"If we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave desert...

[RandomGuy]

The goal is to generate electricity 500-600 MW. The technology listed is crap.

This technology has offered a rather unique solution to the storage problem that holds renewables back. The energy storage system here is vastly more efficient than any battery technology today, or even any battery technology envisioned in 50 years.

Please tell me exactly how it "is crap".

Be sure to make it good enough to dissuade the experts with $200M+ who are investing in the technology not to do so.

[RandomGuy]

The goal is to generate electricity 500-600 MW.

The test bed plant, Solar Two, was a 20Mw plant by my calculations. (taking 178,000 MWh and dividing by 24 hours and 365 days)

500/20= 25 plants.

Seems fairly feasible, all things considered.

The singular advantage of this type of power generation scheme is that it is more efficient precisely where electricity is in higher demand, i.e. hot, sunny climates with a lot of people running A/C.

It may also spur some electricity intensive processes to be shifted to really sunny places. Were I a producer of aluminum, I would be VERY VERY interested in this technology, as it would allow for MUCH more stable electricity costs that would not roller coaster with fuel costs. Predictability is rather prized in project management and industrial processes.

[boutons_]

Aluminum producers already build smelters near hydro-power (eg, AluSuisse, one of the biggest smelters in the world, hydro-powered is in tiny Switzerland). Tiny Iceland has a large alu smelting presence because of hydro power and geothermal power.

Microsoft puts a datacenter in SA only because the electricity costs are low as provided by the biggest municpal electricity provider in USA, not because of the RiverWalk.

[RandomGuy]

Aluminum producers already build smelters near hydro-power (eg, AluSuisse, one of the biggest smelters in the world, hydro-powered is in tiny Switzerland). Tiny Iceland has a large alu smelting presence because of hydro power and geothermal power.

Microsoft puts a datacenter in SA only because the electricity costs are low as provided by the biggest municpal electricity provider in USA, not because of the RiverWalk.

Exactly. Aluminum producers also locate smelters at the mouths of coal mines, and right next to power plants, sometimes even actually building and operating their own full scale utility-size power plants.

One interesting thing about aluminum producers is that they sign LONG term contracts for electricity to lock in prices. During some periods of high prices due to high usage, they actually shut down operations at their plants and "sell" their allotment back to the electrical producers for a profit, because they can make more money selling their electricity than they can making aluminum.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm tentatively on board with this salt solution after a little research.

A desert is that because of little or no precipitation which means little or no cloud cover. There is a minimum of 1365 watts per meter of solar power before going through our atmosphere. Somewhere around 49% of that radiation makes it through the atmosphere on a perpendicular plane, or a minimum of 570 watts. Now this is as high as 558 watts in the summer and as low as 302 watts in the winter, per meter when you consider the angle of the surface to the sun, at noon. Now if you placed the solar collectors at a la ude of 36 degrees, the solar energy is now about 461 watts per meter at noon during the equinox. As the sun goes from horizon to horizon, the average power is about 290 watts per meter over the 12 hours, or 145 watts per meter for the 24 hour period. The math gets complex to figure summer and winter values, and annual values, because of the obliquity of the earths orbit. It's not simply a ratio of the numbers because the days are also longer in the summer and shorter in the winter.

Now.. What does 145 watts per meter mean over 2 square miles...

2 square miles = 5.18 square km, or 51,800,000 square meters. Times 145 watts = 7,511,000,000 watts! (7.5 giga-watts) Dr. Emmett Brown would be very pleased!

Of course, that at 100% utilization of the surface area and 100% conversion of radiation to heat. When you factor in the inefficiencies and losses, the 500 to 600 megawatts is still a very conservative number. That is only assuming around a 6% efficiency. I wonder if that figure is for worse case winter numbers.

edit... correction...

Changed the 1165 to the proper 1365. The 49% above is not minimum, but average globally. It is about 69% of the sun's full spectrum with no cloud cover and low humidity.

[Wild Cobra]

edit...

I moved my photobucket pics around, so I fixed the links locations.

Exactly. Aluminum producers also locate smelters at the mouths of coal mines, and right next to power plants, sometimes even actually building and operating their own full scale utility-size power plants.

One interesting thing about aluminum producers is that they sign LONG term contracts for electricity to lock in prices. During some periods of high prices due to high usage, they actually shut down operations at their plants and "sell" their allotment back to the electrical producers for a profit, because they can make more money selling their electricity than they can making aluminum.

Right out of High School, in The Dalles, OR, I went to work for an aluminum plant.

