Slashdot Log In
Future Looks Bright for Large Scale Solar Farms
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:13 AM
from the but-they-don't-wear-shades dept.
from the but-they-don't-wear-shades dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "The economist reports that Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) systems that capture and focus the sun's rays to heat a working fluid and drive a turbine, are making a comeback. Although the world's largest solar farm was built over twenty years ago, until recently no new plants have been built. Now with the combination of federal energy credits, the enactment of renewable energy standards in many states, and public antipathy to coal fired power plant, the first such plant to be built in decades started providing 64 megawatts of electricity to Las Vegas this summer. Electricity from the Nevada plant costs an estimated 17 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), but projections suggest that CSP power could fall to below ten cents per kWh as the technology improves. Coal power costs just 2-3 cents per kWh but that will likely rise if regulation eventually factors in the environmental costs of the carbon coal produces."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Cost comparisons... (Score:4, Insightful)
The real competition is other forms of clean power generation, like nuclear. Nuclear's costs are about the same as coal; why build a concentrated solar plant when you can just build a nuke plant?
Re:Cost comparisons... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually, we're going to have to get a fear of the word nuclear...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cost comparisons... (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolutely. However, we have, AFAIK, around 500 years of coal reserves at our current rate of usage. We just need to figure out a better way to mine it. Natural gas availability is declining, with rising dependence on foreign imports of LNG. New nuclear technologies are important considerations, but not for an Executive Branch of oil men. Unfortunately, if the pendulum swings too far the other direction, NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard) and BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) will put a stop to anything nuclear because it's scary.
I don't understand where they get the number of 17 cents per kilowatt hour of production from this solar plant, unless it's ridiculously expensive to build. Solar, like wind and hydro, which are really just solar plants of a different nature, are mostly capital cost to construct, then operations cost (minimal) and maintenance down the line. Construction costs are commonly amortized over 20 years, so .17/kW, declining to .10/kW seems expensive.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, coal may well currently be cheaper under current laws and regula
Cost of a new coal plant (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear waste (Score:5, Insightful)
Once we dispose of existing waste, we can dispose of new waste the same way.
Parent
Re:Nuclear waste (Score:4, Informative)
Sigh, instead of making uninformed comment like this, would it kill you to research the topic first?
A few facts:
- France has currently *zero* long term storage location: our politicians weren't able to pick one (the not in my backyard effect).
- Sure we have a good processing factory which is able to process the radioactive waste, it doesn't make radioactivity magically disappear and the 'waste from the waste' is sent back to the orginating country.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But solving the nuclear waste issue (or, more accurately, permitting one of the solutions to the nuclear waste problem to be implemented) is not optional. We have to do it to dispose of the waste we've already got. So one of the solutions to disposing of this waste will ultimately be implemented, even if it's just shipping it all to France, where they are disposing of the waste quite handily, thank you very much.
Actually France isn't doing so well with nuclear waste:
"Nuclear Wasteland" [ieee.org]
Falcon
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the more absurd objections to the Yucca Mountain site is "Las Vegas is growing, and before too long, it'll want to be encroaching on Yucca Mountain."
Hello, people, hello! There is something between Las Vegas and Yucca Mountain. That something is the Neva
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, it is quite likely that we will someday develop technology to PERFECTLY dispose of nuclear waste, at which time we will no doubt dig up what we already buried and cleanse it.
One more thing: If we bury it deep enough, we can be confident that
Re:Cost comparisons... (Score:4, Funny)
I take it you haven't been to China recently?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter, in the long run, whether the United States with it's piddling 280 million or so consumers chooses the environmentally sound route. Besides, if anything our ongoing deindustrialization is going to reduce our contribution to the global pollution scene. On the other hand, if China, Mexico and other rapidly-industrializing third-world outfits don't start cleaning up their respective acts we're all going to wake up one morning wondering where we are heading, and why
Nuclear power isn't all bright... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uranium ore is also a finite resource, and like coal will eventually run out. Also, utilizing several technologies at once to produce power has its benefits. Relying on a single energy source for power doesn't have the same inherent security of having many different kinds of energy sources. My opinion is we should spend the mega billions needed for building a large Nuclear power network when you could spend that and develop a large, multi-pronged sustainable energy system that requires no imports.
Parent
Re:Nuclear power isn't all bright... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's enough energy available from uranium that $724/pound (2006 dollars, according to the inflation calculator at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ [westegg.com]) would not be a show-stopper.
