Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[Wobs]

From your baseload fallacy link we find:
"To replace the electricity generated by a 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station, with annual average power output of about 850 MW, a group of wind farms with capacity (rated power) of about 2600 MW, located in windy sites, is required. The higher wind capacity allows for the variations in wind power and is taken into account in the economics of wind power."

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the system, and for anyone to cite such a source, it shows that they swallow the idea whole. The UK is no stranger to seeing the whole of Blighty having close to zero wind. Just because a nation sees its wind turbines have a load factor of say 33% does not mean that you treble the capacity and all will be fine. And the uk is not unique in that situation.

It is also the nature of that percentage that needs to be tackled, and that is why such renewables can only provide a low percentage of the total grid requirements.

Do you see what I'm saying?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by greenacy

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.

A sensible post. Well done.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

From your baseload fallacy link we find:
"To replace the electricity generated by a 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station, with annual average power output of about 850 MW, a group of wind farms with capacity (rated power) of about 2600 MW, located in windy sites, is required. The higher wind capacity allows for the variations in wind power and is taken into account in the economics of wind power."

This shows a complete lack of understanding of the system, and for anyone to cite such a source, it shows that they swallow the idea whole. The UK is no stranger to seeing the whole of Blighty having close to zero wind. Just because a nation sees its wind turbines have a load factor of say 33% does not mean that you treble the capacity and all will be fine. And the uk is not unique in that situation.

It is also the nature of that percentage that needs to be tackled, and that is why such renewables can only provide a low percentage of the total grid requirements.

Do you see what I'm saying?

The point of my post is about Solar Thermal energy and not about wind power at all. Noting the piece on wind power in that article "The Base Load Fallacy" does not address my point. Wind power in the UK which is just one small part of the globe and of no concern to me. Have whatever view you wish on that, but that article concludes that it's a combination of renewables that can replace fossil fuel electricity generating systems. Any sensible view would appreciate that. The article link though was included as just additional information for those interested in considering differing views and to suggest it shows anything else is not only false and misleading but is also a distraction from the point I was making.

My point though was a response to your remark about Solar Energy and not about wind power, hence the vast bulk of links I posted pertaining to Solar Thermal energy technology.

My remark was;

Originally Posted by LMagic007

Solar thermal technology is showing great promise for base load generation with capacity factors of 70% or even higher under the right circumstances.

and your cryptic remark about not watching TV at night.

Originally Posted by Wobs

You obviously don't watch TV at night.

you made in reference to my views on Solar Thermals base load potential and 70% capacity factor when appropriately applied. Also unless I specifically allude to a particular country, my comments are meant in a global context. I'm not fixated on just on part of the world. So again you have failed to address my point on Solar Thermal power in a global context, with any relevant argument.

The reality is that Solar Thermal ( CSP ) with energy storage, projects are going ahead around the world and that's testimony in part, to the point I have been making. We have only seen the beginning of Solar Thermal (CSP) technology and the impact it can have around the globe and the contribution it stands to offer toward helping secure clean base load power for generations to come for many parts of the world.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

The point of my post is about Solar Thermal energy and not about wind power at all. Noting a very small piece on wind power in that article "The Base Load Fallacy" does not address my point. Wind power in the UK which is just one small part of the globe and of no concern to me. Have whatever view you wish on that. My point was a response to your remark about Solar Energy and not about wind power, hence the vast bulk of links I posted pertaining to Solar Thermal energy technology.

So why put up the link if you didn't want me to reference it? I was simply using it as an example (edit: it was the first and only link I randomly looked at from your post)
I referenced it as you clearly take such things seriously, and that such things are seriously misleading (maybe Greenpeace was behind it LOL).

You referenced it, so you clearly thought it relevant. I mentioned it to give an example of an intermittent supply being inappropriate for baseload supply, and how you don't seem to grasp the idea, owing to the fact that you put the link up.

you made in reference to my views on Solar Thermals base load potential and 70% capacity factor when appropriately applied. Also unless I specifically allued to a particular country, my comments are meant in a global context. I'm not fixated on just on part of the world. So again you have failed to address my point on Solar Thermal power in a global context, with any relevant argument.

My point that I've made before, but I clearly need to repeat it, is that you cite figures that bare no relation to the real world overall. Even if such a system did have a 70% capacity factor in ideal situations, it is meaningless given that you claim to look at things in a global context.

