New Techonolgy: Solar Thermal. This isn't Your Grandma's Solar Energy!

According to the US Dept. of Energy...lol..

The same outfit lobbied HARD by and packed with BigDirty moles?

The same outfit that leaves out the part of the iceberg below the water when discussing "how affordable nuclear energy is"?

Please! A couple of rows of parabolic mirrors, some fresnel lenses angled over the top, all tracking the sun. A large-surface-are-to-internal-volume tube that would practically flash superheated steam from cold as soon as the sun hit it and all day long after that? All with free fuel? Heck start a recyling program to outfit your rig with old fresnel lenses found in widescreen TVs.

This is all supposed to be MORE expensive than coal or nuclear?


Since with solar thermal the energy is FREE, you could waste as much of it as you want and still produce enough energy to run the country, with plenty to spare.
You're so funny!

focus a flat mirror on your pantsleg and then a parabolic one. Get back to me after 5 seconds on which one has more potential. Well, after you visit the ER for 3rd degree burns that is..

Wasted energy? Hilarous.. Well if you want to be technical, all that "wasted" energy coming from the sun means we should destroy the sun. You know, because it's inefficient.. Meanwhile take the same square feet of flat reflective mirrors in your backyard and shine them on a long metal pipe filled with water....see what happens in about an hour...maybe a small temperature rise. Take that same square footage and focus it in a parabolic reflector and see what happens in 5 minutes. Be sure for the second part of the experiment that your steam tube has a pressure release valve. Otherwise you could get seriously injured.

 

You are all comparing apples with oranges and lemons.

Of course coal is the cheapest. We have everything set up, for centuries we have been refining it. Naturally nuclear is second, again it has been around for decades and again is well established. I am sure that even if solar energy is not massively lower to produce in the future, it will be if the clean up costs after fossil fuels/nuclear fuels have been included.

A very prominent businessman once said that he could see no future in computers. Well in those days the enormous cost to do something that a savant could do seemed prohibitive.

We should be pursuing solar energy fervently.

 

So once again the DOE costs are not disputed by any study and all that is offered is unsupported rhetoric based upon an opinion that has been repeatedly proven to be wrong.

 

Solar energy can produce virtually clean energy (except for the pollution related to the production of the system components). No one disagrees with this fact. The problem is that it costs 2-3 times more for the consumer. It is the cost that makes solar power production prohibitive for most consumers and those costs cannot be significantly reduced. As has been noted in the past solar thermal technology has basically existed for over 100 years and it was cost prohibitive 100 years ago and remains cost prohibitive today. That has not changed.

 

Silhouette:

Have you read the Zero Carbon Australia plan?


You can download it here:
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

It is a fully costed plan of how Australia can be completely solar/wind powered in a decade. It show quite clearly that Shiva and his ilk are talking absolute crap.

Solar thermal is viable. Nuclear is old, outdated, polluting, expensive technology.

 

An interesting read but so full of holes as to not be a viable solution. For example the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia is mentioned. We must assume that Australia will import the aluminum and steel it requires just so they can say they're not polluting. That doesn't eliminate the pollution but instead merely moves it somewhere else and in many cases makes it worse. It is also highly subsidized by the government which means the costs are hidden from the consumer but they still have to pay those costs through higher taxation.

The undisputed fact remains that solar electrical production costs 2-3 times more than energy produced by coal or nuclear powerplants. That is how much it costs and those costs cannot be reduced because of the very low capacity factor of 18%. The sun only shines for a few hours a day and that is the only time that solar can collect energy. Wind is more viable because the wind blows for more hours than the sun shines but it is fickle and sometimes the wind simply doesn't blow. When that happens, if it's at night, then there is no power being produced.

 

And these holes are!?!?

WTF?!?!? Where is this mentioned?

Please don't tell lies.

Please quote for where the ZCA Plan mentions "the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia "

Give us the page number please.

No - we must assume nothing.

I think you are making things up

No - that is not an undisputed fact.

That is propaganda that does not cost externalities.

Free energy

Geographic diversity - the wind is always blowing somewhere

More free energy

Oh please..are you serious?!?!?

Heat can be stored. It is not rocket science.

 

From the same link on the front page:

http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

Steel and iron cannot be processed without using coal as they consume a tremendous amount of heat energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_process

Aluminum requires massive amounts of electrical power which cannot be economically produces using solar or wind energy. If we look at alumimum production in the United States it's almost always based upon hydro-electric power and even then the cost is relatively high. I'm not familiar with the river systems in Australia but if Australia is to produce low cost aluminum then it depends on hydro-electric and not wind or solar energy.

