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

Nuclear powerplant construction has basically been prohibited by its ridiculous expense for over 30 years.

Because the coal industry has been heavily subsidised by government for the last 100 years - and conversely, the government has been heavily subsidised by coal industry for the same amount of time (this may change if state governments can work out how to charge royalties for solar resources)

Long-term cosy relationships are hard to break up.

Making electricity with solar thermal is EXACTLY the same as using coal. THe only difference is you are using the sun to heat water rather than a coal fire. THere are no weird scary spooky reasons why one should cost more than the other. And remove the subsidisation of coal - solar thermal will win hands down.

 

I assume then you oppose all nuclear power then, since it is the most heavily subsidised of all.

 

Digging up coal or gas provide enormous income to the State by the collection of royalties. The State will use a portion of this royalty income to invest in road, rail and other infrastructure to facilitate the extraction of more coal gas etc. Mutual back scratching makes the world go round. Time to break the link.

 

Well not quite. Coal has a capacity factor of 90% whereas solar has a capacity factor of 18% and that is a huge difference. A rated capacity 1000 MW coal powerplant produces an average of 900 MW 24/7 while a rated capacity 1000 MW solar powerplant averages only 180 MW 24/7. There is a huge difference between the two.

 

False. On a total dollar basis, "clean" coal is tops, both on a total dollar basis and on a dollar-per-Watt basis.

Here's the EIA list on a $/MWh basis:

Code:

Refined Coal  29.81
Solar         24.34
Wind          23.37
Nuclear        1.59
Landfill Gas   1.37
Geothermal     0.92
Biomass        0.89
Hydro          0.67
Coal           0.44
Natural Gas    0.25

 

The linked article was a very interesting read if a person knew what they were referring to and understood what the numbers meant.

For example the statement, "The largest U.S subsidies to fossil fuels are attributed to tax breaks that aid foreign oil production, according to research from the Environmental Law Institute (ELI)" appears to be a negative but one of these "tax breaks" is the fact that royalties that are paid to foreign countries so that the oil companies can obtain crude oil is considered by some to be a tax break but in reality it is a ligitimate expendatures. If the royalty isn't paid there is no oil.

Of course oil has very little to do with electrical production in the United States as only 1% of all electricity produced is attributed to the use of oil. Most oil is refined into motor fuel for transportation purposes.

Coal is the overwhelming fuel for electrical production and produces 91% of all electricity in the United States.

But moving on let's look at the numbers. Fossil fuels including coal, natural gas and petroleum received $72 billion over seven years in subsidies these sources provided about 83% of all US energy needs. Renewable energy, which includes solar, only provided about 7.3 percent of our energy needs received $29 billion but $16.8 went to ethanol production leaving only $12.2 billion for other renewable energy. Even at that $12.2 billion equals over 12% for an energy source that only provides 7.3% of our energy needs.

One could logically conclude that renewable energy sources, excluding ethanol production, are still receiving more in subsidies based upon percentages than other energy sources that are providing a much greater supply of our energy needs. Basically petroleum revenues are subsidizing renewable energy as petroleum is taxed heavily in the United States with the US government making more money off of a gallon of gasoline than the oil companies.

But let's be fair and end all subsidies for all energy sources and let the consumer pay the full cost for energy.

BTW there is no lack of capital for any energy company that can document a potential profit from solar thermal. Investors are not fooled by rhetoric but instead are able to read a prospectus. If a solar thermal corporation can document that they can produce electricity for less money per KWH to the consumer then investors would be standing in line to invest. This has to be documented without any government subsidies and investors know that the government if fickle and no one can count on a government subsidy for a long term investment.

 

No, it's been "prohibited" by a climate of irrational fear.

Royalties charged for resource extraction on government land are "anti-subsidies", because they are extra costs to the extractor. Ditto taxes on energy produced. "Clean" coal does get enormous subsidies, but normal run-of-the-mill coal does not. Solar gets HUGE subsidies, as does wind.

Since coal subsidies amount to $0.44 per MWh and Solar is well over $20.00 per MWH, that's not an argument you can win. Solar thermal is still far more expensive that fossil (or nuclear) even with its huge subsidy advantage. Scroll up a few pages on this thread for examples.

Further, there are no technological breakthroughs that can make solar thermal any cheaper. There are with nuclear.

