Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

re; Patrick Moore comments;

Getting back to that article though I have come to the conclusion that there are parts that appear, missleading and I suspect inaccurate.

URL; A Renegade Against Greenpeace | Newsweek Future Of Energy | Newsweek.com

Why do you favor nuclear energy over other non-carbon-based sources of energy?
Other than hydroelectric energy—which I also strongly support—nuclear is the only technology besides fossil fuels available as a large-scale continuous power source, and I mean one you can rely on to be running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Wind and solar energy are intermittent and thus unreliable. How can you run hospitals and factories and schools and even a house on an electricity supply that disappears for three or four days at a time? Wind can play a minor role in reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, because you can turn the fossil fuels off when the wind is blowing. And solar is completely ridiculous. The cost is so high—California's $3.2 billion in solar subsidies is all just going into Silicon Valley companies and consultants. It's ridiculous.

If you took a snapshot in time right now in terms of what's powering the world, clearly you would say yes nuclear, coal, hydro, gas and oil. But if you project several years ahead you would add renewables like wind, tidal, solar PV and Solar Thermal and other renewables. You would also add domestic decentralised trends to the mix. All these technologies when combined, raise the average capacity factor for renewables. Sure it will be many years before renewables really take hold and can be considered a major player, but we are heading in that direction.

I think his comments appear shallow and understate the potential value of solar technologies. It's a big statement to say "solar is completely ridiculous" and I think that anyone that makes that type of statement brings into question where their loyalties lie and for what reason, because a sweeping statement like that, seems to come across as not only misleading but also irrational. One does wonder whether there may be other reasons motivating his position on these issues, that might have more to do with internal politics and potential relationships with industry, rather than a concern about energy policy.

Further to his remarks, I would add that in regard to nuclear energy, it cant be reasonably adopted by every nation as the technology base required to operate a nuclear plant is such that many second and third world nations would not be able to afford nuclear energy and nor would they have the expertise and stability of government to safely manage it. Additionally I think nations should have the ability to generate their own energy supply and not be solely dependant on other nations for their energy security. Solar energy technologies can help such nations in this area.

Also nuclear and coal are of no use for off grid or remote isolated smaller grid applications. The point being that we need a range of energy mixes for a range of applications. Additionally there is a trend toward decentralised power generation, especially on the domestic front. For these reasons alone solar technologies, have much to offer.

The Iraq war has been estimated to be costing $200 million dollars per day and they are loosing it, so in 15 days time, there goes another potential 3 billion dollar solar subsidy up in smoke along with broken dreams. How many homes could that assist in getting solar power installed and boosting the broader economy.

[greenacy]

Originally Posted by screener

Perhaps we are going to continue to ensure that nuclear technology is only in the hands of sane nations like a republican led USA.

Please tell me this is political sarcasm.

[screener]

;<() and maybe a touch of irony?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

This is not about other people, it's about your lack of substance. Its about the fact that you made false and misleading inferences based on assumptions of my views, which frankly you know very little about other than the fact that I have indicated a belief that Solar Thermal has a strong future globally and I maintain that view in spite of your diversionary efforts to build arguments based on things I have not asserted. You can say whatever you like about the links, and articles, no skin off my nose, but you offer absolutely no alternative other than an unsupported point if view.

So you only recognise opinions that are based upon some link elsewhere on the internet? I'm a afraid some of us have learnt things in the real world that you don't find in the arms race of links.

Much of it is just common sense of which you have offered no counter point.

Nothing puts you above others and based on the gross lack of any supporting evidence you bring to your views, one can't reasonably take them seriously. You have pointed out very little and nothing I and I suspect others don't already know.

What point on ST have I made that is unreasonable?

"In nice simple terms" as you say. I rest my case, I think it's your manner that needs checking and this theme of veiled insult you ply, originated from your first critical remarks of my mentioning Solar Thermal and its reported 70% base load potential.

My manner?

LMagic wrote:

Again you have twisted the reality by implying I didn't want you to reference

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,

Clearly you fail to understand

Open your eyes and do some research on the topic

Its about the fact that you made false and misleading inferences based on assumptions of my views

Tell me something I don't know.