Parent
Re:Used (Score:4, Insightful)
In short, the US does not need to import a single gram of fissile material to run indefinitely. Solar/Wind/etc. . are fine ideas for the long term but do not meet our power needs today. We should absolutely invest in these alternative technologies and, while we are at it, invest in conservation and efficiency. Unfortunately, right now, we are making almost 50% of our power from coal that is massively environmentally destructive from the second it is strip-mined out of the ground to its large final carbon contribution. Nuclear power is the only technology currently available that can put a dent in coal usage. If you show me an alternative that can scale to 400 TerraWattHours, I'll withdraw that claim.
References:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html [doe.gov]
http://www.usec.com/v2001_02/Content/News/NewsTemplate.asp?page=/v2001_02/Content/News/NewsFiles/04-13-03.htm [usec.com]
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-215.html [defencetalk.com]
Parent
Re:Nuclear power isn't all bright... (Score:4, Insightful)
The amount of uranium that actually gets *used up* (the amount that gets turned into non-radioactive material, turned into neutron poisons, or especially the amount actually converted from mass to energy) is almost negligible on a macro-scale.
There's also Thorium, which while a little trickier to use and has significantly less energy potential per unit, is so disgustingly plentiful that it would easily last us until the sun goes red giant (At which point solar energy is definitely the way to go *snicker*)
Parent
Coal is just too abundant (Score:4, Insightful)
In principle I agree that coal is not a fuel of first choice (or second or third...) from an environmental perspective. It's dirty, dangerous to mine, hard to clean and has other problems besides. Unfortunately the two biggest manufacturing economies in the world (China & the USA) have HUGE coal reserves and are relatively poor in most other economically competitive fuels. (note the word relatively, obviously both have access to oil, gas, uranium and any other fuel you care to mention) Coal's simple abundance and the installed base of coal fired power plants means it's not going away any time soon. I'm fully in favor of regulating coal to be as clean as technology allows, even at some economic cost. But hoping that the worlds biggest economy will turn its back on a cheap, abundant energy supply, even if it is dirty and undesirable, is just not realistic.
Parent
Re:Coal is just too abundant (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of "clean coal" is mostly a marketing gimmick.
Even perfect coal burning will release mass amounts of CO2 and require continued mining.
(Whenever miners die in a mine collapse, why don't people protest coal? _NOBODY_ has died from a nuclear accident in the US yet plenty of people are anti-nuclear.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The pros of clean coal include (1) zero carbon emission; (2) almost none of the particulate emissions associated with traditional coal; (3) a 300 year supply of coal; (4) a significant chunk of that supply being in the US; and (5) minimal additional investment in plant upgrades since most coal plants are old and need to be upgraded already anyway.
The cons of clean coal include (
You mean... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You mean... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I mean that does give us an advantage right?...
right...
Missing information in story (Score:4, Funny)
How many acres of desert ecosystem are plunged into permanent shade to provide this 64 megawatts of power?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing information in story (Score:5, Funny)
New Jersey is 8,722.
Just cover that...
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Places like where I live (Phoenix, AZ), that could actually be a Good Thing.
It's so hot during the summer that shaded parking is a big deal. If you leave your car uncovered (even just for a little while), it's unbearable when you return (and, of course, you'll be using energy to cool it off if you turn on the AC).
Covering all of the parking lots (and maybe even freeways) with reflectors or solar panels might actually be quite a boon.
I'd imagine that the same is true in most places where there's plenty
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't use coal because it's a CO2 producer.
Can't use nuclear because radioactive waste is scary.
Can't use hydro because those damns endanger the snail darter minnow.
Can't use tidal because it disrupts the spawning cycles of the crab.
And now we can't use solar because it puts areas under shade.
Re:Missing information in story (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me one frakking environmental group that has come out in opposition to solar or wind energy. C'mon, just one.
Parent
17 cents/kwh and it MIGHT get down to 10? (Score:4, Insightful)
This sounds like a waste of money on a technology without much hope of being economically viable. I'm quite certain that photo-voltaic is a lot cheaper than this, and wind power definately is. It sounds like there's a good reason why this technology was abandoned.
Solar towers (Score:3, Interesting)
also take a look at this discovery channel video - @ about 3mins in [youtube.com]
Here's an idea. Let's fund this with tax dollars (Score:3, Insightful)
If it worked so well and is still producing to this day with a parabolic revenue curve then why did they stop at 350MW peak? The answer is plain as day. The oil crisis ended. Back i
Why? Wind power is much cheaper (Score:3, Insightful)
"A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 pence per kilowatt hour (2005). Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the United States for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MWh, coal at $53.10/MWh and natural gas at $52.50."
3.2 pence is 6.4 cents. So why build a plant with technology that can only do 17 cents with hope that it might scale down to 10 cents?
