Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

You are the only one talking about solar collectors, so you are talking to yourself on that score. Forget about that. NREL is talking about power plants, as am I.

The solar collector system is part of the whole solar power plant.
It can utilise 50% of its capacity. Or all of its capacity 50% of the time. At best.
Thus, the entire power plant can not utilise 70% of its capacity.
If you can't see that point, or don't agree, no problem.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

The solar collector system is part of the whole solar power plant.
It can utilise 50% of its capacity. Or all of its capacity 50% of the time. At best.
Thus, the entire power plant can not utilise 70% of its capacity.
If you can't see that point, or don't agree, no problem.

What you are hypothesizing is not the point NREL is making. NREL is talking about power plant as a whole and not part of plant. The collector is just part of plant and thus that is a mute point, because NREL is not talking about the collector. NREL is talking about thermal storage and power plant along with all its parts as a whole.

The net capacity factor of a power plant is the ratio of the actual output of a power plant over a period of time and its output if it had operated at full nameplate capacity the entire time.

The collector is not the power plant, it's one component. NREL is referring to the rated output capacity of the power plant, against the expected average annual output. NREL refers to plants and is comparing Solar Thermal with coal. Anyone can appreciated that.

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.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html

You need to move beyond the collector, NREL is not referring to that.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

What you are hypothesizing is not the point NREL is making. NREL is talking about power plant as a whole and not part of plant. The collector is just part of plant and thus that is a mute point, because NREL is not talking about the collector. NREL is talking about thermal storage and power plant along with all its parts as a whole.

No hypothesis.
If any part of the plant operates at less than 70% capacity, the plant as a whole operates at less than 70% capacity.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

No hypothesis.
If any part of the plant operates at less than 70% capacity, the plant as a whole operates at less than 70% capacity.

I suspect NREL probably have more expertise than most of us with this technology. I gather NREL is talking about estimated annual power output of the plant, relative to rated power generating capacity of the plant, in the context of reference to the entire power plant, where they mention thermal storage as being a key factor. Obviously when looking at capacity factor they are considering the power generation unit, but also obviously other components of the whole plant are relevant to them arriving at their estimations and used in the NREL quote to distinguish the two technologies in context of capacity factor of Solar Thermal and coal electricity generation.

NREL have said 70% capacity factor or greater for the plant and I would tend to rely more on their opinion than an outsiders, as NREL are the ones that have done the research and testing and development of this technology. Whatever you are thinking about this, its obviously not what NREL is thinking. I will defer to the opinion of NREL on this matter. There is no mention of collectors in the NREL quote. When NREL talks about plant capacity factor, I suspect it is referring to power generation, however in the context of plant wide comparisons between Solar Thermal and coal. You are on your own page in this matter.

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.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html

I have said it before and I will say it again, I it concerns you that much, go advise NREL that you think they are wrong and report back their response. You will likely find however that the basis of their 70% capacity factor estimation is correct.

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I suspect NREL probably have more expertise than yourself in this technology. I gather NREL is talking about estimated annual power output of the plant, relative to rated power generating capacity of the plant,

I am certain that they do have more expertise on the matter than I.
I am equally certain that the sun doesn't shine 17 hours a day anywhere year round. If any part of the plant can't operate at 70% capacity, then the plant as a whole, can't operate at 70% capacity. It is the product of the elements.
All I am trying to convey is one should take a good look at what is claimed rather than taking it at face value.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Besoeker

I am certain that they do have more expertise on the matter than I.
I am equally certain that the sun doesn't shine 17 hours a day anywhere year round. If any part of the plant can't operate at 70% capacity, then the plant as a whole, can't operate at 70% capacity. It is the product of the elements.

All I am trying to convey is one should take a good look at what is claimed rather than taking it at face value.

All I am trying to convey, is that I have looked at what is claimed by NREL and I agree with NREL. In terms of the quote below from NREL, it does not make comment about hours of sun. In the context of NREL's intended meaning of their quote, when a power plant / station is said to be operating at 70% capacity factor, it is implicit that the power generation unit is being referred to in terms of measurement and in NREL's quoted example, it may be viewed in the broader context of the whole power plant, when seen in the context of plant wide comparisons between Solar Thermal parabolic trough plants and coal power plants. The notion of a power plant, can be viewed as an entire power station encompassing all its parts and can also be viewed in terms of the plants generating unit for capacity factor measurement purposes. The word is commonly used in both cases, most people appreciate that. It's evident NREL is speaking about power plants generation unit in terms of capacity factor measurement, but also speaking about the plant as a whole in the context of plant cross comparison between Solar Thermal and coal, where NREL also mentions thermal storage as a key component in raising capacity factor. It's evident to me that NREL is correct.

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.

http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/market_economic_assess.html

[Besoeker]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

All I am trying to convey, is that I have looked at what is claimed by NREL and I agree with NREL.

OK.
.......

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Caution should always be applied in any assessment of any technology. Solar Two is ancient technology ( 13 years old ) and was primarily for testing / development and evaluation purposes. It's a bit like saying, there was a time when nuclear energy was just a dream and it was. Then there was a breakthrough and the technology evolved more rapidly. The same applies to most technologies. One would hope different sources give different views and then at the end of the day as I have always maintained, people can make up their own mind.

Do you see what I was saying, or have you got the wrong end of the stick in the previous post?

That Solar2 is old and an evaluation project is not the issue.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Do you see what I was saying, or have you got the wrong end of the stick in the previous post?

That Solar2 is old and an evaluation project is not the issue.

Exactly. Solar2 is not even the issue. I couldn't agree more.

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 wonder if they had your attitude in 1916 when they released the Bristol F.2B Fighter for WW1, in view of the Wright Flyer's limitations 13 years earlier ? Times change, limitations are overcome. I'm happy with NREL's position on this.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Exactly. Solar2 is not even the issue. I couldn't agree more.



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

I wonder if they had your attitude in 1916 when they released the Bristol F.2B Fighter for WW1, in view of the Wright Flyer's limitations 13 years earlier ? Times change, limitations are overcome. I'm happy with NREL's position on this.

Thank you, you've just demonstrated that you haven't grasped what I was saying.

Read post 162 again:
Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

You might see that it was the different perspectives that I was illustrating. Something that you claim is obvious, and yet fail to grasp, and only focus on view points that are postive towards solar technology.

Read the post again, and then look at how the latest versions of solar concentrating power are described in your links, and look at how the older versions were described. That's the issue, not specific whether the new version have all the same old problems. Its the fact that your links only show a positive spin on the technology, and not mention the issues that the older versions actually had. Its this omition that is of concern, that looking back at past experiences, we can see how hopes have been dashed in the past, and therefore we should be cautious of new promises.

In addition, one of the reasons that the older versions failed was money. Taxes, and the failure of expected fuel price rises contributed to its demise. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pdfs/sand91_7014.pdf page 11
"....along with a variety of other problems proved to be overwelming for LUZ."

So your fuel price rises are not guaranteed. Like any business there's a risk of course.

Also, page 48 we have "Moreover, there is often a false confidence that the renewable energy technologies will be available if and when they are called upon to play a larger roll in our energy economy"

Why do you think I've been trying to discuss the technology's limitations? While there have been issues that have been ironed out, others haven't, or have only been reduced. It would seem positive, or even productive to discuss what they might be.