As I said you have created arguments where none existed and written off the information that I have presented as meaningless and biased.

Errrrrr no.
I could go on.

This has nothing to do with spinning reserve. Again you create an augment based on nothing that I have said. In fact I have already mentioned the notion of backup by fossil fuel reserve in a previous post. Blind Freddy can see that 70% capacity factor leaves 30% to be accounted for by other energy reserves. You are not telling me anything I don't already know. What I have maintained is that Solar Thermal has been reported to have a 70% capacity factor based on the articles I have read. That's it. I have claimed nothing more. Again you are making an argument where there never was one.

Calm down old chap, its the nature of the percentage that you were asked about. Something you still fail to grasp going by this paragraph.

You assumed I knew that because I did know that. Positive Spin ? YES of course. Solar Thermal is positive ! and has fantastic potential. Why would one not put a positive spin on that. It's 70% positive ! That's a win for the planet ! Solar Thermal has awesome potential ! Coal ranges from 70% to 90% Solar Thermal is right up there and its an immature technology still. That's very impressive and very positive and deserves all the positive spin it can get because its damn clean at zero emissions. That's everything good and nothing of the negative you pretend it to be.

Another example of your nature. More evidence that you're seduced by the technology. Try to take a balanced view for once.

The reasons you have stated amount to nothing not heard before.

Show me something that you've typed yourself that we've not seen before. And if you do, will it be based on a link? If it is then we must have seen it before

You haven't said anything significant other than mention spinning reserve, which can be provided by fossil fuels, no argument there, never has been. But not only that, reserve can be provided by additional thermal storage relative to load.

And yet one can't rely on that. To be a viable system, one must have a conventional backup even with thermal reserve.

Even conventional fossil fuelled power stations have blackouts and down time. You really have not made any case at all and what little point you have made about the remaining 30% capacity factor, I have never contended but rather elaborated further.

Fossil fuel power stations rarely break down. Their capacity factor is more a reflection of the demand rather than what it is capable of providing. If demand was higher and more constant, its capacity factor would reflect that. Where as with an intermittent source, you have less control on what you provide, as well you know. You claim that my earlier point was obvious but you seem to gloss over it again with wishful thinking.

I think the way you have come across is quite evident. I'm simply asserting my views on Solar Thermal and the fact that those views are based on my readings on the subject and the fact that you have manufactured non arguments and made inferences about views you think I might hold and presented them in a way as to reflect my views in a incredulous way. The vast majority of your arguments are based on your supposition about my views on Solar Thermal and not based on any key points I have made. As I said you have created arguments where none existed and written off the information that I have presented as meaningless and biased. I think that's more than good reason to firmly offer an alternate view to things from yourself.

And I'm simply asserting my views. Views that are held by others on this board.

Your repeated line of "arguments where none existed " is based upon what? I asked a reasonable question which you refused to try to answer, and when I did answer it for you, you complained I was stating the obvious. Well, that's all you ever do:

Ideal conditions means applied in an area suited to the technology

The details are there for anyone to read.

Solar Thermal technology will have its place along side other technologies

Time, good planning and management and basic economics will take care of the rest

But my favourate obvious statement of yours is:

As with all technologies, you avoid putting them where they are inappropriate.

Thank you for that flash of wisdom.

The TV comment was fairly obvious but again an example of being short on substance and cheap in delivery

So why did you have to ask what I meant?

So before you start complaining that I'm stating the obvious, be careful of what you post. However lines like:

Additionally mitigation of greenhouse gasses can justify higher energy production costs, where the longer term benefit of mitigation outweighs the cost of inaction

Show your lack of vision. Maybe in an ideal world that would be the case, but in the long run, we will be looking at what is financially preferable. This will no doubt result in less coal/gas being consumed in many areas, but to pay higher prices for a technology on a global scale when people don't need to is unreaslistic. When a cheaper technology is available, people will want to use it, as many will never be convinced about climate change. It is ideological to expect people to spend significant amounts extra money purely for climate change reasons, especially when affordable low carbon technology is available.

