Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Windguy]

For base loading you would have to either cross your fingers on having enough solar, wind and tidal power to counteract times where each are producing low amounts of electricity. The other is geothermal, or the ill fated solar tower had a night time electricity production. Otherwise we'll just have to have big batteries or base loading nuclear power stations.

Somethings could be removed from using base loading power, such as hot water systems and electric plug in vehicles, possibly using rechargable batteries in certain items could gain cheaper electricity. Governments or companies would have to sell a several tiered electricity option where you can switch certain powerpoints to use whatever tier is needed. So some items that only require a top up of electricity could just use the cream when it is available, while your TV set can utilise the top tier.

All that happens is your powerbox has five lights. Plenty of electricity is produced, then all of them are lit up and any electricity you use is charged at a low rate. the less the electricity the dearer the electricity is and the more powerpoints stay off. So a deep freezer that is rarely opened could be on a low tier with a self switching tier if it hasn't been on in two days.

Each tier could possibly based upon 85% of electricity output. What we may find is the base loading could then be quite small as most people will only use essential services during that time.

[greenacy]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Why do people think that just because someone has a different opinion to them, they must be the pay of someone?

I don't appreciate the insinuation. I have no problem with differing opinions in fact I thrive on them. It is the fact that he was so adamant about nuclear power being bad and now has totally flipped that I take issue.

I myself don't think nuclear power is bad...dangerous yes...but not bad. I wouldn't want a reactor anywhere near my family. If you choose to call it evil then it is a necessary one unless we can find a alchemical way to turn feces into oil or coal. However, Moore is suggesting that we remove ALL funding for solar energy subsidies calling it ridiculous. He didn't outright denounce wind power but he was pretty harsh on that, too.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

You obviously don't watch TV at night.

What is that supposed to mean ? Please explain the apparent cryptic sarcasm.

[greenacy]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

What is that supposed to mean ? Please explain the apparent cryptic sarcasm.

I think it is a response to your "right conditions" statement. Solar obvious is a burden at night when they cannot be charged but maybe I'm understanding that wrong.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by greenacy

I don't appreciate the insinuation. I have no problem with differing opinions in fact I thrive on them. It is the fact that he was so adamant about nuclear power being bad and now has totally flipped that I take issue.

Here's a clue from the article:
"I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."

I myself don't think nuclear power is bad...dangerous yes...but not bad. I wouldn't want a reactor anywhere near my family. If you choose to call it evil then it is a necessary one unless we can find a alchemical way to turn feces into oil or coal. However, Moore is suggesting that we remove ALL funding for solar energy subsidies calling it ridiculous. He didn't outright denounce wind power but he was pretty harsh on that, too.

I'm sure you appreciate that nuclear power is no more dangerous than other power sources. Indeed, I'd rather live near a nuclear power station than a coal power station.

If you doubt this, I have a friend who'd seen the radioactive measurements around Sellerfield (hardly the best site in the world), and they are just background readings.

Modern plants pose less danger than living in Cornwall for the average Joe.

His issue with wind and solar are that they can only nibble at the edges of our overall energy demand owing to their intermittency. Any more and you have grid instability. But they are also expensive, and there is a limit to how much they will come down by through research and market penetration, despite a lot of optimisitic projections to the contruary. One of the reasons for that is the previous point. Neither can provide a big enough share of the energy demand to bring down the cost of the kit. It will to some extent, but a limited amount.

Not only that, but the improvements have only improved their basic performance, not their ability to provide a more stable supply for continuous use.

Use a mix of that and other renewables are not the answer either, as we either do not have enough of resource to hand, or they are also intermittent. The only continuous supply that can provide baseload capacity on the scale reequired is nuclear. No other source or combination of sources can do that without throughing out huge quantities of emissions into the atmosphere.

The only alternative for the UK is to import from France. And that would involve us using more nuclear energy.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

What is that supposed to mean ? Please explain the apparent cryptic sarcasm.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you are overly optimistic with your figures in order to try to prove that the technology is better than common sense says it is.

