Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

An excert from the Solar Fraud (a book rather damning and one sided, but no more biased than your refs):


Howard Hayden estimates Solar Two would need to take up 127 square miles to produce as much energy as a 1000-MWe power plant does in one year. (Solar Fraud, p. 187).

“Solar Two looks good on paper, and it is expected to provide steady baseload electricity as well as late afternoon peaking capacity, but the future of all the central solar generators is in doubt. They are expensive to build, their very scale escalates financial risks -- as with nuclear power -- and their massive height (in excess of 200 meters) may attract opposition”. Christopher Flavin and Nicholas Lenssen, Power Surge, p. 143.

“Solar Two took up quite a bit of land for the power being generated. There were 1,900 mirrored panels, each one over 100 square yards, and the results were only one megawatt per 17 acres of capacity. A natural gas facility taking up that much space would generate 150 times as much power. Robert Bradley. Why Renewable Energy is not cheap and not green. NCPA.”

“Central-station solar requires between five and 17 acres per megawatt, and more than 1,000 times the material of a gas-fired power plant. A 1,000 MW solar plant needs 35,000 tons of aluminum, 2 million tons of concrete, 7,500 tons of copper, 600,000 tons of steel, 75,000 tons of glass, 1,500 tons of chromium and titanium, and other materials. The energy that goes into the construction of a solar thermal-electric plant is, in fact, so large that it raises serious questions of whether the energy will ever be paid back. (Petr Beckmann. 1979. Why "Soft" Technology Will Not Be America's Energy Salvation (Golem Press), p. 6).”

But take heart:
“Despite all of my hazing of solar power, if there is ever a Manhattan energy project, solar and wind are the best and only long-range solutions. If energy, time, and money are misguidedly spent on coal liquefaction, oil/tar sands, methane hydrates, and other finite fossil fuel resources, which also increase global warming, not only do we risk polluting the air, water, and ground to the point of potential mass extinctions, we are only delaying the inevitable energy contraction, and even more people will be born in the meantime to fall off an even higher cliff.”


What you need to look into is recent history.
There have been many false dawns for this technology, with promises from the people behind it, and people in Government putting money behind it, and then finding they don't deliver on the promises.

I sincearly hope this time its for real, but we all most not hold our breathes, as we've seen this fall down before.

Another misleading argument, as Solar Two is outdated technology and is 13 years old. Thus it's unreasonable to use Solar Two as a comparison. The technology has advanced significantly since then. You need to make comparisons with the latest systems being installed and the projected evolution of the technology, which is suggesting by 2020 less than 10c per kW. This implies some improvement in the technology which we know has occurred over that 13 years. NREL and other bodies reflect far higher expectations of the technology today.

Natural gas and other fossil fuels are a mute point in this analysis, as we need clean energy and fossil fuels are getting more expensive and predicted to become even more expensive in future, whilst Solar Thermal is forecast to fall in price over time.

I have often maintained renewable energies as long term solutions and have often talked about limited supply versus growing demand for fossil fuels, with the backdrop of a less productive land, due to environmental impacts creating a multi whammy effect on long term global growth.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

One can only hope. I will believe it when I see it.

Its what we do in industry around here. I've worked with permits for heavy industry.

Yes I didn't say that Yucca was not suitable, I just raised the issue as background. I have never said nuclear energy was not viable, yet you present your case as if I had. The real issue of land use is that the acerage you sited is the immediate storage area. Far greater tracts land must be taken out of public use as a result of it though.

If you didn't think Yucca was unsuitable why would you imply that it was suceptable to geological problems? Do you want me to bring up what you said?

Again though regardless of this periphery argument, US government figures say 5 to 10 acres of land per megawat of nuclear power blowing your quoted blogger figures out of the water. I don't object to US goverment saying Yucca is stable, but again it's early days for that. Seeing is believing, though as mentioned the real issue pertaining to Mr Blogger is one of land use and his figures look to be way out.

Another issue which escapes you is that nuclear plants are getting more efficient, more powerful, with no real expansion in acreage. So your numbers are probably out anyway, whereas if you want to increase the power of a solar, you are forced to increase its area.

Numbers for both vary given what one wants to show, but given your historical biase, you can hardly blame someone for a similar biase.

The difference is that I'm not against CSP, but I'd rather hear from different sides of the argument than just listen to some solar industry salesman (ie. any website that blindly promotes it).

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Another misleading argument, as Solar Two is outdated technology and is 13 years old. Thus it's unreasonable to use Solar Two as a comparison. The technology has advanced significantly since then. You need to make comparisons with the latest systems being installed and the projected evolution of the technology, which is suggesting by 2020 less than 10c per kW. This implies some improvement in the technology which we know has occurred over that 13 years. NREL and other bodies reflect far higher expectations of the technology today.