 

The DOE study provides the actual costs of production so solar energy will cost the consumer 2-3 times the cost of coal or nuclear power either with higher electrical bills or higher taxes.

Nothing is free and even the operation and maintenance costs of solar are greater than for coal of nuclear power production because it requires a total capacity of four times as much because of the capacity factor of only 18%.

Transmission costs over long distances are a huge expense and greatly reduce the total amount of energy to the consumer. Nothing is free.

Yes and that is reflected by the capacity factor of only 18%. If we collect heat for 6 hours and then have to use it for 24 hours the total capacity (amount of maximum energy collected) is divided by four and would result in a capacity factor of 25%. There is also a resultant heat (energy) loss related to storing energy and solar energy collection varies with season and weather conditions which is why solar thermal only has a capacity factor of 18%.

The capacity factor of coal and nuclear is over 90%.

 

Shiva, please stop trying to argue that the free massive energy harvested from solar concentrators in solar thermal energy, a very simple & cheap system to set up relative to either coal or nuclear, is "more expensive" than nuclear or carbon.

Just stop it. Small children wouldn't believe you. Retarded chimps can see the obvious right before their eyes. Free is cheaper than costly. Solar thermal is cheaper than the mining alone of the expensive and dangerous fuel used in coal and nuclear...let alone the collosal containment systems necessary to protect public health, waste, pollution and on and on and on.

When all three types of steam producing plants are set side by side, solar thermal is

1. The cheapest to construct

2. The quickest to construct

3. The most friendly to human and environmental health

4. The only one whose energy isn't mined, is free and will never run out or stop.

Just stop and save your credibility before it is totally gone Shiva. Investors know. We know. We're not dumb. We can see the obvious and we know how to crunch numbers.. Free energy is free energy. And when it comes during peak use hours...well...

 

Solar thermal costs are astronomical, and there is no way to bring those costs down.

Nuclear is neither old nor outdated; LFTRs produce zero long-term waste; and nuclear is far cheaper than solar, and about as cheap as wind, while being far more reliable.

 

Do you ever read what you write, does it make sense to you .. if it does I am happy for you because it doesn't to me. The quote you quoted ...

does not mention buying anything overseas. It mentions finding alternatives to...if I was going to use LPG gas as an alternative to petrol, does that mean I am going to buy my petrol overseas, how stupid.

From my taking, where we need steel and aluminium we will use steel and aluminium, where we can find an alternative, we will use it.

It's common sense really, and only those with shares in steel and aluminium need to worry. Then again, those companies should be looking at viable ALTERNATIVES too. I don't mean buying from overseas.

 

So, just to recap what Poor Debator [apt name by the way] is asserting...

This design, that utlizes free, benign solar energy to create steam, concentrates it with ordinary parabolic mirrors, layered over with fresnel lenses, commonly found in most television sets...



...is somehow "more expensive" than this to create steam to run the same tubines as solar thermal.....







Right.

 

Right. Not only has it been documented that it's more expensive but the reasons why it's more expensive have also been documented.

 

errr...no - you wrote:

The BZE plan says nothing about " the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia"

That is simply a lie you have fabricated. Please apologise to the forum.

FWIW - the Industrial Process plan has yet to be released - but you can rest assured - it wont call for " the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia"

So you can stop spreading this (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Steel cannot be produced economically without using carbon based fuel such as coal. The article specifically addressed the elimination of carbon from the process ergo steel cannot be economically produced in Australia. I will state that aluminum can be produced because it predominately uses electricity but it wouldn't be economically feasible to use solar or wind powered electrical production to provide the electricity due to the cost. As noted aluminum production predomonately relies on hydro-electric generation because the cost of even coal fired electrical generation tends to make it cost prohibitive in today's markets.

 

Really?

How is it operating in Spain as we speak?
http://www.torresolenergy.com/TORRESOL/gemasolar-plant/en

Why is the world's largest solarthermal plant being built in Nevada as we speak? http://www.tonopahsolar.com/

Why is the over 40 billion $USD being invested on projects around the word as we speak?
http://www.climatespectator.com.au/...mal-projects-underpin-clean-energy-investment



No - you are 100% wrong.

Solar thermal costs are not "astronomical". After all - it is just mirrors heating salt - driving EXACTLY the same turbines that coal powered stations use. - how is that difficult or expensive?

And economies of scale WILL drive prices lower and lower.