The Dalles, OR:



Aluminum Plant:



The Dalles Dam:


Celilo Converter Station:



The three location images are at the same scale. The Celilo Converter Station is where the power originates from for the Pacific DC Intertie to Claifornia.

[Wild Cobra]

I guess I should point out that Northwest Aluminum has 300 cells. At the time I worked there they were changing to a energy reducing ore mix that operated at 4.3 volts rather than 4.7 volts. The current was still 170,000 amps.

4.7 x 296 x 170,000 = 236,504,000 watts. 5,676,096 kilo-watt hours per 24 hours.

4.3 x 296 x 170,000 = 216,376,000 watts. 5,193,024 kilo-watt hours per 24 hours.

A rather nice savings of more than 20 megawatts. 483,072 kilo-watt-hours per day. At a bargain 2 cents (guessing) per KWH, that's a daily calculated savings of $9661.44 for the change in electrolysis technology. Hopefully, cell voltages are reduced farther today than back then.

Now not all 300 cells were on line at a time. Routine maintenance would normally have two per cell line shunted out for rebuilding. The power scheme was set up for two lines of 150 cells.

Each cell would produce 1.5 tons per day. I remember we tapped a crucible every two days per cell, they were about 4 ton crucibles that we filled to about 3 tons. Now 3 tons times 148 cells is a nice daily production of 444 tons of aluminum.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

In fact, I don't even think Nevada should be a state anymore. I was disappointed by the admin's decision to shutter Yucca mtn. They should just turn Vegas into a state and turn the rest of Nevada into a multi-purpose anything goes dumping ground/wind turbine/solar plant for the rest of the nation. What a state.

In regards to yucca mountain...I read an op-ed in the WSJ that was making the case that there is really no such thing as nuclear waste, that all the byproducts can be used to do other things. Some nations in europe apparently do this.

Watching Extra Stout annihilate someone on this forum is always good stuff, but I've never seen him change his opinion on anything, or admit he was wrong about anything ever. It makes me wonder if he's just not taking technical BS one step further in an attempt to always be right.

[Wild Cobra]

In regards to yucca mountain...I read an op-ed in the WSJ that was making the case that there is really no such thing as nuclear waste, that all the byproducts can be used to do other things. Some nations in europe apparently do this.

I would be surprised if we have use for all the byproducts. It is a pretty nasty mix of isotopes of various elements once its expended. Still, I'm rather sure that there are safer storage methods than the older types we have problems with.

[RandomGuy]

In regards to yucca mountain...I read an op-ed in the WSJ that was making the case that there is really no such thing as nuclear waste, that all the byproducts can be used to do other things. Some nations in europe apparently do this.

Watching Extra Stout annihilate someone on this forum is always good stuff, but I've never seen him change his opinion on anything, or admit he was wrong about anything ever. It makes me wonder if he's just not taking technical BS one step further in an attempt to always be right.

I would not think so. Doesn't seem to be ES' MO, IMHO.

[RandomGuy]

I would be surprised if we have use for all the byproducts. It is a pretty nasty mix of isotopes of various elements once its expended. Still, I'm rather sure that there are safer storage methods than the older types we have problems with.

That is my understanding as well.

[LnGrrrR]

ON point.

Let me also add that i knew about a straned polar bear starving while arguing against tax cuts for the rich, while bloggin about No war for oil on Israeltargetscivilians.com, under the screen name Republican_Dereg_did_it!!, All while she the polar bear had to result in eating her own cub yelling at the world "It's my body, It's my Choice", Nuance burger!

Was that some sort of poem without line breaks?

[RandomGuy]

I don't think Cosmic Cowboy is going to get back to the thread.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think Cosmic Cowboy is going to get back to the thread.

Astonishingly enough.. I was right.

[Wild Cobra]

Its my understanding that Solar on homes here would be feasible but CPS wants you to carry outrageous insurance if you have a set up at home that connects to their grid.

Then don't connect to the grid.

In southern US areas, what about connecting an array of solar cells directly to Peltier devices with a thermal switch?

They aren't as efficient as coolant type heat pumps, but in theory, they are maintenance free.

[LnGrrrR]

So, to the energy experts... what will eventually take over as the dominant form of energy, do you think? Just take an educated guess.

Solar? Windpower? Nuclear? Biofuel? Or some other source I haven't thought of?

[Vici]

I remember watching something on PBS about solar. It was maybe a year ago and they had had a major break though in solar power efficiency. The problem was it was not practical because of the cost of materials.
Storing the energy is still a major issue as well.

In Germany they had this cool law which fixed solar costs at a certain level for like 10 years. Farmers were buying the panels with government subsidies, and reselling the energy back for a profit. Apparently the program was extremely successful but it remained to be seen if it met it's goal of being cost effective long term.

