Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[screener]

Unless I'm mistaken that would be 24000 mw peak capacity, Why would it not be able then to produce 24000 mw. It will not produce that over night, or during storms, or when there are breakdowns, or even if some kid kicks his ball in front of the collectors, so it might never actually produce 24000 mw hours in any given hour, but that doesn't mean that this can't be used as a base load enhancing generation system.

Base load is I expect required in that area precisely when the sun is hottest.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Hey, you managed a post without using an exclamation mark (!). Well done.

Some older fields are running dry, some money people are nervous about it. Prices are recently claimed to be artificially high.

This is all far from clear!

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Its never occurred to you that that will not actually produce 24000MW has it. Or that 300,000 acres is actually quite a lot. Or that the rush to benefit from Government money might drive them to impact on the environment more than they should. No you just look at "what's happening on the ground".

Yes it has. at 70% capacity factor that's 16.8 GW average annual capacity and at 50% capacity factor that's 12 GW. No doubt incentives for all industries of all kinds attract investment, that's the whole idea. Renewables are demanded and as such are being offered incentives. Less land than coal and nuclear when mining and processing, waste disposal and environmental pollution and degradation is factored in. We would also have to plant allot of trees and tie up allot of land to make a dent in sinking our carbon footprint to reasonable levels, but that wont be sufficient. We need a technology shift that goes to the source, to make a larger difference, and that's what's happening. i.e renewable energy of many kinds.

Your arguments are not new and don't offer substantive case, in light of all the evidence out there and in the face of common logic that the very reason we are looking at renewables like Solar Thermal and others, is because of all the environmental problems we now face with the impact of fossil fuels. These fossil fuel environmental impacts are far worse than renewable energy technologies and that's the whole reason we are pursuing renewable energy technologies.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Read through the thread again, and you'll see I've tried to discuss the technology, but you got uppity. If you think there is nothing to prove, it just demonstrates further your refusal and how closed you are.
.

It demonstrates that you have not made a case and you havn't. You raised some concerns, but not made a case.

Originally Posted by Wobs

What do you think I'm doing.
.

Raising some concerns, which in context, are not anywhere near as grave as global concerns about the damage of fossil fuels on our environment, being the very reason why renewables like Solar Thermal are being pursued.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Important note: Education does not finish at the college gates. Most of us never stop learning and exploring further knowledge. Its one of the benefits of constructive discussion, which you seem to shy away from.

Of course it doesn't and nothing to shy away from at all, but the constructive discussion is all but exhausted, because unless you can prove a substantive case overall, it's very clear than on balance the benefits of renewable energy technology like Solar Thermal, by far outweighs any perceived disadvantages. The issues you have raised, will not stop the technology in its tracks. The technology will evolve and improve and all evidence on the ground is that the interest in Solar Thermal energy is significant and growing.

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

[forfismum]

Sometimes I wonder if RobinGoodFellow will ever come back

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by screener

Unless I'm mistaken that would be 24000 mw peak capacity, Why would it not be able then to produce 24000 mw. It will not produce that over night, or during storms, or when there are breakdowns, or even if some kid kicks his ball in front of the collectors, so it might never actually produce 24000 mw hours in any given hour, but that doesn't mean that this can't be used as a base load enhancing generation system.

Base load is I expect required in that area precisely when the sun is hottest.

Yes I agree, there can be a role to play in this capacity. As I understand it;

Wiki

Base load (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24-hours: the load that exists 24 hours a day.

If the appropriate ratio of capacity and capacity factor relative to load is applied, there is no reason why baseload can't be met. Of course, backup is a requirement for all power generation systems.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by forfismum

Sometimes I wonder if RobinGoodFellow will ever come back

Oh, has he left us ?

[Wobs]

Yes it has. at 70% capacity factor that's 16.8 GW average annual capacity and at 50% capacity factor that's 12 GW. No doubt incentives for all industries of all kinds attract investment, that's the whole idea. Renewables are demanded and as such are being offered incentives. Less land than coal and nuclear when mining and processing, waste disposal and environmental pollution and degradation is factored in. We would also have to plant allot of trees and tie up allot of land to make a dent in sinking our carbon footprint to reasonable levels, but that wont be sufficient. We need a technology shift that goes to the source, to make a larger difference, and that's what's happening. i.e renewable energy of many kinds.

Showing your ignorance once again.
Let's start with a little thing called efficiency. I'll be generous for now, and say its about 30%, so your average just turned to about 4GW.

Now, if we have a back up such as molten salt, our output will be reduced, as we are backing up while supplying during peak solar performance and demand. This makes sense, as demand will not closely match solar availability, so while we may produce a peak of 70% of capacity, we can only do it for a limited period of the day, at the height of the season.

Now, after we've looked at capacity factor, we should look a bit more into what it actually means.