Today solar thermal is one of the most cost effective sources of renewable energy. People in the leading solar thermal countries benefit from higher solar value for money because reaching a critical mass of the market allows for high quality at better prices.
The potentials for further economies of scale in the areas of marketing, distribution, design and installation of the systems are substantial. In the collector manufacturing process, automation for large volumes is still in its beginnings.
http://www.erec.org/renewable-energy/solar-thermal.html

Quite simply - you could not be more wrong if you tried.

First - I should have said uranium based nuclear energy is old and outdated.

Thorium fuel is a different ballgame.

But still - where is the thorium power today? Solar thermal is up and running. Simple technology with free fuel that will only get cheaper. Why discourage it?

 

Yes - steel production does require coking coal.

But you wrote that the BZE plan called for
the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia"

That is simply a lie that you made up. You should acknowledge that .

Huh?!?

What article?

I think you are making things up again

The BZE Industrial Process plan is not to be released until 2013. And I very strongly doubt that it will be calling for the elimination of steel and aluminum production in Australia"

You really need to stop making things up if you want to be taken seriously

Which is complete bollocks. Electricity is electricity.

Wind and PV are already cheaper than coal in many parts of Australia. With sufficiient investment - solar thermal will be very quickly too.

Another load of complete bollocks? Why don't you try researching before posting?!?! This is unbelievable.


Most of Australia's aluminium is made in Gladstone, QLD.
http://sales.riotintoaluminium.com/freedom.aspx?pid=224

No hydro for a million miles. It is flat, dry and hot. Sure - there is a heap of high quality cheap coal and gas nearby - but it is also one of the most perfect places on the planet for solar thermal

 

As I've also noted there are places where solar thermal and wind electrical generation can be cost effective. This generally relates to remote locations where the costs of tranmission over long distances to small communities makes it impractical from a cost standpoint. Australia has many such locations but the consumer still pays a high price for that power either through direct billing or by tax subsidies.

I'm actually looking at a property in Belize to develop that's on a lagoon without any power to the property and, if I purchase it, will install solar (PV) and wind electrical generators with batteries for back-up. It will be expensive but it will be cheaper than running power to the property. As a former project manager for a solar power company I'm very much aware of the advantages and costs related to solar electrical power generation and when it is and is not practical to use it.

Some get the wrong impression that I oppose solar thermal but that is not the case. I highly endorse it when it's cost effective. It just isn't cost effective for large population centers where "clean coal" or new state of the art nuclear power production can produce the same energy for about 1/3rd of the cost. Personally I prefer the latest state of the art nuclear power plants as they don't pollute the atmosphere, are very safe and have very little nuclear waste that can be safely stored or recycled.

 

No - again you are singing from old dogma sheets

Your continent and my continent (along with the African and Asian continents) have vast solar resources. HVDC transmission allows transmisssion over long distances to be very practical. Not for remote small communities due to the cost of substations - but remote small communities do not usually have huge industrial demands - hence they can generate their own power with small scale PV and back-up generators.

Australians already pay a huge price subsidising the coal industry
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf

I'm not sure you do understand solar electrical power generation and when it is and is not practical to use it. Belieze being in the wet tropics would be a less than optimal place for solar energy. As mentioned earlier however - Gladstone QLD in the dry tropics and the USA's vast resources of arid subtropical landscape - that is where solar works.

I would likewise like to see "the latest state of the art nuclear power plants as they don't pollute the atmosphere, are very safe and have very little nuclear waste that can be safely stored or recycled."

But where are they? They don't exist.

Solar thermal is happening now. Off the shelf. It EXISTS.

 

HVDC does provide more electrical power transfer than HVAC lines but it does have a reliability problem currently. The systems fail about 2% of the time and about 1/3rd of those failures are unexpected system failures. I'm sure that these problems will be corrected in the future but it can be highly expensive for commerce to have electrical failures as we've seen in the US.

I oppose all government subsidies as the consumer should be paying the full costs.

Having lived in tropical locations they do have rain but generally it is for a very short period of time during the day. For example in Belize the rain may come for an hour and then the skies clear and it is a beautiful day. Of course they also have trade winds in the tropics which is why I would install both PV and wind generators. Most of the rain in Belize is also limited to the mountains and not along the coast where the lagoon I'm looking at is located.

Nuclear powerplant construction has basically been prohibited by the US government for over 30 years.

Solar thermal power generation, including the use of Fresnel lens, has existed for over 100 years. If it was cost effective we would already have our power being produced by it today. The fact is that it is not cost effective in most large scale applications and that is evident because of the lack of solar thermal power plants that have never been blocked by the US government.