Also, I earlier said:

It is also the nature of that percentage that needs to be tackled, and that is why such renewables can only provide a low percentage of the total grid requirements.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Care to answer that one?

The reality is that Solar Thermal ( CSP ) with energy storage, projects are going ahead around the world and that's testimony in part, to the point I have been making. We have only seen the beginning of Solar Thermal (CSP) technology and the impact it can have around the globe and the contribution it stands to offer toward helping secure clean base load power for generations to come for many parts of the world.

They're installing large systems? Couldn't be happier for them. I'd buy them a beer if I met them.
But the reality is the most ideal sites will be used first. It will have its uses, but on a global scale, that you claim to be concerned with, it has a more limited potential. Not only that, but such systems cannot work without gas/oil back up (even with energy storage), and the installed capacity must be much more than a conventional or nuclear power station to compensate for daily variations.

Another example of your reporting misleading figures:
"Storage Efficiency was measured at over 97%, also meeting design goals. "
These are not real world numbers, but you throw them around as if they're written in stone. You come across as one that is seduced by this technology, and seem incapable of saying anything negative about them. Even if you were to say something bad about them, you'd then try to qualify it with something more ideological.

You still haven't figured out the TV comment have you.
I'll let you have another go. But I'll give you a clue:
70% capacity factor
Solar energy
Baseload supply.

Sorry for being cryptic, but I'm trying to make you think.

[LMagic007]

Originally Posted by Wobs

So why put up the link if you didn't want me to reference it? I was simply using it as an example (edit: it was the first and only link I randomly looked at from your post)
I referenced it as you clearly take such things seriously, and that such things are seriously misleading (maybe Greenpeace was behind it LOL).

You referenced it, so you clearly thought it relevant. I mentioned it to give an example of an intermittent supply being inappropriate for baseload supply, and how you don't seem to grasp the idea, owing to the fact that you put the link up.


My point that I've made before, but I clearly need to repeat it, is that you cite figures that bare no relation to the real world overall. Even if such a system did have a 70% capacity factor in ideal situations, it is meaningless given that you claim to look at things in a global context.

Also, I earlier said:

Care to answer that one?



They're installing large systems? Couldn't be happier for them. I'd buy them a beer if I met them.
But the reality is the most ideal sites will be used first. It will have its uses, but on a global scale, that you claim to be concerned with, it has a more limited potential. Not only that, but such systems cannot work without gas/oil back up (even with energy storage), and the installed capacity must be much more than a conventional or nuclear power station to compensate for daily variations.

Another example of your reporting misleading figures:
"Storage Efficiency was measured at over 97%, also meeting design goals. "
These are not real world numbers, but you throw them around as if they're written in stone. You come across as one that is seduced by this technology, and seem incapable of saying anything negative about them. Even if you were to say something bad about them, you'd then try to qualify it with something more ideological.

You still haven't figured out the TV comment have you.
I'll let you have another go. But I'll give you a clue:
70% capacity factor
Solar energy
Baseload supply.

Sorry for being cryptic, but I'm trying to make you think.

I posted the link to provide additional context for others to consider and form whatever view they choose. You have one view, I another and others will form their views. Again you have twisted the reality by implying I didn't want you to reference the article. I never made any such representation. You have thus created another non argument of irrelevancy out of nothing. Wasted Effort. Many of your arguments or more to the point non arguments, seem to have this flavour and favored approach. i.e. when you don't have a case, manufacture one. When there isn't an issue, make one.

Clearly you fail to understand and the performance region of 70% capacity factor mentioned in some articles on Solar Thermal, is quite the contrary to meaningless, which is another non-argument you present. In fact this figure is very meaningful, especially to those that have done the research. Clearly it appears you haven't done the research and I'm only quoting what findings researchers have arrived at. Obviously with fossil fuel backup or more thermal storage, capacity factors can be increased. Its actually interesting how some fossil fueled power stations are using solar thermal for pre-heating of feedwater for steam power generation.

Again you're constructing a perception evidently I suspect influenced by your own personal bias, to build a case rather than dealing in fact. I never said the numbers were written in stone, again twisting fact to build a weak argument.

