Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Thank you.

No problem. As explained the issue was never the calculations, but the misleading way in which they were used, to falsely represent the land use of Solar power against Nuclear power, by not factoring in land use from ancillary industries of nuclear power, such as uranium exploration, mining, processing, power generation, re-processing, storage and waste disposal. The calculations just showing power generation land use are misleading, in the context of what this Blogger was trying to convey and in the terms in which they have been used in this thread. Overall land use is what's most relevant.

As also indicated the figures used by Wobs from this Blogger do not reflect US Department of Energy figures and based on the .27 acres per MW figure are way out by 18 to 36 fold.

Originally Posted by Wobs

The US Department of Energy says the following;

An entire geothermal field uses 1-8 acres per megawatt (MW) versus 5-10 acres per MW for nuclear operations and 19 acres per MW for coal power plants.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geopower_landuse.html

Again people can view all information and make up their own mind.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

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 .

For the reasons I gave you before, it cannot be for the entire plant.
That's the only thing that is clear.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/geopower_landuse.html

Again people can view all information and make up their own mind.

Geothermal: I'd love it if we could use more of it, but don't have much potential around here.

Although I did hear of some peoples in Switzerland who seemed to induce an earthquake when trying to develop it once. Probably an extreme case though, and lessons for all me thinks.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

For the reasons I gave you before, it cannot be for the entire plant.
That's the only thing that is clear.

For reasons that I have explained, seek advice from NREL. Your reasons are not convincing, in the face of the fact that NREL say it is the plant and they make comparisons between Solar Thermal CSP and coal plants. Thus what you think can and cannot be, is somewhat besides the point, because NREL have made it very clear that it is. If you think NREL are wrong, then you best advise them so they can make a correction, if they deem it necessary. However, NREL's language is very clear on this.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Wobs wrote:

then:

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.

Old news, The US government reflects views of industry and other web sites and articles about Solar Thermal CSP's huge potential. The US government also has positive views about other energy technologies. We have been over this before over and over. We know all technologies have negatives. Move on, its boring and repetitive.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

For the reasons I gave you before, it cannot be for the entire plant.
That's the only thing that is clear.

You are welcome to your opinion. NREL disagrees with you though.

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

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Wobs wrote:

then:

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.

Again the sources reflect US government views. Namely NREL.

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

Sandia National Laboratories also reflect these views as do other reputable sources. They mostly reflect similar views about the potential of Solar Thermal CSP. Some more and some less positive in outlook. People can view the information and form their own opinion, as I have always said. It's not a question of debate, the information is there for all to inspect and make up their own mind without being told what's real by someone at the end of a computer.

I have no interest in wasting my time trying to convince someone of my opinion about energy technologies. People can view the information out there and make up their own minds.

[LMagic007]

US Department of Energy

Solar FAQs — Concentrating Solar Power

Q: What are the environmental impacts of concentrating solar power plants (CSP)?

A: Concentrating solar power plants have few environmental impacts; land use is the primary one. Although a CSP plant's "footprint," or the amount of land it occupies, is larger than that of a fossil fuel plant, the two actually use about the same amount of land. This is true because fossil fuel plants require a significant amount of land for exploration, mining, and road-building purposes. And CSP plants have the advantage in that they produce no environmental contaminants or greenhouse gases. However, the fossil fuel component of a hybrid power plant does not have the same benefits.

Solar Energy Technologies Program: Solar FAQs — Concentrating Solar Power

As always, make up your own mind.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You are welcome to your opinion. NREL disagrees with you though.

Do they though?
They don't spell out what the 70% relates to.
It clearly can't be for the solar collectors.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

Do they though?
They don't spell out what the 70% relates to.
It clearly can't be for the solar collectors.

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

As I said before and I will say it again, if you are that uncertain, then instead of wasting time and effort speculating and wondering and posing the question. Go ask NREL, then report back your findings for the benefit of all.

In the mean time, think about these words, then go ask NREL if you are still unclear about their intended meaning.

"parabolic trough plants"