Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Oils at $130 a barrel today. Some say we are past peak oil at affordable cost. We don't even have a carbon tax yet and look at oil. Clean coal will cost more. All fossils are being squeezed and the US appears in near recession.

We clearly are not at peak oil yet.

Solar Thermal power plants can have as much backup as they deem optimal. Plants can vary the size of collector array, concentrator, storage and generator. It just costs more money. I remember reading that tests around 10 years ago, found that around the 14 hour storage was optimal in terms of kWh cost before cost started to be less competitive. This however was back in days when oil was a third the price of today and energy was cheaper per kWh etc.. back then. The whole cost dynamics have changed significantly since then.

Plans for 13hr backup seem more common these days, but is in optimal conditions of course.

Also they don't have to operate at 6 kWh per sqm sites. If they accept 5 kWh sites it simply means it costs more to operate. Almost 30% of the USA gets 5 kWh at least. That's allot of square miles of land when you only need 92 square miles of 6 kWh sites, equating to about 110 square miles of 5 kWh sites, at a 16.6% reduction in output. Naturally dispersed as smaller sites. If power prices are rising yearly 5% or higher, that the 5 kWh cost overhead will be leveled in the market place within about 3 years.

The plants will function optimally on cost by being supplemented with fossil fuel backup, even though technically they could function near all year around, the cost would be unreasonably prohibitive in the winter months.

There are huge areas that are unsuitable in the US. As I've shown, California only has the potential of about 1GW of capacity, as large unused flat areas are needed that are not protected.

Give it 5 years and see where the cards fall. If they fall anything like what's on the visible horizon, it's almost a given that renewables like Solar PV and Thermal will grow strongly. In future, everything will cost more, but fossil fuels even more so. Cheap energy is all but over, but clean energy mandates will help further drive growth in renewables of varying kinds, Solar Thermal included.

As I indicated, Solar Thermal technology works. Cost is the only significant barrier impacting on growth and cost is trending in favour of renewable energy of varying kinds, including Solar Thermal.

5 years isn't that long, but I do hope we'll see more of it, just as long as their impacts are accounted for, and we don't pretend they are capable of more than they practically are.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

We clearly are not at peak oil yet.

Many of good standing on the subject would disagree with you. I will go with their views rather than yours thanks all the same for your opinion.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Plans for 13hr backup seem more common these days, but is in optimal conditions of course.

They can do whatever backup capacity and plant configuration they want. Cost is the only barrier. Cost dynamics are changing and will change over time.

Originally Posted by Wobs

There are huge areas that are unsuitable in the US. As I've shown, California only has the potential of about 1GW of capacity, as large unused flat areas are needed that are not protected.

Irrelevant and deceptively misleading as usual. Of course 2/3 of the USA could be argued to be unsuitable in terms of insolation. There are vast areas suitable though. California already has much more than a gigawatt planned. Approx 30% of US is at least 5 kWh insolation per day per sqm or more. Huge land mass and only a very small fraction is required as demonstrated over and over. You have shown nothing but repetition, of the same tired old false arguments. Cost is the only barrier. Cost dynamics are changing and will change over time.

Originally Posted by Wobs

5 years isn't that long, but I do hope we'll see more of it, just as long as their impacts are accounted for, and we don't pretend they are capable of more than they practically are.

There will be more and no pretending about it, hoped for or otherwise, it's coming and our say so will have little to do with it. One only has to open ones eyes to see what's happening. If you can't see it now, I suspect you likely never will and it will go right by you. As each year passes, the attraction of this type of technology increases for reasons that are common sense.

I now realize why I feel I'm wasting my time with this discussion.



__________________________________________________ _______________
http://ecoworldly.com/2008/04/12/mega-solar-the-worlds-13-biggest-solar-thermal-energy-projects/
__________________________________________________ _______________

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

They can do whatever backup capacity and plant configuration they want. Cost is the only barrier. Cost dynamics are changing and will change over time.

Pardon me for actually looking at what has been planned, and judging accordingly.

Irrelevant and misleading as usual. There are vast areas suitable. California already has much more than a gigawatt planned. 30% of US is 5 kWh insolation per day per sqm or more. Huge land mass and only a very small fraction is required as demonstrated over and over. You have shown nothing but repetition, of the same tired old false arguments. Cost is the only barrier. Cost dynamics are changing and will change over time.

A study that I've put up says otherwise.