Clearly numbers vary along with variations in the Solar Thermal technologies and the test environments. That's common sense. I mean really that is just a nothing argument, to imply based on a perception, I have suggested the figures are written in stone, when I have never indicated that.

I have quoted figures from articles, that you and even I or anyone else don't have to believe. Make of them what you will, but deal with the facts rather than implying, that somehow I have a certain disposition toward embellishment of reality, when all I have done is made reference to figures posted by others researching the technology.

Whether you believe or disbelieve is irrelevant to my reporting of figures in articles. Interpret the numbers however you choose. The details are there for anyone to read.

The global context of Solar Thermal is one that fits the technology where it yields the most benefit, just as it does with other renewable energy technologies. Each technology where applied appropriately, maintains a presence its a global context as part of a whole range of global solutions that when combined, result in a system of power generation networks that have the capacity to provide a reliable base of energy supply. Solar Thermal is being applied in many parts of the world as is the global transfer of the technical knowledge and that alone shows its global context. That's a no brainer.

No doubt Solar Thermal is just another technology among many that will make up the combination of solutions applied toward bringing clean energy technology to the world. It's not practical and not realistic for every nation to be running nuclear and coal and gas fired power stations. Solar thermal among other renewable energy technologies has huge role to play to help.

I never said that the potential of any technology is unlimited. All technologies are limited. Another non argument you bring.

I did not say Renewables like Solar Thermal can work without backup. Another example of you trying to present an argument in contradiction to my position, that I have never made.

This has nothing to do with ideology. You are dreaming up scenarios in your own mind and using them to build a very weak case. You're manufacturing arguments that have never been made by me and presenting arguments based on perceptions of what you think my likely position might be, rather than observed facts of what I have said. When you have commented on the facts of my observations, you present the case as if the figures were made up and twisted by me and clearly they are not.

The figures I presented are representative of the data presented in the articles. Whether you or I or anyone else believes the data is accurate, is a completely separate matter. My comments about Solar Thermal are in part, based on an understanding that the articles figures consistent similarities, give more substantial weight to the perceived accuracy of their respective findings. You are most welcome not to believe in them.

The numbers are not my numbers. They are numbers from the research articles. You can make of them what you will, it makes no difference to me. I'm reporting information based on research that people have been doing for years and probably have more knowledge of their own work than I suspect you have. Interpret the numbers how you will.

Go tell the scientists and engineers that produced the research and reports that their numbers are not real world numbers, so they take heed of your advice and stop building Solar Thermal at the rate they are building and planning them. I suspect not.
My key point is that Solar Thermal ( CSP ) has significant global potential as a method of power generation. Nothing more nothing less. There is no need for you to present my case to be anything other than that because it's clearly shadow boxing not offering any real punch for us to consider.

Solar Thermal technology will have its place along side other technologies. It's very clear though that Solar Thermal technology of varying forms and designs will be a significant player around the world, as will solar PV and other renewable technologies. Why ? because that's what they are building more of. It's where among many areas, the research is heading. My message is about of what the world is already doing, and nothing more. People can find out for themselves fairly easily how the future renewable energy projects are evolving. Solar is a booming technology globally in varying forms.

At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, so I suggest we all observe what happens over the coming years in the area of Solar Thermal ( CSP ) technology development along with other solar technologies and other renewable energy technologies in various parts of the world. Fossil fuel technologies are projected to become even more expensive over time and renewable energy even more competitive. Time, good planning and management and basic economics will take care of the rest.

Reducing the load per rated output capacity of a solar thermal plant, can in effect improve the capacity factor to a level required to be considered comparable with coal, again where the technology is appropriately situated. As with all technologies, you avoid putting them where they are inappropriate. It means higher cost per watt hour stored and hence generated, but as the cost of fossil fuels increase, the cost of additional solar thermal storage becomes more attractive. Additionally mitigation of greenhouse gasses can justify higher energy production costs, where the longer term benefit of mitigation outweighs the cost of inaction. The technology is still immature and already it shows great promise in terms of cost, capacity and near zero carbon operating footprint.


The TV comment was fairly obvious but again an example of being short on substance and cheap in delivery, but to some readers new to the topic it may be viewed as cryptic as it was demonstrated.

[LMagic007]

Another interesting article on CSIRO here on Solar Thermal and capacity factor potential, where appropriately situated. i.e obviously in warm climates. Obviously off peak periods would yield lower figures thus reducing the overall average.

