Future Looks Bright for Large Scale Solar Farms 325
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."
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The mining techniques we use are reprehensible, and the long term environmental damage incalculable
The number truly ancient burning power generation plants is astounding and their output criminal
The reticence to adopt "clean coal" technologies is remarkable
The subsidies and tax breaks for the coal industries are substantial
If you are basing your comments on the price being high I would guess that your personal bill is probab
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless it turns out that the ultimate disposal costs are far more than the power generation is worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you want to "solve" the nuclear waste problem it's pretty easy:
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: (Score:2)
Re:Cost comparisons... (Score:4, Funny)
I take it you haven't been to China recently?
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.
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.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
Australia currently has the world's largest supply of uranium but it is currently untapped. Negotiations are underway with China who is in need of a uranium supplier. Once the mines are developed there will be a lot more uranium on the market. Note that Australia has always been a good trading partner with the US so I don't think there should be any issues he
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*)
Either you are kidding or you are clueless (Score:2)
With al
Re: (Score:2)
why build a concentrated solar plant when you can just build a nuke plant?
Think about it. Rather than burning a limited supply of fossil carbon from plants that grew millions of years ago, we'd be burning an even more limited supply of fossil heavy elements that were generated by supernovae billions of years ago. Few people seem to grasp this, but the earth does not magically generate uranium - in fact, dwindling supplies have increased its price ten-fold in the last decade alone.
Solar power and then fusion when it's ready would be a better idea. We could never hope to turn a
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.
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I mean that does give us an advantage right?...
right...
Either in electric bill or tax bill ... (Score:2)
You pay either way, the cost shows up in your tax bill or your electric bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Missing information in story (Score:5, Funny)
New Jersey is 8,722.
Just cover that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now take a trip to the desert southwest - where you can drive for hours in any direction and see nothing but bare rock and hardpan. The pow
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
Without a doubt (not to mention the environmental impact of launching everything we'd need into orbit using chemical rockets).
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, I doubt we'd ever use this method to produce ALL of our energy (or even most)... even if it were as cheap as coal. For one thing, it just donsn't work well everywhere.
And who knows, t
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've already modified almost all of the prairie and forest land in this country to suit our needs. Why the sudden show of concern over one particular type of ecosystem?
Shade is a natural resource ... (Score:2)
Shade is a natural resource that many desert critters use to varying degrees. It is conceivable that this artificial shade may be of use to local critters. It may turn out to be an interesting thing for a biologist to study. Consider the old cars, plains, and ships that have been cleaned and sunk as artificial reefs.
Actually, it does not need to be in the desert (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Of all people, the slashdot crowd, many wil
Re: (Score:2)
I see this a LOT. The fact is, we import more oil from Russia, Algeria, and Nigeria [doe.gov] than we do from Iraq. About 4% of our oil comes from Iraq. We use less than 25% [cia.gov] of the oil that Iraq exports. Percentage-wise, the EU imports nearly twice as much Iraqi oil as the US.
Maybe we should just hand the bill to the EU for protecting their oil supplies... Oh, that's right.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you care about the poor?
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to taxes and fixed fees, the energy charge I'm paying is $0.08275 per kWh (slightly less in winter months for what you use over 400kWh in that month). So $0.10 per kWh cost of generation would not double my bill.
Also, most rates (most rates are commercial or industrial) include seasonal rate changes and some form of
Re: (Score:2)
And here, you're not even talking about doubling or tripling, you're talking about 5 to 8 times the cost (initially) and maybe getting down to slightly worse than tripling.
No, I'm talking about the cost I actually pay for electricity. That includes fuel, distribution, etc. For me that's somewhere around 8-10 cents/kwh.
Re: (Score:2)
You are making the assumption that all power is generated by coal, and that consumers typically pay in the 2-3c/kwh range.
No, I'm looking at the 17 cents and comparing that to the price I pay of typically 8 to 10 cents kw/h. This price includes distribution costs, etc. The fuel costs are much lower. An added "fuel" cost of 17 cents would double or triple the price I pay.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
World's First (Score:2)
That's Jimmy Carter [wikipedia.org], the guy who was thrown up against an oil crisis [wikipedia.org] and decided to do what any rational, thinking person would do: develop alternatives. And not start any wars.
I lived through those days, but I don't remember reading any headlines on the subject of a
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
What a joke! (Score:2, Informative)
I would further dispute the idea that there is a "cost" of global warming that should be recovered by the government by raising taxes on carbon. If that is not a liberal act of theft, I don't know what is. "Hi, your act imbalanc
Re: (Score:2)
Well, perhaps you could run for office to implement your unconventional ideas. I don't know if the "immature sociopath" demographic will be abl
Re: (Score:2)
I am a liberal.
I am not against nuclear power. Specifically, I think we need to heavily invest in many new nuclear power plants using the latest designs (that is, less to no waste leaves the building).
I don't want to steal anyone's money "for adding no value to th
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)
Link or it didn't happen (Score:2, Interesting)
No they don't. Coal produces the most carbon-dioxide of any major fuel. This is elementary chemistry, because coal is mostly carbon.
Alternative Fuels (Score:2)
Analysts say it will also likely rise if monkeys fly out of my butt.
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)
Re: (Score:2)
One could argue that the existing KWh pricing is already tax subsidized via huge DoD budgets to keep foreign oil flowing to the USA. But do you think the US energy industry is willing to start direct taxing of their products? I don't think so.
BTW, my main point was that CSP needs to double their efficiency to 28% to be viable. Currently, electricity is purchased at around $.10/KWh so at a
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with you.. Just saying that there are many secondary and tertiary levels of costs. It's generally just easier to put a heafty tax right on top - then let uncle same bear the b
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This friend of mine graduated with an engineering degree from Harvey Mudd College, and worked at NASA JPL, and spends every waking hour that he doesn't put to his own company, thinking about energy. I'm sure he'd love to talk with you. He's regularly buying reports, poking out nu
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:2)
The same way other infrastructure gets built. What's the problem?
Anyway, if you mean steam instead of stream, then don't. Hot water is good enough for almost all purposes, and if you have steam available, it's better to turn it into electricity and hot water.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, I take it you enjoy paying the oil companies to import oil from the Middle East, etc?
mark "let's not forget that we don't use anywhere *near* as much power
between 02:00 and 06:00 as, say, 09:00-17:00"
Re: (Score:2)
They store the heat. (Score:2)
e.g.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982STIN...8323793C [harvard.edu]
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you have an electric grid. Different generating systems come on and off line in response to demand and different times. Where I live, in Southern California, the big crunch always comes when we have a heat wave. Everybody's cranking up their AC during the day, and the load gets higher than the system can supply. That's a perfect time for photovoltaics to come to the rescue.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, nevermind...
Re: (Score:2)
Run the system backwards!
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