Dubai to build 1,000-megawatt solar power plant

Saeed al-Tayer, managing director and CEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) speaks during a press conference in Du
Saeed al-Tayer, managing director and CEO of Dubai Electricity and Water Authority (DEWA) speaks during a press conference in Dubai on June 2, 2016

Dubai on Thursday announced plans to build a 1,000-megawatt solar power plant by 2030, the year it aims to turn to renewable energies for 25 percent of electricity needs.

The first stage of the concentrated solar power (CSP) plant aims to produce 200 MW in April 2021, the Dubai Water and Electricity Authority said.

"This project is going to be the biggest CSP plant worldwide," said DEWA chief Saeed al-Tayer.

The power authority is looking for to build and operate the plant and sell electricity to the public firm in charge of distribution.

Dubai opened in October 2013 a 13-MW plant while another is expected to be operational in April 2017 with a capacity of 200 MWs.

Unlike neighbouring oil-rich Abu Dhabi, Dubai has a dwindling reserve of crude and has diversified its economy toward trade, transport and tourism.


Explore further

Dubai launches 200-Megawatt solar plant project

© 2016 AFP

Citation: Dubai to build 1,000-megawatt solar power plant (2016, June 2) retrieved 16 September 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-06-dubai-megawatt-solar-power.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
204 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 04, 2016
Solar, wind, and storage can probably power this nation.

Are they too smart for nukes?

Jun 04, 2016
Oil sheikhs prefer intermittent sources of energy for obvious reasons, to keep selling more and more oil to stay ahead of the game. LOL

Jun 04, 2016
This source is for them, because they do not have much oil.

That's another shot in your foot.

Why don't you give up?

(LOL)?


Jun 04, 2016
"Unlike neighbouring oil-rich Abu Dhabi, Dubai has a dwindling reserve of crude and has diversified its economy toward trade, transport and tourism."

Jun 05, 2016
Why do we build uninhabitable solar cities?

Jun 05, 2016
With power, they can be very habitable, well-insulated buildings mostly buried/covered, lighted by skylights.

Jun 06, 2016
This source is for them, because they do not have much oil.


It's a bit premature to say Dubai has no oil. Dubai has plenty of oil for their domestic use for generations to come - 4 Billion barrels worth - which is what's going to keep the renewable systems going for the foreseeable future because they haven't got the storage bit figured out yet.

It's a bit easier for them as well because solar power in the desert in the middle east is very reliable and coincides well with consumption.

Unlike in other places such as Ivanpah, where they just accidentally torched 2/3rds of the CSP facility that was already 2/3rds behind its predicted production output:
http://bigstory.a...ar-plant

Jun 06, 2016
Nobody said they had no oil. Folk remark they have much less than other nearby states, even those with alternative energy plans of their own.

Development has its risks. Was Ivanpah as serious as PL-1?

Jun 06, 2016
For the rest of you, PL-1 was a nuke plant that exploded, killing three people from a "fast Fission". They carry it as a "Steam Explosion", and not nuclear, even though the nuclear fast fission caused it, and spread contamination all over.

That is how nukes got their "safe" reputation, . . from lying about the problems.

Jun 06, 2016
spread contamination all over.
conspiracy theories and scary fables

Jun 06, 2016
Look up PL-1 and tell us the "truth", Willie.

Did it explode?

How many people died?

Where did they put the contaminated materials and Earth?

Jun 06, 2016
it's only correct to move to sustainable energy. However, our oil magnates only see the money, not the unlivable planet. Anyway with sustainable energy, and local farmers losing, why not build a sustainable structure? Solar powered, gardens, education,..., freedom!

Jun 07, 2016
Look up PL-1 and tell us the "truth",


It's difficult, because there is no "PL-1" reactor in the first place.

I think you're referring to SL-1 which was an army research and development reactor.

They carry it as a "Steam Explosion", and not nuclear, even though the nuclear fast fission caused it, and spread contamination all over.


There's a very clear difference between what is nuclear explosion and what isn't. Nuclear explosions as in atom bombs happen of their own because the reaction is so over-critical that it doesn't need any moderation to continue, whereas "prompt criticality" accidents need a neutron moderator such as water to keep the reaction going and end as soon as the moderator is removed by flashing into steam.

The SL-1 reactor was designed for 3 MW and went over 20 GW for 4 milliseconds due to operator error, flash-boiling all the water in the reactor to steam which ended the nuclear reaction and blew the top off the reactor

Jun 07, 2016
Basically, in a functioning nuclear reactor, there are two types of neutron - prompt and delayed.

The prompt neutrons are released immediately on splitting the atom. The delayed neutrons are released some time later when the breakdown products of the atoms themselves split and release more neutrons. The neutrons then hit other atoms and split them.

Stable reaction occurs when the prompt neutrons alone are not enough to sustain a chain reaction, which means the additional delayed neutrons are needed to sustain it. Because of the delay in the neutron emissions, the reactor can be controlled by inserting or removing the neutron-absorbing control rods. A reactor running on the prompt neutrons alone would be on a hair trigger between off and chernobyl.

Reactors are designed with negative feedback on the delayed neutrons. Fast changes in power cause surges of prompt neutrons which have a positive feedback. When the positive overtakes the negative, you get prompt criticality.

Jun 07, 2016
So basically, a nuclear bomb happens when the prompt neutron feedback is so large that the negative feedback of the control system or any other neutron moderating mechanism can't catch up.