I thought you might take that approach.
The issue here are the promises that were made behind the project. It didn't deliver what it claimed, which is worrying.

Natural gas and other fossil fuels are a mute point in this analysis, as we need clean energy and fossil fuels are getting more expensive and predicted to become even more expensive in future, whilst Solar Thermal is forecast to fall in price over time.

I have often maintained renewable energies as long term solutions and have often talked about limited supply versus growing demand for fossil fuels, with the backdrop of a less productive land, due to environmental impacts creating a multi whammy effect on long term global growth.

Just because fossil fuels are forcast to rise, and solar thermal predicted to fall, does not mean that the two will bring solar thermal into the maintream and affordable. Price drops can only go so far with developing these systems, and much of the price is based upon the fact that the manufacture of the pieces rely upon
fossil fuels.

Therefore, we can only have solar technology as long as we can have affordable fossil fuels (etc).

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I thought you might take that approach.
The issue here are the promises that were made behind the project. It didn't deliver what it claimed, which is worrying.


Just because fossil fuels are forcast to rise, and solar thermal predicted to fall, does not mean that the two will bring solar thermal into the maintream and affordable. Price drops can only go so far with developing these systems, and much of the price is based upon the fact that the manufacture of the pieces rely upon
fossil fuels.

Therefore, we can only have solar technology as long as we can have affordable fossil fuels (etc).

That's very inward looking. Other energy technologies didn't just happen. Many failures had to occur before success was achieved.

The industry projections are less than 10c per kWh by 2020 for Solar Thermal. If fossil fuels are rising then all the more reason for us to accelerate the development of Solar Thermal energy sooner rather than later.

Nonsensical. Solar energy is expected to become more competitive with fossil fuels over the next 20 years. There will be a price cross over point where business powered by solar can become more cost competitive. This means companies building Solar Thermal energy systems that are powered by larger amounts of solar Thermal energy, can become even more competitive than fossil fuel plants well into the future.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you didn't think Yucca was unsuitable why would you imply that it was suceptable to geological problems? Do you want me to bring up what you said?

To provide some background to it's history. There still exist legitimate concerns by some groups. I'm not concerned about it, but others are and then others aren't. It highlights more than one side of the argument. It also highlights your own bias.

Interestingly though below is a thread from your bloggers site on Yucca Mountain;

Slow Train to Yucca Mountain

Slow Train to Yucca Mountain

Also an artilce on nuclear being green

Nuclear power could lose green tag, research shows

Nuclear power could lose green tag, research shows - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

But anyway best to stay on topic in terms of the land comparison between solar and nuclear. Its clear nuclear uses far more land that we might imagine.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Another issue which escapes you is that nuclear plants are getting more efficient, more powerful, with no real expansion in acreage. So your numbers are probably out anyway, whereas if you want to increase the power of a solar, you are forced to increase its area.

My figures are US government figures. Your figures are bloggers figures. When they are updated I will report them again.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Numbers for both vary given what one wants to show, but given your historical biase, you can hardly blame someone for a similar biase.

As said, the numbers are US government figures. I have already explained that to make any sensible comparison between solar and nuclear land use you need to show the entire land use. The bloggers question was general not specific which implied all aspects of solar and nuclear land use. You cant hide from that by omitting the facts.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The difference is that I'm not against CSP, but I'd rather hear from different sides of the argument than just listen to some solar industry salesman (i.e.. any website that blindly promotes it).

Wake up, this is a solar energy forum. You can't be critical of someone only mentioning solar energy in this forum. That's its core subject. If you want to discuss both sides and hear more about nuclear continually go to the general forum and if you want to promote nuclear energy persistently, do it in the nuclear energy forum. Kindly excuse me though for posting information about solar energy, in the solar energy forum.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If you didn't think Yucca was unsuitable why would you imply that it was suceptable to geological problems? Do you want me to bring up what you said?

Originally Posted by Wobs

Another issue which escapes you is that nuclear plants are getting more efficient, more powerful, with no real expansion in acreage. So your numbers are probably out anyway, whereas if you want to increase the power of a solar, you are forced to increase its area.

Numbers for both vary given what one wants to show, but given your historical bias, you can hardly blame someone for a similar bias.

The difference is that I'm not against CSP, but I'd rather hear from different sides of the argument than just listen to some solar industry salesman (i.e.. any website that blindly promotes it).

I'm aware of technical developments in all power generation industries. So no it does not escape me. So called "my numbers" are US government Department of Energy numbers on nuclear power land usage. Your numbers are bloggers numbers and as I have already clearly demonstrated, they are misleading.


There is no bias on my part. I simply accept the benefits of Solar Thermal outweigh the negatives in the current modern environmental climate. The US Government promotes it, many web sites simply report it in terms of government and industry information.