Continued.....

[Wobs]

Obviously with fossil fuel backup or more thermal storage, capacity factors can be increased.

Fossil fuel backup would not increase its capacity factor, as it is a seperate fuel source. It would be misleading to combine the two sources to get a new figure for such. Thermal storage would not do away with the need for fossil fuel backup despite what you have read. The more storage you have the more you fall for the issue of diminishing returns. Therefore, there is only so much storage you can create that will be worthwhile.

Those remarks reflect more upon yourself. Stick to the point and present a case, rather than another distraction. This is not about what you think about me or about what you might think I think about you. This is about addressing the key points with something more than just another unsubstantiated opinion. It seems you have made no effort, to provide any external information that might reflect your opinion more favorably and with substance.

You mean I shouldn't complain about your posts? Oh the irony. LOL.

The key pieces of information I have alluded to, are about the reported capacity factor of Solar Thermal and the fact that 70% is a very good figure, given the immaturity of this technology, the fact that it is said to be clean and the fact that it is said to be cost competitive with coal. By all means discuss those points, but the rest of your criticisms are based on making up arguments along the way, that I have never presented and that just serves as a diversion, to distract people from the core points I have made, because really you have not presented any credible argument against those three points and provided no evidence to give any credibility to your views.

In practise it is likely to be lower owing to making it commercially viable. Comprimises must be made in terms of mirror design, size, salts used, and location.

I note it was you that initiated a barrage of falsehoods and misleading inferences based not based on things I had said, but based on things one suspects ticking over in your mind, seemingly to discredit even the mere fact that I have just mentioned public information, that is reflected an many reports and public information from companies and organizations doing research and implementing the technology.

Name one falsehood. You have repeatedly claimed I've made false arguments etc, and yet not disproved a single point.

You just refuse to accept that the information I have referred to has any credibility. That is unfortunate because I re-iterate you have presented nothing other than an unsupported opinion. I have presented at least something and my position is based on that information, rather than just my opinion. Nobody has any reason to believe anything you have said any more than believe the information I have presented. I have presented information from a range of sources and you have presented nothing but a single voice.

You've googled solar thermal and found some articles that promote it. Wow. I've questioned them, and you've not addressed any of it with any kind of counter argument, just more evidence of your insecurity.

Downside ? You have not pointed out a downside of Solar Thermal. The key point of any relevance in your critique, is 70% capacity factor. That is not a down side. That is a huge positive, because it leaves only 30% to be covered by other power sources. That's a huge upside. Add solar PV into the mix and you can further increase that capacity factor. Add wind and go further again. That is not a downside. That is a huge opportunity. The long term global potential of Solar Thermal is massive and should not be undersold.

I asked you of any more downsides given that you've put up so many links on the subject, I assumed you might of actually read them. If you want to put a balanced view point you would of, and I wouldn't have posted as I have. (But a quick glance through some of the links you put up confirms their propogandic nature.)

Your last paragraph is indicitive of your attitude, and its obvious I need to point out some problems as you clearly won't/can't.

# As mentioned, its intermittent, and the 70% capacity factor is meaningless on a technical level. Its great from a financial point of view, which is important, but it still needs a conventional back (ie. not just wind or PV or thermal storage as you seem to think).

# If salt water is used, corrosion rates can be very high. Not only would the tower and the turbines be subjected to the salty humid air, but anything nearby or downwind a bit could be affected.

# Large solar tower projects will affect the local climate, and wildlife. Some tower designs have had to be altered to prevent birds being sucked in, which affects efficiency.

# Dust storms in desert regions*. The best areas for such technology are desert areas. Unfortunately, they are also known for sand/dust storms. Something I was hoping you'd allude to but have glossed over. Many reflectors are best suited in a position where dust can accumulate, and as such will require frequent cleaning and will be subject to damage from the gritty nature of the sand/dust in the area, leading to loss of performance. This is important, as most of the best areas have this type of environment.

# Location/altitude. It must be near a water source, such as the sea. This limited it in terms of many desert locations. Australia even is limited in locations where it would be suitable. Altitude - if you want to pump form the sea, you need it in a low lieing region.