Las Vegas is an ironic choice (Score:5, Funny)
Since most of those captured photons will eventually be converted back into photons, via low pressure neon tubes.
Solar cant replace coal or nuke - yet - maybe ever (Score:3, Informative)
haven't heard costs( ~.17/Kwh ) going down (Score:3, Insightful)
From what I've seen, these people backing the CSP systems like or insist on steam turbine generating systems because that is what's used for coal, gas, etc. The existing utilities know how to spec these generating systems and their TCO( total cost of ownership ) is well known. Unfortunately, these are not so efficient and there seems to be opposition to other technologies for conversion from heat to electricity. It's an old school mentality which will keep this out of mainstream use and that is really what the existing energy industry wants anyways.
So the only thing I have heard is that government funding making this an option because it is "green" technology. That is the wrong approach IMO. Until someone puts a $$$ value on carbon, health, environmental effects on a per KWh basis, this will remain more expensive than other energy industry owned power systems and remain a fringe and subsidized player. Again, just what the status quo wants. IMO.
LoB
Toxicity and Tech (Score:3, Informative)
Kramer Junction (Score:3, Informative)
Future Energy (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Aneutronic fusion / IEC Polywell reactors. If this works -- as seems likely, based on experimental results thus far -- it could begin displacing *all* other forms of power generation within 15 years. The potential is mind-boggling. This could make coal, fission, natural gas, wind, and the majority of solar power and petroleum fuels hopelessly obsolete. Rapidly.
2. Enhanced geothermal. According to a study from MIT, a relatively small R&D investment could open up enhanced geothermal energy production, at competitive costs, over wide geographical areas, including large parts of the USA. It could scale to meet a very large portion of electrical demand. An enhanced geothermal plant is conceptually similar to a nuclear plant, except that the atomic pile is safely tucked away under the earth's crust.
3. Nuclear fission. If fusion doesn't work out, there's good old fission, and you can build it anywhere, even places where enhanced geothermal won't work. We've learned a fair bit about designing and managing fission reactors, but very little has been put into practice in the USA since we haven't broken ground on any new nuclear plants for several decades. We need to start building *now* just to hold our ground as aging plants come up for decommissioning.
4. Solar. It's intermittent, expensive, and requires large amounts of land. And yet, the hype around solar is scary. Nuclear and geothermal have so many practical advantages, I have a hard time imagining solar providing most of the world's energy -- something all the faithful sun-worshippers expect. Still and all. . . Solar technology is being researched, progress is being made, and there's no question it will work at some price level. It may be useful for rooftop systems and assisting peak power demand, at the very least.
5. Biofuels. This is an inefficient method of gathering solar energy, and it competes with food production for the same resources. Realistically, we're not going to power our whole industrial society off this stuff. However, it does produce concentrated liquid fuels, which are highly useful for certain tasks. There will probably be some kind of long-term role for biofuels -- especially if we can get away from food crops and move to cellulose or algae.
Greedy greedy greedy (Score:5, Insightful)
Anything less is willful ignorance.
Parent
Re:If they sold the "waste" heat (Score:5, Insightful)
Then you pipe the rest of the heat as hot water to homes and businesses which want to use it for space or water heating.
Tell your "engineering friend" to look up "District Heating [wikipedia.org]" on Wikipedia or Google. It's been in practice for more than a century and is widespread in places like Iceland, Denmark and New York.
Parent
Steam (Score:3, Informative)
The right question to ask is where that infrastructure can be built:
Some 30 billion pounds of steam every year flow beneath the streets of Manhattan from the Battery to 96th Street. While it is unknown to most New Yorkers, Con Edison's subterranean steam system is the biggest steam district in the world, larger than the next four largest U.S. steam systems
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They have the idea that they're going to store heat in huge steam accumulators. As TFA points out, however, it hasn't been proven that those would actually be workable at the necessary scale.
Jimmy Carter invaded Iran ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, Jimmy Carter invaded Iran. He went in with too few troops, and tried to micromanage things from Washington, and got our ass kicked. Of course you are correct in the sense that he did not start the war, the islamic fundamentalists started it and this same war is still going on today.
Re:Jimmy Carter invaded Iran ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And it cold be just as correctly (that is, not correctly at all) argued that the US started "the war" by backing the Shah and overthrowing Mosaddeq.
_
War on terror is a metaphor
The war on Iraq is a mess
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've clearly forgotten high school chemistry. Yet you're arrogant enough to believe that climate scientists are the ones who have forgotten.
If you have a system with water and a CO2 atmosphere in equilibrium, some concentration of CO2 will be diss