As a biologist I'd love to go back to school and take a few engineering courses on this subject.

[RandomGuy]

So, to the energy experts... what will eventually take over as the dominant form of energy, do you think? Just take an educated guess.

Solar? Windpower? Nuclear? Biofuel? Or some other source I haven't thought of?

Good question. Long-term, probably some sort of fusion, and this will be either late in my life or after I am dead.

It will end up being some combination of several forms. Renewables will have to pick up much of the slack in my lifetime, and some form of oil made from algae.

Quite frankly I could see some form of space-based power ending up as donig the trick, as the restrictions on pure space and/or environmental concerns would be non-existant.

The sun puts out more energy in 2 seconds than we have ever used as a species, and building a power array a few hundred miles across would be feasible.

[Vici]

So, to the energy experts... what will eventually take over as the dominant form of energy, do you think? Just take an educated guess.

Solar? Windpower? Nuclear? Biofuel? Or some other source I haven't thought of?

I'm no energy expert but windpower isn't very likely for several reasons. One is that it simply takes up too much space for the output. Maybe if they could put the over the ocean and out of the way. Another is they tend to lower air pressure which can create havoc on the local wildlife (especially bats). This means that environmental groups would be facing a situation where they have to decide between green energy and nature.

Solar is a great option but it's subject to 1. sunlight 2. efficiency 3. efficiency in storing energy. This is likely going to be the option of the future, but not in our lifetime. I've seen NASA models of solar panels in space that would would feed the earth an endless supply of energy. The only problem is extremely obvious, how do you transfer that energy?

Biofuel is not a very good option at all. 1. it's extremely inefficient 2. it kills crop prices around the world, especially in poorer countries. 3. It has nasty emissions. 4. It would be too difficult at this point to change our industry completely to biofuels.

Nuclear seems to be the most viable option at this point. The only negative is what to do with the waste but apparently there are uses. The only major reason not to would be fear of an explosion or meltdown. Truth be told it wouldn't be a big deal. How many people were sick from 3 mile island? I believe the answer is 0. Chernobyl was a different beast but that place was a hole, even to the soviet standard of a hole. Even then the damage would have been minimal if the Soviets had tried.

I personally think solar is the future. Short term it is nuclear.

[coyotes_geek]

Just my $0.02, but I think we're still generations away from seeing something else knock coal out of the top spot. Coal is still cheap and abundant and I don't see that changing any time soon. That's not to say that solar, wind, nuclear and other non-fossil alternatives won't become bigger players in the energy market. They will, especially in the U.S. But coal still has such a huge head start. Not to mention China doesn't give a about non-fossil alternatives and they just continue to crank up dozens of new coal plants each and every year.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.economist.com./search/dis...ry_id=13725855

Intersting article. Solar-hybrid plants with natural gas-boilers for back ups to primary solar plants.

That I see as an interesting and ecoomical approach.

[RandomGuy]

Solar is a great option but it's subject to 1. sunlight 2. efficiency 3. efficiency in storing energy. This is likely going to be the option of the future, but not in our lifetime. I've seen NASA models of solar panels in space that would would feed the earth an endless supply of energy. The only problem is extremely obvious, how do you transfer that energy?

Read the OP. Store energy in the form of molten salt, heated by solar concentration. Pump molten salt through a conventional steam boiler to generate electricty at night.



Spanish thermal solar plant.

[coyotes_geek]

There are some interesting things going on in terms of ideas as to how to harness wave power to generate electricity. I wouldn't be surprised to see that become a player in the energy market within the next couple of decades.

[Wild Cobra]

The best solar panels right now can generate 3 kw. There are better in Europe. The US is so far behind it's ridiculous.

Is that per square meter? Square foot? Square yard?

I'm assuming since science is metric, the general convention would mean 3 kw per square meter. Still, that would be at near 0% humidity and perpendicular to the sun. The solar power varies from 1363 to 1367 watts per meter just outside our atmosphere and about 69% of this makes it to the surface, only about half on average weather conditions. If we use 69% of 1365 watts = 942 watts then 3 watts is still only 3.2% efficient. Granted, that's far more than the approximate 2% of older solar cells.

How much do these cost?

[RandomGuy]

Solar and Wind do not produce enough continuous power to be considered a "base-load" power source. The storage problems encountered with these fluctuating sources provides substantial problems.

Once again, the thermal storage of heat from thermal concentrators pretty much provides the solution to this problem.

There are a few firms who are attracting investment capital to move forward with large-scale projects, so we will see how economical it really is.