If you look at land use, topography, water availibilty, its quite different.

Just because a greater amount has been applied for, does not mean it should be built.

There will be more and no pretending about it, hoped for or otherwise, it's coming and our say so will have little to do with it. One only has to open ones eyes to see what's happening. If you can't see it now, I suspect you likely never will and it will go right by you. As each year passes, the attraction of this type of technology increases for reasons that are common sense.

I now realize why I feel I'm wasting my time with this discussion.

[/font][/size]

For me, common sense includes looking behind the headlines, behind the hype. If we want a technology to succeed, we should not ignore its limitations. Most of the sources that are available do not highlight them, and so we must try to look for them to look for the truth. Anything else is walking blind.

You've already expressed a wish to stop replying, and yet you still do. Please don't feel pressured to do so.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Pardon me for actually looking at what has been planned, and judging accordingly.

Evidently you have not looked far enough.

Originally Posted by Wobs

A study that I've put up says otherwise.
If you look at land use, topography, water availibilty, its quite different.
Just because a greater amount has been applied for, does not mean it should be built.

Studies are studies and what should and shouldn't be, is subjective opinion. What's happening is what I'm commenting on. More than 1 GW of Solar Thermal in CA, I assure you. Reports are useful to a point. It's now time to get away from your reports and now focus on what's being planned on the ground.

Originally Posted by Wobs

For me, common sense includes looking behind the headlines, behind the hype. If we want a technology to succeed, we should not ignore its limitations. Most of the sources that are available do not highlight them, and so we must try to look for them to look for the truth. Anything else is walking blind.

As I have said before what you and I want is besides the point. What's happening on the ground is what matters. More that 1 GW is planned for California.

Originally Posted by Wobs

There are huge areas that are unsuitable in the US. As I've shown, California only has the potential of about 1GW of capacity, as large unused flat areas are needed that are not protected.

This is just the larger Solar Thermal projects planned in California alone;

BrightSource Energy and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with plans to expand to 900 MW.

Stirling Energy Systems and San Diego Gas & Electric.
Megawatts: 500 MW, with possible expansion to 850 MW.

Solel and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Megawatts: 553 MW

Solar Partners
Megawatts: 400 MW.

Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison.
Megawatts: 310 MW

Florida Power & Light.
Megawatts: 250 MW.


Ausra and Pacific Gas & Electric.
Megawatts: 177 MW.

Um I think thats more than 2 GW Planned just in this list. Smaller ones also are planned. And more I suspect in the course of time. Again though, people can form their own views who to belive.

California's potential is not the most significant perspective though. The national potential of Solar Thermal for the whole USA is said to be huge. That's what really matters.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential for more than 7,000 gigawatts (GW) of concentrating solar power generation on lands in the southwestern United States alone - more than six times current U.S. electricity consumption. Other areas of the United States, such as the mountain West, the Great Plains and Florida, can also generate significant power from the sun.

“On the Rise: Solar Thermal Power and the Fight Against Global Warming� by Environment California is our site of the day - California Progress Report

http://www.environmentcalifornia.org/uploads/EX/qu/EXqur2dJBZQbJESwUtulZA/On-The-Rise.pdf

Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

Originally Posted by Wobs

You've already expressed a wish to stop replying, and yet you still do. Please don't feel pressured to do so.

When someone posts gross falsehoods a reply is in order, even though more time gets wasted.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Evidently you have not looked far enough.
Studies are studies and what should and shouldn't be, is subjective opinion. What's happening is what I'm commenting on. More than 1 GW of Solar Thermal in CA, I assure you. Reports are useful to a point. It's now time to get away from your reports and now focus on what's being planned on the ground.

Sigh.
I've already seen those, what with us discussing them earlier. I was hoping you'd see that I was questioning those sources, as history tells us that just because large projects are announced, does not mean they are built. Many are just politically or financially motivated. Or they might not care of the impact that they have.

Do you care if they have a detremental impact on the local ecology? Or if the financial insentives artificially motivate people to build inappropriate technology? I've seen it with wind turbines in the UK, it can happen in California. Why wouldn't one question that?

As I have said before what you and I want is besides the point. What's happening on the ground is what matters. More that 1 GW is planned for California.

If you read the link I put up, you'll see more detail.

California's potential is not the most significant perspective though. The national potential of Solar Thermal for the whole USA is said to be huge. That's what really matters.