A prompt criticality accident is when the negative feedback is eventually able to catch up, but not before the reactor has already built up so much heat and pressure that it blows to pieces.

The difference between a prompt criticality accident and a nuclear bomb is a sliding scale, where a reactor accident like SL-1 could be considered a failed nuclear bomb, or a "fizzle", if you wanted to make a big deal out of it. It didn't however come even close to the yield of the smallest nuclear bombs ever made, backpack sized, which would have turned the entire site into a crater.

In practice, the operators who were standing on the reactor died, and the reactor was buried in the desert, and that was about it.

Jun 07, 2016
The next question of course is, if a small 3 MW reactor makes a pop big enough to throw the lid off and blow the barn doors open when it goes prompt critical, would a large 1000 MW reactor make a larger boom that equals an actual nuclear bomb?

The short answer is no: the SL-1 reactor was an army experiment and they wanted a compact reactor with a long refueling period, so they used highly enriched fuel. Commercial power reactors don't do that, and the lower grade fuel means less positive feedback from the prompt neutrons.

https://en.wikipe...iki/SL-1
The 3 MW (thermal) boiling water reactor (BWR) used 93.20% highly enriched uranium fuel


Ordinary power reactors use fuel that is enriched to 3-5%. It is considered theoretically impossible to construct a nuclear bomb with less than 20% enriched fuel, and weapons grade uranium is typically 85% and over.

So basically, the SL-1 reactor was a nuclear bomb by design.

Jun 07, 2016
Well, no. And I did not allege it was a nuclear explosion, but a criticality too fast for the device to handle.

Fermi I had some cooling problems, too and its too-rich fuel was dangerously out of control.

And Unit Three at Fukushima was loaded with MOX.

Jun 08, 2016
And I did not allege it was a nuclear explosion, but a criticality too fast for the device to handle.


Yes you pretty much did. You keep playing around with the semantics of what "explosion" means in an attempt to make it sound like nuclear reactors go up like nuclear bombs.

You keep calling into question that it was a steam explosion that blew the reactor apart, so the alternatives left over are either nuclear explosion or someone loaded the reactor with actual explosives. You choose.

And the last time you did, you also claimed the SL-1 was a breeder reactor which it isn't:
http://phys.org/n...tor.html

Fermi I had some cooling problems, too and its too-rich fuel was dangerously out of control.

And Unit Three at Fukushima was loaded with MOX.


Fermi 1 had a core of 26% enriched fuel in an attempt to breed fuel (and nuclear bombs) out of depleted uranium fuel rods. This is not the same as the MOX fuel in Fukushima.


Jun 08, 2016
The MOX or Mixed OXide fuel contains as the name says mixed isotopes. For example, a mixture of 7% plutonium from weapons or waste, in a fuel rod consisting of 93% depleted uranium behaves the same as 4.5% enriched normal uranium fuel.

And as for nuclear explosions, the critical mass to sustain an explosive reaction grows non-linearily as the enrichment ratio drops. For plain uranium fuel, an enrichment ratio of 5.4% would need an infinite amount of fuel to make a nuclear bomb, and below that it simply can't happen. Prompt criticalities can still happen, but they can't run away into a literal nuclear explosions.

That's why meltdown accidents in reactors running on low enrichment fuel, MOX or not, aren't nuclear explosions. The explosions that end up happening are secondary effects from the heat, such as steam explosions or hydrogen evolution and ignition. The reactor core and fuel - though it may melt - does not in and by itself explode.

Jun 08, 2016
This topic also perfectly illustrates the old saying: "One fool can ask more than ten wise men can answer".

Gkam throws an single one-liner that sounds condemning and alarming to the person who hasn't researched the subject, and it takes a 500 words essay to explain why he is making a fool of himself.

And that's how scheisters operate. Hit and run. Drop off a slogan and hope nobody replies to pick it apart, or hope that your target audience doesn't read beyond your slogans.

Jun 08, 2016
Oh,stop it. Every time a topic comes up you do a wiki book report on it. You are essentially copying and pasting things of which you have no knowledge.

I said it exploded and said why, but you want to have an argument. Go argue with yourself.

"Fermi 1 had a core of 26% enriched fuel in an attempt to breed fuel (and nuclear bombs) out of depleted uranium fuel rods. This is not the same as the MOX fuel in Fukushima."

Yes, and it had a sparger plate break off and jam in the flow of coolant. Tell us what happened next: How they could not control it, directly upwind from Detroit, and just told nobody as it festered, out-of-control.

We do not need such nasty and dangerous stuff just to boil water.

Jun 08, 2016
There's a very clear difference between what is nuclear explosion and what isn't. Nuclear explosions as in atom bombs happen of their own because the reaction is so over-critical that it doesn't need any moderation to continue, whereas "prompt criticality" accidents need a neutron moderator such as water to keep the reaction going and end as soon as the moderator is removed by flashing into steam
Kind of futile to try to explain these things to george. He thinks there is enough energy in an H2 explosion to cause a prompt criticality in dirty molten Pu puddles, which is how the fukushima reactors blew up (but didnt leave a crater).

George kamburoff has proven that he knows very little about the subject and even less about lying convincingly.
Tell us what happened next
I think you ought to first explain how telling people to do things and go places and buy power plants furthers your arguments in any way whatsoever.

It makes you look like a lunatic you know?

Jun 08, 2016
Pwnt.

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