- Over 100% with fossil backup
- Averaged 80% on-peak capacity factor from solar
- Could approach 100% from solar with the addition of thermal energy storage.

http://www.greenhouse2007.com/downloads/papers/071004_Stein.pdf


Disclaimer - interpret all information at your own discretion. Don't solely rely on forumite views to form an opinion. Conduct your own investigations to help satisfy your own judgement.

[LMagic007]

SOLAR THERMAL ELECTRICITY AS THE PRIMARY REPLACEMENT
FOR COAL AND OIL IN U.S. GENERATION AND TRANSPORTATION

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/f...yCorrected.pdf

Make of it what you will.

[LMagic007]

European Research on Concentrated Solar Thermal Energy

http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/cst_en.pdf

again make of it what you will.

[LMagic007]

Solar Thermal Power – Utility scale Solar Thermal Power – Utility ...

http://glenntodd.net/bze/ZeroEmissio...ve-1July07.pdf

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I posted the link to provide additional context for others to consider and form whatever view they choose. You have one view, I another and others will form their views. Again you have twisted the reality by implying I didn't want you to reference the article. I never made any such representation. You have thus created another non argument of irrelevancy out of nothing. Wasted Effort. Many of your arguments or more to the point non arguments, seem to have this flavour and favored approach. i.e. when you don't have a case, manufacture one. When there isn't an issue, make one.

You posted the link up to provide context, believing it to be true. I commented on it because I happened to click on it and found it to be nonesense. If you're going to get uppity about people commenting on your links, then don't put up any more links.

If it were true, it would be an important reference to the subject, but as its not, it is equally important to debunk it. To point out where it falls down.

Clearly you fail to understand and the performance region of 70% capacity factor mentioned in some articles on Solar Thermal, is quite the contrary to meaningless, which is another non-argument you present. In fact this figure is very meaningful, especially to those that have done the research. Clearly it appears you haven't done the research and I'm only quoting what findings researchers have arrived at. Obviously with fossil fuel backup or more thermal storage, capacity factors can be increased. Its actually interesting how some fossil fueled power stations are using solar thermal for pre-heating of feedwater for steam power generation.

I've asked you on more than one occasion about this, and tried to give you clues to the answer. This paragraph reinforces the idea that you are missing the point, so let me try to explain in nice simple terms.

Here's the my statement again:
"It is also the nature of that percentage that needs to be tackled, and that is why such renewables can only provide a low percentage of the total grid requirements. "

The nature of it being that if a renewable such as wind or solar has a capacity factor of 70%, then the remaining 30% when it isn't providing energy will occur when nature dictates rather than the people running it. Where as a fossil fuel power station is much more in the control of the operator (breakdowns aside). This means that a spinning reserve isn't really needed for a fossil fuel source compared with a renewable.

This means that their application will be limited in a similar fashion to wind, even though they have the ability for reserve (which will require fossil fuel backup, as stated in a number of reports).

I assumed you'd know that, but you seem to skim over it, even though I've tried to give you clues. Only later did you vaguely acknowedge some limitations, but you can't seem to qualify any drawback without some positive spin, which leaves you looking like you've been seduced. Infact there is little evidence to suggest that you haven't been.

Important:
There are other issues with the technology. Can you think of other reasons why their application will be limited other than climate?

While a 70% capacity should yeild some nice financial benefits compared to lower numbers typically associated with wind technology, it is not that relevant from a technological stand point for reasons just stated. Because of this it falls down when it comes to baseload supply.

[quote]

Again you're constructing a perception evidently I suspect influenced by your own personal bias, to build a case rather than dealing in fact. I never said the numbers were written in stone, again twisting fact to build a weak argument.

No, you must look at how you come across. There really is no need to be so defensive, unless you're projecting your own biase onto me of course. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen that happen.

What bias do you think I have?
If you want bias, Google: Solar Thermal. Its actaully hard to find a balanced view on it, which may explain your attitude.

I have quoted figures from articles, that you and even I or anyone else don't have to believe. Make of them what you will, but deal with the facts rather than implying, that somehow I have a certain disposition toward embellishment of reality, when all I have done is made reference to figures posted by others researching the technology.