In ideal conditions, it looks great, but out of season, and suddenly, our 13hr storage suddenly looks less attractive, as it struggles to provide sufficient backup and supply demand. "For designing a system, you nearly always use the worst case, or December-January map".
Solar Insolation
(Similar maps available at NREL)

Compare with the annual map which we have seen:


Compared with the annual maps that we are shown, which don't really help with the colder months. This is important, because installed capacity of other sources of energy must take up such slack. Further, note what it says regarding the caution we must use about this sort of information.

Raising some concerns, which in context, are not anywhere near as grave as global concerns about the damage of fossil fuels on our environment, being the very reason why renewables like Solar Thermal are being pursued.

Further evidence you have no regard for the ecological impact that large scale deployment might have. We've already heard how CSP can impact on local and regional climates, how arid regions are fragile ecologies. Most fossil fuel plants can be placed in the rea of demand, and impact can be managed. Whereas a CSP plant is dictated by the environment as to where it should go, and so one may have to put it many more miles from the demand, and impact on an area that a fossil fuel plant would not.

"CSP may offer a “benefit” to the Southwest since there is plenty of arid desert land, but if we consider the growing problems this area already has with available fresh water supplies CSP may be a Trojan horse!

Should we continue to supplement over-consumption and exponential growth in a region that is destined for water wars with neighbors? Increasing available energy in the Southwest will bring economic growth, which inevitably intensifies stress on fresh water supplies that are already being utilized at unsustainable rates. Population continues to rise in this region due to over-zealous real estate investors interested solely in the bottom line."
Renewables Part 4

If CSP were to be used for desalination it really makes sense in many areas (if altitude allows), but as a baseload supply, it is unsuitable, I'm sure you'll agree.

Of course it doesn't and nothing to shy away from at all, but the constructive discussion is all but exhausted, because unless you can prove a substantive case overall, it's very clear than on balance the benefits of renewable energy technology like Solar Thermal, by far outweighs any perceived disadvantages. The issues you have raised, will not stop the technology in its tracks. The technology will evolve and improve and all evidence on the ground is that the interest in Solar Thermal energy is significant and growing.

You've proved yourself incapable of constructive discussion, despite me repeatedly asking you to discuss the technology.

You've ignored issues, or swept them under the carpet. You claim to not be able to take a number of issues and look at how, combined, they will limit CSP's roll out. In an area where a prosperous population lives in very hot areas, it is ideal, which is why SoCal is seeing this first. Further deployment on a large scale will require gas supply (if a hyrbid system is required for 13hr backup), sufficient water supply, minimal dust problems, economic viability of large installations miles away from demand, and the political will to commit to something with an extremely long payback, as capital expense is huge in relation to what will be produced.

You assume some great leap in development, some kind of great leap forward in improvements, just because there are some being planned to be built. That is your basis, and it's a precarious one.

Then of course is the energy required to adjust the mirrors as the sun is tracked. It already been mentioned that concerns about grid stability when the system boots up, but your calculations seem to skip over this. You claim that it has been solved, but we both know that such things can only be managed, with a loss of energy production.

Then there is the cost of running it. The idea that the sun will always be free glosses over the high maintenance costs, which will reflect the increases in fossil fuel costs, as wages increase to keep up with them.

Your 24GW capacity is a smokescreen. Sorry.

I'm sure you won't agree with any of this, but I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Showing your ignorance once again.

Showing your rudeness and ignorance once again.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Let's start with a little thing called efficiency. I'll be generous for now, and say its about 30%, so your average just turned to about 4GW.

Efficiency effects all power generation technologies. From what I have heard, over 60% of fossil fuel energy burnt, is dissipated as heat into the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Now, if we have a back up such as molten salt, our output will be reduced, as we are backing up while supplying during peak solar performance and demand. This makes sense, as demand will not closely match solar availability, so while we may produce a peak of 70% of capacity, we can only do it for a limited period of the day, at the height of the season.

That says nothing. The plant configurations for all technologies need to be of the appropriate configuration to meet a given load. Make it so.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Now, after we've looked at capacity factor, we should look a bit more into what it actually means.

In ideal conditions, it looks great, but out of season, and suddenly, our 13hr storage suddenly looks less attractive, as it struggles to provide sufficient backup and supply demand. "For designing a system, you nearly always use the worst case, or December-January map".

13 hours storage is old skool. Get with the present. The plants should be configured to meet strict government standards to be accepted onto the grid. The optimal configurations can be built to meet their capacity and load requirements. Cost is the main limiting factor as will all technologies.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Compared with the annual maps that we are shown, which don't really help with the colder months. This is important, because installed capacity of other sources of energy must take up such slack. Further, note what it says regarding the caution we must use about this sort of information.