Please explain why 100 year old "off the shelf" technology is not being used if it's cost effective.

 

For the same reason geothermal "isn't cost effective". Steam used to run the place before refined gas showed up on the scene. After 40 years of cars, BigOil had the monopoly on transportation. BigOil's little steamy sisters solar thermal and geothermal were subsequently thrown in the dungeon. Oh, the nuclear plants are allowed to use steam to run turbines. That's because handling uranium and radiation is tricky, dangerous, and a technology not suited for widespread use. Ergo it can be centralized, monopolized. Same with coal. Mining, refining, scrubbing, or with oil, importing, refining. [Ask yourself why there are so few refineries: MONOPOLY].

Steam from the sun is a nightmare for those heavily invested in BigDirty energy monopolies. It's a reliable, cheap and powerful, unending source of superheated steam that can run the same turbines nuclear, oil and coal can...at a thumbnail of the operating costs. After all, like I said, solar thermal fuel is free. And "worst" of all, from a racketeer's standpoint, it can even be easily setup in one's backyard to generate power. It's that easy and safe. *$hudder!*

So the suppression of the technology, once the BigDirty monopolies were in place, is the reason solar thermal hasn't been used. Not because it isn't effective.

But you know that don't you? Yes, you do..

Correct Bugalugs!

So...you used to head up a solar outfit eh Shiva? I have heard that many green companies have problems with moles from BigDirty. If they don't fail on their own, maybe just a little nudge here and there will get the job done from the inside. My favorite stunt thusfar is Chevron's grouping up with Brightsource to shine hundreds of redundant flat mirrors at a huge volume-to-surface-area ration tank elevated way the hell up away from the mirrors. That shameful ruse is unbelievable. Engineers knew before they built that how inefficient it was compared to a tube with parabolic solar concentrators: ie: small volume of fluid-compared-to-surface-area, located close to unbelievably hot focused sun rays. Your hint that they knew this are all the mirrors in the big circle facing north! But they had to pack in as many flat-mirrors as possible so they could say "look, with the surface area of solar rays shining down, we just can't justify the small MW of power for the big cost". This is the "costliness" Shiva keeps chanting about. He's talking about the central-tower-flat-redundant-mirror arrays that yes, are too expensive and yes, don't work. They were engineered to fail so "mission accomplished"...until the pipe-type solar thermal came along. Flat reflectors won't work. Parabolic focusers will. They get so hot that they can cut through steel. That's the engineering feat: to get them close enough to the fluid pipe without cutting it in half!

 

That's why Shiva doesn't want to get into particulars when he makes the claim that "solar thermal is too expensive". He doesn't want to mention the Brightsource engineered-flubs so I'll call out the details of why they "failed". They were supposed to fail.

Shiva doesn't want me talking about the merits of solar focusers vs flat useless mirrors. He doesn't want me discussing things like big tanks with huge volume-to surface-area ratios vs tubes with the reverse scenario, allowing quicker more efficient heating of the smaller, elongated internal volume. No, he just wants to chant over and over "solar thermal is more expensive" and hope the topic gets left at that. Otherwise he would be posting links and quotes.

The last thing BigDirty wants is for people to discover they are involved in green energy, sabotaging it before it even draws its first real breath..

 

This is absolute BS. There has never been any federal regulations that prevented any ulitilty company from using either solar thermal or geothermal electrical generation. There have been federal regulations that prevented the building of a nuclear powerplant for the last 30 years. Even building a coal fired powerplant today is extremely hard because of regulatory restrictions.

Of note the reason why there aren't more oil refineries is regulations that prevent their construction. These regulations are predominately at the State level where the NIMBY (not in my backyard) principles apply. Everyone want more refineries, including the oil companies, but the economical towns and cities where they could have crude oil delivered typically don't want them.

There are no regulations that I'm aware of that would prevent any utility from building a solar thermal powerplant.

Please explain how an industry which has never hampered by regulatory restrictions basically doesn't exist other than it's not cost effective.

 

When "perverse incentives" are part of federal policy, there don't need to be any regulations prohibiting solar thermal. BigDirty can starve them out...

The counter is always "well, why don't you just court investors and build a solar thermal plant". Hard to do when the big money keeps pumping out false-engineering projects like the ones Brightsource produces, or trumping up electric cars catching on fire [not mentioning that gas cars do so ten times as much]...tweaking the media it owns to scare consumers away from things like solar thermal.

Very clever wording Shiva. Do you work weekends and holidays too?