To quote ideal conditions is meaningless given that the system must be able to operate in the real world, not some perfect weather condition. 70% is not even remotely realistic, and will be subject to variations in weather conditions, demand variations when the plant is less than ideally suited for it, and maintencance issues (often a big issue with solar plants).

[greenacy]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Here's a clue from the article:
"I could see that my fellow directors, none of whom had any science education, were starting to deal with issues around chemicals and biology and genetics, which they had no formal training in, and they were taking the organization into what I call "pop environmentalism," which uses sensationalism, misinformation, fear tactics, etc., to deal with people on an emotional level rather than an intellectual level."

I'm not debating greenpeace tactics nor their real contribution to the cause.

I agree that nuclear is safer than coal from a radiation stand point. Actually the new figures put nuclear power at almost 1% of the adverse effects from a coal plant. In fact, solar power is more sensible for an individual housing level. Lower the demand for power by making homes more self contained will help.

I am not pushing a pipe dream. I don't think that solar power is a god send that will make more dangerous powers obsolete. In combination with wind, hydro, and better awareness programs for conservation it can make a real difference. Ultimately, nuclear power is needed both in the UK as well as the States and more of it but like anything else that falls into the realm of green initiatives. Why create more damaging plants than you need? If solar and wind can supplement 10% - 15% (these are arbitrary) then we could keep at least a few plants from being need here in the states.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - you are overly optimistic with your figures in order to try to prove that the technology is better than common sense says it is.

To quote ideal conditions is meaningless given that the system must be able to operate in the real world, not some perfect weather condition. 70% is not even remotely realistic, and will be subject to variations in weather conditions, demand variations when the plant is less than ideally suited for it, and maintencance issues (often a big issue with solar plants).

The figures are not mine. They are published in many places. Ideal conditions means applied in an area suited to the technology. Quite obviously, just as with wind, hydro and tidal, solar is ideally placed where it's most efficient. That's common sense. There is nothing to prove and to suggest that commonsense has some definitive value is a very weak argument. It's not even an argument. I suggest you show evidence to the contrary to be more convincing.

Open your eyes and do some research on the topic, see where hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested already. I will prefer to go with what industry is doing independent of my opinion, which is evolving Solar Thermal technology for base load applications.

Solar Thermal CSPs with Molten Salt or Graphite heat storage are on drawing boards in many countries. This is a boom technology that will challenge fossil fuels head on over the next decade, as the costs associated with fossil fuels continue to increase.

It's not what I think, it's what's happening in the real world. CSPs with 24/7 heat storage are happening with 70% capacity factor projections, as indicated, in localities applicable to the technology as is always the case with most technologies.

You don't build a coal plant where there is no coal now do you. The coffee is ready, can't you smell it ? Anyone who researches this topic will find out what this industry is doing around the globe. The popularity of solar thermal technology is growing in a broad spectrum of applications.

Further reading below for those inetested and there are plenty of company web sites you can Google on terms such as CSP, solar thermal storage molten salt graphite etc... as well as several threads in this forum on Solar Thermal technology projects being built.

================================================== ======================================

The PDF summary of Solar Test Two was of particular interest. It looks like a copy of an internal report file which discusses thermal storage efficiency goals of 99% but does not report on efficiency actually achieved. Make of it what you will, but there are some very interesting reads here for those interested in this topic.

Summary of the Solar Two Test and Evaluation Program
SAND2000-0372C Received Feb 24 2000 OSTI

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/...ble/751185.pdf

Solar Two - Solar Power Tower - FAQ


Quote:
Demonstrated a 97% Energy-Storage Efficiency
http://www.azsolarcenter.com/links/faqs/solar.pdf

Quote:
Storage Efficiency was measured at over 97%, also meeting design goals.
The SOLARTRES ( Solar Three ) Project

Quote:
• A larger thermal storage system (15 hours, 647 MWh, 6250 t salts) with
insolated tank immersion heaters.