No kidding. backup is required for all power generation technologies.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Further evidence you have no regard for the ecological impact that large scale deployment might have. We've already heard how CSP can impact on local and regional climates, how arid regions are fragile ecologies. Most fossil fuel plants can be placed in the rea of demand, and impact can be managed. Whereas a CSP plant is dictated by the environment as to where it should go, and so one may have to put it many more miles from the demand, and impact on an area that a fossil fuel plant would not.

Rubbish. Fossil fuel is the biggest environmental destroyer, particularly with regard to CO2 emissions ( the crux of the matter ) known to man, far far far worse then CSP. Also the whole point of renewable energy is th reduce our dependancy on fossil fuels, in part for sake of Climate Change and in part pollution and in part rising fossil fuel prices. You completely seem to be missing the whole point. Further evidence that your ears seem to remain blocked and eyes shut. Fossil fuels and mans dependancy upon them, are creating a serious problem.

Originally Posted by Wobs

"CSP may offer a “benefit” to the Southwest since there is plenty of arid desert land, but if we consider the growing problems this area already has with available fresh water supplies CSP may be a Trojan horse!

Nonsense. Solar Thermal CSP plants are water efficient. More so than fossil fuel power plants and can more readily be air cooled than fossil fuel plants.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Should we continue to supplement over-consumption and exponential growth in a region that is destined for water wars with neighbors? Increasing available energy in the Southwest will bring economic growth, which inevitably intensifies stress on fresh water supplies that are already being utilized at unsustainable rates. Population continues to rise in this region due to over-zealous real estate investors interested solely in the bottom line."

Should we continue to pollute the world with fossil fuel emissions, we will be in a far bigger mess than we are already in. Climate Change is already effecting global water supply, get real, you must be dreaming.

Originally Posted by Wobs

If CSP were to be used for desalination it really makes sense in many areas (if altitude allows), but as a baseload supply, it is unsuitable, I'm sure you'll agree.

The Solar power industry and Governments clearly do not agree with you and nor do I. Clearly they view Solar Thermal as baseload capable, when appropriately configured.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You've proved yourself incapable of constructive discussion, despite me repeatedly asking you to discuss the technology.

You have proved far worse than that. You continue to discuss the technology so stop complaining. However, near every argument you have raised has easily been countered and any of your points with any merit are so insignificant in terms of comparative priorities and global mandates and imperatives, that they just fall by the wayside along with the rest of your arguments that don't offer significant merit. If you have any reputation worth holding up, your arguments dont reflect that at all and in fact represent you unfavourably. Your arguments are very weak and many of them false.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You've ignored issues, or swept them under the carpet. You claim to not be able to take a number of issues and look at how, combined, they will limit CSP's roll out. In an area where a prosperous population lives in very hot areas, it is ideal, which is why SoCal is seeing this first. Further deployment on a large scale will require gas supply (if a hyrbid system is required for 13hr backup), sufficient water supply, minimal dust problems, economic viability of large installations miles away from demand, and the political will to commit to something with an extremely long payback, as capital expense is huge in relation to what will be produced.

Your views have no support. You keep raising the same weak issues. Everything has limits so again you tell us nothing new. You will have to convince more important people than me to be taken seriously. Somehow I doubt that will occur. Stop dreaming about the ifs and start looking at the what's happening.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You assume some great leap in development, some kind of great leap forward in improvements, just because there are some being planned to be built. That is your basis, and it's a precarious one.

Nonsense. The technology is good to go and further developments are a bonus. No assumptions required, just fact of what's happening now and industry projections.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Then of course is the energy required to adjust the mirrors as the sun is tracked. It already been mentioned that concerns about grid stability when the system boots up, but your calculations seem to skip over this. You claim that it has been solved, but we both know that such things can only be managed, with a loss of energy production.

Again you will have to convince the experts not me, who will have considered many issues like these and far more issues than you have raised. Same old arguments you raise over and over nothing new.

Originally Posted by Wobs

Then there is the cost of running it. The idea that the sun will always be free glosses over the high maintenance costs, which will reflect the increases in fossil fuel costs, as wages increase to keep up with them.

Your 24GW capacity is a smokescreen. Sorry.

Sorry but industry cost projections are expected to reach coal parity by 2015. Again the views I reflect are industry and not mine. I'm just reporting them, though happen to agree with them. 24 GW is not my figure, its what's been applied for. Your whole argument severely lacking in support is your smokescreen.

Originally Posted by Wobs

I'm sure you won't agree with any of this, but I'm sure we can agree to disagree.

Of course, why would I agree with you when what industry is saying makes far more sense. On balance of the overarching situation, all you have is a very weak case, if any case at all. On balance Solar Thermal technologies win hands down, and this view is far more widely supported by governments and industry, than your view on the technology.

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

Large Solar Energy Projects

[forfismum]

Thats amazingly amazing