SW America is where its at for CSP in the US. There are only a small number of other states where it can really be viable. Remember, its not like PV, it needs direct sunlight, so cloudy days have a bigger impact on its performance.

Even in S.California, the capacity factors are 27%, which is actually lower than the wind turbines in that area.
See page 30: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/confer...2006-08-15.PDF

Just in case you didn't read the link I put earlier, here is a bit more detail on CSP potential in S.California (pages 17-19):
"CSP Potential in California
Unlike PV systems, concentrating solar systems can use only direct normal
insolation for electricity production. NREL supplied direct beam insolation values on
a grid size of 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers using their Climatological Radiation
Model. Figure 13 shows the distribution of direct beam solar insolation suitable for
concentrating solar power (CSP) systems in California. Figure 13 shows that in
general the best locations for CSP facilities tend to be in the southeastern portion of
the state.
As with PV solar resources, the gross potential over estimates the actual amount of
available resource. The approach to estimating CSP technical potential assumes
that level locations with clear and high solar resources are the most technically
appropriate location for employing CSP facilities. As a result, the CSP technical
potential is estimated assuming locations with greater than an annual-average
normal-beam solar radiation of 6 kilowatt-hours per day per square meter and no
more than one percent slope. In addition, lands excluded or filtered from the
technical potential include urban areas, forests, bodies of water, roads, and
buildings, and any sensitive areas, pristine wilderness, National Parks, or State
Parks. Other assumptions used in developing the CSP technical potential include
area based performance characteristics of a packing factor of two (due to the tracking requirements of CSP systems that limit the degree to which they can be
“packed” together), and a typical system efficiency of fifteen percent. Figure 14
shows the equivalent geographical distribution of the CSP technical potential
throughout the state. There are sixteen counties in California that meet the 6 kWh
annual-average kWh per day per square meter direct normal solar radiation
requirement. Table 4 provides a breakout of the CSP technical potential for these
counties, and shows the statewide CSP technical potential to be approximately
one million MW of capacity."
From the table:
CSP Technical Potential in California:
Acres - 3,497,530
Total kW - 1,061,360,617
Total MW - 1,061,361
Total MWH - 2,717,544,893
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...2005-072-D.PDF

One may argue that they have missed off sites that could otherwise be exploited, but by the same token, you can't look at a company's website, and rely on their info implicetely as they have a economic biase. One that you have never acknowledged, and you think that by quoting them, you are claiming "what is happening on the ground".

What I'm saying is that we must question this. That if it seems to good to be true, we must delve deeper. If it turns out that California can run on a few solar panels - great, (even though you're not saying that), but lets look deeper. And if you don't want to do that, why do you object to others doing so?

When someone posts gross falsehoods a reply is in order, even though more time gets wasted.

I haven't put up a single falsehood.

When you start to take notice of what I say, you might learn that. I'm simply questioning what is infront of me, and happen to value truth and not propoganda.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Sigh.
I've already seen those, what with us discussing them earlier. I was hoping you'd see that I was questioning those sources, as history tells us that just because large projects are announced, does not mean they are built. Many are just politically or financially motivated. Or they might not care of the impact that they have.

Do you care if they have a detremental impact on the local ecology? Or if the financial insentives artificially motivate people to build inappropriate technology? I've seen it with wind turbines in the UK, it can happen in California. Why wouldn't one question that?


If you read the link I put up, you'll see more detail.

SW America is where its at for CSP in the US. There are only a small number of other states where it can really be viable. Remember, its not like PV, it needs direct sunlight, so cloudy days have a bigger impact on its performance.

Even in S.California, the capacity factors are 27%, which is actually lower than the wind turbines in that area.
See page 30: http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/confer...2006-08-15.PDF