 

Oh, you can see the future, do you use a crystal ball? I have news for you, most technological breakthroughs were not known until they were discovered lol

 

The numbers mean that green energy is being starved for breakthrough money while coal, oil and nuclear feed at the huge trough like fattened pigs, falsely representing "how profitable" their energies are, while neglecting to mention truckloads of hidden subsidies in the form of agencies charged with their oversight, mining costs, security costs, waste disposal and on and on and on..

Solar thermal doesn't have mining costs, or waste costs. Security is a matter of steam burns and some down time.

 

Well let's put it this way: there haven't been any technological breakthroughs in mirrors in a century, and there aren't likely to be any more any time soon.

 

Of course it does. Mirrors are made of glass, which is made of sand, which is a mined mineral. The reflective surfaces of mirrors are made of aluminum or silver, which are mined minerals. The structures which hold the mirrors are made of steel, which is made of mined minerals. Ditto the piping, the pumping, the turbines ... pretty much everything in the solar-thermal structure is mined.

If your solar thermal plant doesn't have a fence and security guards, it's not secure enough.

 

No - that is completely incorrect.

The 18% you are quoting would refer to solar thermal without storage - which is not what we are discussing here.

The ZCA Plan I referred to specifies solar thermal plants with molten salt storage and biomass burning furnace for backup on the rare occaisions that extra heat may be required to stop the salt crystalising. This system has a capacity factor of over 70% - in excess of the average 60-70% capacity factor that Australia's current coal fired generators run under.




The solar thermal power towers specified in the Plan will be able to operate at 70-75% annual capacity factor, similar to conventional fossil fuel plants.
...
In Australia, even so-called ‘baseload’ coal plants do not operate at such high capacity. In the state of New south Wales, there are 11,730 MW of coal-fired generation, which in 2008 generated 67,500 GWh net electricity. This corresponds to a fleet capacity factor of around 66%, though some individual
power stations are operating even lower, such as the 2,000 MW Liddell at 10,000GWh/yr, which is 57% capacity factor

http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf


the solar thermal with storage can actually be far more efficient than coal burning in that they can respond to varying load more quickly:


Coal power plants have large boiler systems with high thermal inertia, complex coal-pulverising equipment on the front end and pollution control systems on the back, so they are unsuited to being ramped up and down. siemens offers the ssT-700 as part of their range of standard steam turbines, which is specifically adapted to use in solar thermal power plants. They are designed for rapid start-up and power cycling, making them more flexible than a standard coal turbine.
http://media.beyondzeroemissions.org/ZCA2020_Stationary_Energy_Report_v1.pdf

 

Do you want to give a reference for that? It looks like bollocks.

Especially since the IEA recently said:

Renewable energy becoming cost competitive, IEA says
The IEA's report disagreed with claims that renewable energy technologies are only viable through costly subsidies and not able to produce energy reliably to meet demand.

"A portfolio of renewable energy (RE) technologies is becoming cost-competitive in an increasingly broad range of circumstances, in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support," the IEA said, and added that "cost reductions in critical technologies, such as wind and solar, are set to continue."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/23/us-energy-iea-renewables-idUSTRE7AM0OV20111123

 

Ah ......

Near my hometown of Muswellbrook. Want to see what our mining companies are doing to our planet close up, take a helicopter joy ride here.

 

Yes - and pretty much everything in the coal and nuclear structure is mined too. So they are even (well not really - you need a shipload more concrete for nuclear...but I digress)

Now lets talk about the mining, processing and disposal costs of the fuels used for coal or nuclear.

Solar thermal with storage looks pretty good now.

 

Ex Valley boy myself. Go the Knights.

 

Small world, I think I told you my best friend at school was nick named bugalugs.

 

No, it's been "prohibited" by cost.

Since 2008, proposed reactors have been quietly scrapped or suspended in at least nine states — not by safety concerns or hippie sit-ins but by financial realities.

Around the world, governments (led by China, with Russia a distant second) are financing 65 new reactors through more explicit nuclear socialism. But private capital still considers atomic energy radioactive, gravitating instead toward natural gas and renewables, whose costs are dropping fast. Nuclear power is expanding only in places where taxpayers and ratepayers can be compelled to foot the bill.


Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2059603,00.html#ixzz1fGvADUuv

No - that is just nonsense. <<< Mod Edit: Flamebaiting >>>


The coal industry received substantial support of around $1.7 billion in 2005-06 and renewable energy, by comparison a paltry $326 million.
http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=466


Estimates of global fossil fuel subsidies range from $US151 billion to $US235 billion per year (de Moor, 2001, UNEP and IEA, 2002)....As well as subsidies to fossil fuel production and consumption, other economic incentives are often built into the structure of the economy, and particularly the taxation system, which encourage greater consumption of fossil fuels.
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf

Unless you can show us some references - I have won.

 

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this but what is driving those costs? If the reactor cannot be permitted then the project becomes financially impossible to support. Please cite the number of permits issued to build nuclear reactors in the last 30 years in the United State. The answer is zero.

 

A simple question. How much tax revenue did the coal industry generate and how much tax revenue did the "renewable energy" generate? While I oppose all government subsidies I could accept a logical argument that an industry that is generating tax revenues might warrant subsidies even though I would disagree with those subsidies.

 

Quite simply - capital outlay for construction costs.

nuclear plants routinely have such financial problems because it is a hugely capital intensive industry. Delays greatly add to the cost of capital long before any revenue is generated. Construction is extremely complex, compounded by safety regulation.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html#ixzz1fHPkpC9E

Pretty dumb way to boil water isn't it? When the sun will do it far more easily.


It is just too expensive:


Ellen Vancko (Union of Concerned Scientists): "rapidly escalating construction costs could be the industry's biggest challenge."


Peter van Doren and Jerry Taylor (senior fellows, Cato Institute): for nuclear energy to be competitive with existing gas-fired generation, a carbon tax "would have to be $80 a ton" but using the nuclear industry's historical cost over-runs "would require a $150 per ton carbon tax to induce market actors to build nuclear power plants".


Denis Du Bois (Energy Priorities Magazine): "loan guarantees won't completely neutralise the risks of construction delays, cost overruns, lawsuits, credit downgrades and regulatory uncertainty. Guarantees will, however, leave taxpayers on the hook for several billion dollars

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/socie...of-the-world-20100225-p4y3.html#ixzz1fHQ5dgVx

Good thing too. They cost too bloody much. The USA is broke as it is - you don't need more things dragging you down.

 

<<< Mid Edit: Off Topic >>>

unsupported opinions are simply not good enough.

 

The coal industry generates a very substantial amount of tax revenue, but it is fairly insignificant compared to the profits they make:

The federal government has opened a new front of attack against miners in the fight over the proposed resource rent tax, saying multinationals such as BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto pay just 13 per cent tax.
...
"For the overseas companies, the multinationals, (it's) around 13 per cent.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/mini...-tax-gillard-20100523-w3gg.html#ixzz1fHSmp8qm

There is no reason that BHP and Rio should be being subsidised to dig up coal.

 

Yes, there are high capital investment costs predominately related to regulation but if the permit isn't issued the reactor cannot be built regardless of the capital investment. Since no permits have been issued in 30 years it is impossible to build a nuclear reactor, period. If permits were being issued it could be a different story but no investment is financially viable if the permit isn't going to be issued. So these projects have been scrapped due to cost because of the inability to obtain a permit. Name a single US reactor construction project that was canceled after the permit was issued in the last 30 years. There aren't any. It is the US government that makes the projects financially unviable because they won't permit the reactor construction. The investments are nothing but pouring good money after bad without any expectations that the investments will ever result in the actual construction.

By analogy if I were to start making payments on a milling machine to produce parts and was to pay $100/mo before the milling machine is delivered how long can I continue to make those payments if I have no reasonable expectation that I'm ever going receive the milling machine?

That's been pretty much what investors in nuclear energy are faced with. They can invest but haven't had a reasonable expectation that they will ever get what they're paying for. I would not invest in a nuclear powerplant today because I have no expectation that it would ever be built because the government won't premit the project. It isn't the money but the fact that the money never results what the money is intended to purchase.

 

I agree that no subsidies should be given to any enterprise, period. As I noted though a valid argument can be given if that enterprise pays far more in tax revenues than the government provides in subsidies but I would argue against the subsidies. Lower the tax burden if the tax burden is excessive. Subsidizing any industry reflects pure political corruption.

There should be no subsidies for coal, nuclear, or solar power production. Except for reasonable regulation the government should simply get the hell out of the way and let the consumers pay for the costs of the power they require. The market will determine which is the most viable and which one the consumer is willing to support.