Whether you believe or disbelieve is irrelevant to my reporting of figures in articles. Interpret the numbers however you choose. The details are there for anyone to read.

The global context of Solar Thermal is one that fits the technology where it yields the most benefit, just as it does with other renewable energy technologies. Each technology where applied appropriately, maintains a presence its a global context as part of a whole range of global solutions that when combined, result in a system of power generation networks that have the capacity to provide a reliable base of energy supply. Solar Thermal is being applied in many parts of the world as is the global transfer of the technical knowledge and that alone shows its global context. That's a no brainer.

No doubt Solar Thermal is just another technology among many that will make up the combination of solutions applied toward bringing clean energy technology to the world. It's not practical and not realistic for every nation to be running nuclear and coal and gas fired power stations. Solar thermal among other renewable energy technologies has huge role to play to help.

I never said that the potential of any technology is unlimited. All technologies are limited. Another non argument you bring.

I did not say Renewables like Solar Thermal can work without backup. Another example of you trying to present an argument in contradiction to my position, that I have never made.

This has nothing to do with ideology. You are dreaming up scenarios in your own mind and using them to build a very weak case. You're manufacturing arguments that have never been made by me and presenting arguments based on perceptions of what you think my likely position might be, rather than observed facts of what I have said. When you have commented on the facts of my observations, you present the case as if the figures were made up and twisted by me and clearly they are not.

The figures I presented are representative of the data presented in the articles. Whether you or I or anyone else believes the data is accurate, is a completely separate matter. My comments about Solar Thermal are in part, based on an understanding that the articles figures consistent similarities, give more substantial weight to the perceived accuracy of their respective findings. You are most welcome not to believe in them.

The numbers are not my numbers. They are numbers from the research articles. You can make of them what you will, it makes no difference to me. I'm reporting information based on research that people have been doing for years and probably have more knowledge of their own work than I suspect you have. Interpret the numbers how you will.

Go tell the scientists and engineers that produced the research and reports that their numbers are not real world numbers, so they take heed of your advice and stop building Solar Thermal at the rate they are building and planning them. I suspect not.
My key point is that Solar Thermal ( CSP ) has significant global potential as a method of power generation. Nothing more nothing less. There is no need for you to present my case to be anything other than that because it's clearly shadow boxing not offering any real punch for us to consider.

Solar Thermal technology will have its place along side other technologies. It's very clear though that Solar Thermal technology of varying forms and designs will be a significant player around the world, as will solar PV and other renewable technologies. Why ? because that's what they are building more of. It's where among many areas, the research is heading. My message is about of what the world is already doing, and nothing more. People can find out for themselves fairly easily how the future renewable energy projects are evolving. Solar is a booming technology globally in varying forms.

At the end of the day actions speak louder than words, so I suggest we all observe what happens over the coming years in the area of Solar Thermal ( CSP ) technology development along with other solar technologies and other renewable energy technologies in various parts of the world. Fossil fuel technologies are projected to become even more expensive over time and renewable energy even more competitive. Time, good planning and management and basic economics will take care of the rest.

Reducing the load per rated output capacity of a solar thermal plant, can in effect improve the capacity factor to a level required to be considered comparable with coal, again where the technology is appropriately situated. As with all technologies, you avoid putting them where they are inappropriate. It means higher cost per watt hour stored and hence generated, but as the cost of fossil fuels increase, the cost of additional solar thermal storage becomes more attractive. Additionally mitigation of greenhouse gasses can justify higher energy production costs, where the longer term benefit of mitigation outweighs the cost of inaction. The technology is still immature and already it shows great promise in terms of cost, capacity and near zero carbon operating footprint.


The TV comment was fairly obvious but again an example of being short on substance and cheap in delivery, but to some readers new to the topic it may be viewed as cryptic as it was demonstrated.

So somewhere among all that emotive speak, we have what? Nothing you haven't already said, which would suggest something. Among other things, your language suggests that you are defensive, which suggests that you think I'm attacking you or your ideas. I'm not.

I'm trying to point out that downsides of a technology can't be swept under a carpet, that anyone can Google Solar Thermal, and stick a few links up, but trying to being overly positive about such things does leave your posts open to criticism. This maybe why you feel attacked, and if you changed that, you might find yourself having a more productive discussion in future.