Just in case you didn't read the link I put earlier, here is a bit more detail on CSP potential in S.California (pages 17-19):
"CSP Potential in California
Unlike PV systems, concentrating solar systems can use only direct normal
insolation for electricity production. NREL supplied direct beam insolation values on
a grid size of 10 kilometers by 10 kilometers using their Climatological Radiation
Model. Figure 13 shows the distribution of direct beam solar insolation suitable for
concentrating solar power (CSP) systems in California. Figure 13 shows that in
general the best locations for CSP facilities tend to be in the southeastern portion of
the state.
As with PV solar resources, the gross potential over estimates the actual amount of
available resource. The approach to estimating CSP technical potential assumes
that level locations with clear and high solar resources are the most technically
appropriate location for employing CSP facilities. As a result, the CSP technical
potential is estimated assuming locations with greater than an annual-average
normal-beam solar radiation of 6 kilowatt-hours per day per square meter and no
more than one percent slope. In addition, lands excluded or filtered from the
technical potential include urban areas, forests, bodies of water, roads, and
buildings, and any sensitive areas, pristine wilderness, National Parks, or State
Parks. Other assumptions used in developing the CSP technical potential include
area based performance characteristics of a packing factor of two (due to the tracking requirements of CSP systems that limit the degree to which they can be
“packed” together), and a typical system efficiency of fifteen percent. Figure 14
shows the equivalent geographical distribution of the CSP technical potential
throughout the state. There are sixteen counties in California that meet the 6 kWh
annual-average kWh per day per square meter direct normal solar radiation
requirement. Table 4 provides a breakout of the CSP technical potential for these
counties, and shows the statewide CSP technical potential to be approximately
one million MW of capacity."
From the table:
CSP Technical Potential in California:
Acres - 3,497,530
Total kW - 1,061,360,617
Total MW - 1,061,361
Total MWH - 2,717,544,893
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publica...2005-072-D.PDF

One may argue that they have missed off sites that could otherwise be exploited, but by the same token, you can't look at a company's website, and rely on their info implicetely as they have a economic biase. One that you have never acknowledged, and you think that by quoting them, you are claiming "what is happening on the ground".

What I'm saying is that we must question this. That if it seems to good to be true, we must delve deeper. If it turns out that California can run on a few solar panels - great, (even though you're not saying that), but lets look deeper. And if you don't want to do that, why do you object to others doing so?


I haven't put up a single falsehood.

When you start to take notice of what I say, you might learn that. I'm simply questioning what is infront of me, and happen to value truth and not propoganda.

I agree, a fundamental rule in life, question everything or relevance. You can theorize all you like and I will report what's happening on the ground. Look as deep as you like, I have no objection. 5 kwh / sqm ( 30% of the USA ) is adequate especially if the source is closer to the main grids and population centers. All information counters your views. I will go with them for now until proven otherwise. Man has all sorts of environmental impacts that are effectively managed to within reasonable levels, though CO2 polution is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Wobs

There are huge areas that are unsuitable in the US. As I've shown, California only has the potential of about 1GW of capacity, as large unused flat areas are needed that are not protected.

waffle !

Originally Posted by California Energy Comission

Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

i.e. 24 Gigawatts for California


California CSP Proposed Locations MAP - PDF download below

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/sola...5x11_solar.pdf

Land and minerals use records viewer
http://www.geocommunicator.gov/NILS-PARCEL2/map.jsp?MAP=ENERGY

Again I will at this stage rely of alternate views. You can focus on your theories and I will focus and report on what's happening in industry and if it doesn't happen I will report that too. I will keep you posted of further developments as they emerge. I'l report while you retort.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

There are huge areas that are unsuitable in the US. As I've shown, California only has the potential of about 1GW of capacity, as large unused flat areas are needed that are not protected.

waffle !

Originally Posted by California Energy Comission

Many large solar energy projects are being proposed in California's desert area on federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land. BLM has received right-of-way requests encompassing more than 300,000 acres for the development of approximately 34 large solar thermal power plants totaling approximately 24,000 megawatts

http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/index.html

i.e. 24,000 megawatts = 24 GW or Gigawatts not 1 GW


Listed Solar Energy Applications in California

Originally Posted by California Energy Comission

BLM and Energy Commission have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (PDF file, 14 pages, 140 kb). This MOU also has attachments listing the solar projects the BLM is aware of (as of July 2007) and the time line for the joint review process.

I'l report while you retort.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

We clearly are not at peak oil yet.

How can you say that???

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Deathridesahorse

How can you say that???

Quite easy, I just pressed the keys on the keyboard.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I agree, a fundamental rule in life, question everything or relevance.

Everytime I've brought something up of relevance, you've either dismissed as not important, or just plain objected to discussing such issues. I find it a bit ironic that you now say that we must question these things, when you've avoided doing so for over 20 pages. But well done for saying it anyway.

You can theorize all you like and I will report what's happening on the ground.

Your idea of "what's going on ground" seems involve what the solar industry tells you. Please try to stick to your first statement in this post.

BTW, you planning to buy shares in these companies? Would seem prudent if you say they are to be as big as you claim.