly awful


Or maybe that was a movie you were watching - or perhaps you were dreaming - or tripping on acid - who cares right? Can the quality of comments get any f*cking worse?
weathervane
4.4 / 5 (7) Sep 14, 2015
All oil exporting middle eastern countries have large scale renewable project either in the pipeline or being built. Why because they get paid little to nothing for the hydrocarbons they burn in country, while they get hard currency and market value for everything they export. It's that simple. They are taking the long term, post year 2020, view on oil price.
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Sep 14, 2015
create problems which last for tens of thousands of years.
Always the same fear-mongering rhetoric, is gskam ignorant, dishonest, or both?
gkam
1.3 / 5 (14) Sep 14, 2015
Willie, you can buy power now from Vogtle. Just write to them, and they will figure out how to get it to you. I hope you have lots of money!
Zzzzzzzz
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Greenhouse gases? The ones created by the calcining of cement? That created in the mass manufacture of the specialty steels and other materials required to protect us from that dangerous technology?

Nuclear materials create problems which last for tens of thousands of years. Why are we creating more of the stuff which dogs us now? Who thinks it is a good idea to dump these tremendous liabilities onto the rest of Humanity?


How long does extinction last? Forever. Every previous dominant life form in the history of this planet thrived until its waste products accumulated, due to explosive population (survival success), to levels that changed the environment to one no longer tolerable to that life form. Vertebrates are now well on the way down the same path. At one time there was only slight trace amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere, and life forms thrived by using the CO2 and producing O2 as waste. When they died, they took the CO2 with them.
Zzzzzzzz
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 14, 2015
Now we dig them up and put the CO2 back into the atmosphere. If that process continues unabated, we will be extinct before the atmosphere is returned to its former state. Since we are unable to limit our numbers, we need to alter our waste stream. Apparently we're a little late realizing this.

Liabilities represented by the use of Nuclear Power are insignificant in comparison.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.