I report on solar energy in the appropriate Solar Energy forum often not comparing it with any other power generation technology. The same applies to all forums. Cross comparison of technologies does occur but not as frequently as single topic stories in their appropriate respective forums. In this particular thread, nuclear was a core part of the comparison against solar in terms of land use. That's OK ! Perfectly fine ! But energy technology cross comparisons are less the norm, than single topics pertaining to the forum in question. Unless of course the forum is the General Energy Discussion forum. There is nothing wrong with that. This whole argument of perceived bias is in itself bias and an unnecessary distraction and waste of time.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

This guy really doesn’t like solar thermal technology:
Solar
“Epilogue
It looks like the most viable of the solar systems is the parabolic mirror central solar plants (SEGS). Photovoltaic systems on the roof tops or in a field appear to be too expensive and under performing. The SolarTower Power concept turned out to be a disaster.
Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico, intends to make New Mexico the US leader in renewable energy and clean technologies. He reported that New Mexico will deploy many solar-electric plants as well as wind turbines. He did say what kind of solar systems. I hope they research the subject and forgo the tower power concept. We will never hear about the solar systems perform in New Mexico after they have been operated awhile. The performance of these units will be well below that expected. Chances are they will never be built in the first place when they get an estimate of the capital cost. Environmentalists never seem to be realistic about renewable systems cost and performance.”

Each to their own I guess.

Yes it is evident that the "Solar Tower" Solar thermal updraft tower concept has been overlooked, by government and industry, due to more promising results with other solar technologies, such as solar PV and solar thermal CSP. The problem also is that the issue is beyond simplistic cost models traditionally applied toward fossil fuels. That's why a carbon tax / cap is in our future. The traditional energy production cost model is outdated and inaccurate. New energy cost models must include environmental cost projections to be more reliable for longer term projections.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You would have to speak to NREL, Sandia or others directly on that aspect, to get their view on what they mean more specifically. I won't speculate beyond that. 70% capacity factor means, 70% capacity factor....

That's fine.
But if you don't know what it is 70% of, it is a bit of a nebulous figure.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Indeed, I accept that, ( nobody is contending the specific calculations ).

Thank you.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

That's fine.
But if you don't know what it is 70% of, it is a bit of a nebulous figure.

future parabolic trough plants could yield capacity factors greater than 70%

I think I made it very clear. It's not nebulous at all. If you can't interpret the NREL quote I can't help you. Speculating beyond what the NREL quote says is what's nebulous. The NREL quote is very clear. The quote talks about "Plants" as in entire plants and compares them to coal plants. If it was meant to be obscure in meaning or more specific, they would likely have indicated that. It's very clear what NREL are saying. If you are unsure and want more specific detail though, communicate with them directly, rather than speculate about uncertainties you might hold.

As the cost of thermal storage is reduced, future parabolic trough plants could yield capacity factors greater than 70%, competing directly with future baseload combined cycle plants or coal plants.

NREL: TroughNet - Parabolic Trough Power Plant Market, Economic Assessment and Deployment

I'm sure you know what is meant by the use of the term "capacity factor". Think of it in terms of any power station. It has the same meaning unless explicitly indicated to mean something other that what one might reasonably and simply expect. If you are still not clear, again I suggest you communicate with NREL directly to satisfy yourself.

[Wobs]

Wobs wrote:

The difference is that I'm not against CSP, but I'd rather hear from different sides of the argument than just listen to some solar industry salesman (i.e.. any website that blindly promotes it).

then:

Originally Posted by LMagic007

[Wake up, this is a solar energy forum. You can't be critical of someone only mentioning solar energy in this forum. That's its core subject. If you want to discuss both sides and hear more about nuclear continually go to the general forum and if you want to promote nuclear energy persistently, do it in the nuclear energy forum. Kindly excuse me though for posting information about solar energy, in the solar energy forum.

Please read my post again. I hope you'll see that I'm talking about solar energy here. Its the sources that you've referenced regarding solar energy that I've repeatedly been critical of. Your views are based upon a whole list of websites that promote solar energy. These sites have an interest in showing only the good sides of it.

I've been trying discuss issues that will result in limitations (not including nuclear), and you've been totally unreceptive to it. Anytime I do, you only acknowledge that all technologies will have limitations, which I don't find too helpful. I was hoping you might express some opinions on technical issues that may limit its roll out, such as environmental impacts, intermittency, economic factors, location etc. Any problems with that? Even if its just opinion.

This isn't about nuclear energy, although I'd like to point out that you put up a number of links regarding nuclear, and agreed that technologies are not in isolation. I'm not objecting to them BTW, as they they did provide some interesting points.