This high-capacity liquid nitrate-salt storage system is efficient and low-risk, and high-temperature liquid salt at 565ºC in stationary storage drops only 1-2ºC/day.

The cold salt is stored at 45ºC above its melting point (240ºC), providing a substantial margin for design.
http://www.sener.es/EPORTAL_DOCS/GEN.../SOLARTRES.pdf

Conservatively 2ºC / 565ºC per day = .0035 being .35% heat loss per day, which when annualised might effectively approach 99% heat retention per year, based on the fact that the daily heat store is emptied and recharged each day. i.e. the system does not allow for the opportunity for more than say 1% heat loss per day, as the heat energy stored is typically used within 24 hours to generate electricity. Bearing in mind also that electricity generation via steam turbines, is a seperate process to storage, in terms of measuring process efficiency. I understand this SOLARTRES design surpasses the "Solar Two" project design in terms of performance and size.

Solar Power Tower report - suggests 99% storage efficiency - data table 2
http://www.solarpaces.org/CSP_Techno...olar_tower.pdf

OVERVIEW OF RECENT RESULTS OF THE SOLAR TWO TEST AND EVALUATIONS ...

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/...wable/3256.pdf

Solar two Performance Evaluation as a whole;

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy99osti/26642.pdf

Wiki's remarks

Quote:
The Solar Two used this method of energy storage, allowing it to store 1.44 TJ (400,000 kWh) in its 68 m³ storage tank with an annual storage efficiency of about 99 percent.[87]
Solar energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Solar Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www.metaefficient.com/renewab...lten-salt.html

STORAGE OF THERMAL ENERGY - UNESCO - EOLSS
http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%2...3-14-02-00.pdf

ROUND TRIP EFFICIENCY - terms used

Grid energy storage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/kolb.pdf

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewab...est-review.pdf

http://www.eurec.be/component/option...d,4/Itemid,43/

MISC

WIKI
The Solar Project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2000 Parabolic Trough Technology Workshop
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/wk...0.html#storage

ANU Solar Thermal Energy Research
http://engnet.anu.edu.au/DEresearch/...ors/basics.php

http://www.solarpaces.org/Library/do...German_BMU.pdf

[screener]

thanks Magic007, Lots of good stuff that I'll try and work my way into.

Patrick Moore has been trying to sell people on coal fired generation in this area, natural gas gen in others, now nuclear,,,, Have gun, will travel.

[LMagic007]

You're welcome. The SOLARTRES doc is a good read.

http://www.sener.es/EPORTAL_DOCS/GEN.../SOLARTRES.pdf

As mentioned there is lots of info on Solar Thermals evolution on the web.

What is CSP/Solar Thermal Electric? | Solar Southwest Initiative

Sustainable Electricity and Water for Europe, Middle East and ...
http://www.dlr.de/tt/Portaldata/41/R...itebook_02.pdf

Large photovoltaic power plants: average growth by almost 100 % since 2005
Large photovoltaic power plants: average growth by almost 100 % since 2005

Solar power from the desert rather than desert in Germany
Solar power from the desert rather than desert in Germany: renewable energy in a trans-European context

The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC)
Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) Homepage

Solar thermal in Europe: expanding markets, better political framework conditions and state-of-the-art technical solutions
Solar thermal in Europe: expanding markets, better political framework conditions and state-of-the-art technical solutions

A few more links;

Projects

Solel - Leading the World in Solar Thermal Energy | 10 Facts

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/conten...rmal-Power.pdf

TREC Australia | CSP Projects Worldwide

Solar thermal can provide baseload power — QUEENSLAND GREENS

The Base Load Fallacy
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Die...llacy_FS16.pdf

Solar takes off with US power supply deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

http://www.10000friends.org.au/repor.../50/Warren.doc

And the list goes on and on and on ............................................. and on.