Given the last two combined, we find a limit to its usefulness. We would need a baking hot region with little dust storms, and low altitude if to be used to pump from the sea.

Can you think of any more?

The technology is great on paper, and in some test sites, but on a global scale is limited. There will be areas where high energy demands match the conditions in question, but nothing compared to other more conventional sources of energy. If they build many more and it works - great, couldn't be happier. But some of the best locations are far from demand, and we must recognise its limitations, just like any other technology, otherwise we fall into the trap of showing the worst traits of environmentalism - putting the mental into environmentalism.


From one of your links:
*"Regular maintenance is required for all solar thermal power systems. For the SEGS plants, routine cleaning and replacement of broken mirror facets and receiver modules forms a major part of the maintenance program."

[LMagic007]

re; more remarks from Wobs.

I'm not going to bother spending more time continually reading and responding to points that are not backed up by substance from some reputable source, other than an opinion. What I will say is that's what's happening around the world fly's in the face of most of your arguments and that's the reality I would rather put more faith in, than an unsupported forum opinion.

Every technology has problems and challenges, that's nothing new. Listing off a whole raft of problems does not change anything and most of the points you are listing are mute, in the face of Solar Thermal being implemented on large scales in reality. I mean really you are just nit picking to make an argument that doesn't exist and is not worthy of being an argument against what's happening in reality and in spite of such views. Other forms of power generation have more than their share of problems, but this is not the point.

What is relevant is what's happening and what's being planned in the real world. Solar Thermal developers have done their cost models and feasibility studies and research and testing over several decades. Solar Thermal CSP is still relatively immature technology and it has already shown fantastic potential. The renewable energy industry is growing rapidly and Solar Thermal is a major player in this boom. Contrary to your inferences, this technology has been proven. For example, Over 300 MW of Solar Thermal power capacity has operated in California alone, since the early 1970s. Do your research on that and others already in operation commercially.

Obviously you think NREL has credibility, as you make reference to their studies to make a case about the "best sites" for Solar as you put it. Speaking of NREL though, from which you draw your own twisted argument from their own web site;

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

Similarly applies with Solar Thermal CSP, but either way solar thermal in general has significant potential.

That's the proof that can be clearly measured over time. Of course Google is going to return information on the topic, as it will with any topic you look up. Google coal power and you will get info on coal power. What a silly and futile argument to make. I think that degree of pettiness just about sums it up in your criticisms of Solar Thermal technology.

I think there is little merit in your arguments, because they fail to discount the reality of what's happening on the ground. Many of your criticisms are not based on new information and your points would in all likelihood have been thought of by developers of Solar Thermal technology, long ago. As mentioned, every technology has limitations, but on the balance of scales, Solar Thermal's benefits obviously outweigh the negatives. That's why Solar Thermal CSP is going forward in the real world and why hundreds of millions of dollars are being invested in the technology, at this relatively early stage of its evolution.

You have made your negative points about Solar Thermal, but now its time to deal with some facts. Solar Thermal in the real world is what's happening today and that's what needs reporting on, rather than simply thinking up all the negative faults you can think of, as one can with any power generation technology. Existing power generation technologies have plenty of negatives and that is in fact why the world is trying to replace them. It's the very reason for this discussion.

This discussion can go on indefinitely and come to nothing, other than more unsupported opinion. My commentary is largely based on my observation of what's happening around the world, in real life and not based on a personal belief or bias of what's technically viable and what's not. What's technically feasible, is what's actually happening, the rest is just opinion. You can continue to argue against reality if you want, but that would be a continual waste of time and effort.

The whole discussion is becoming somewhat repetitive and you need to present some fresh evidence based on observable, verifiable fact from an external source, other than just an opinion and I and I suspect others will be happy to look at it further. Less talk and more factual, verifiable and relevant substance. That would be more educational, enlightening and refreshing for everyone. Otherwise, this is just going around in circles and time might be better spent on other topics.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

I'm not going to bother spending more time continually reading and responding to points that are not backed up by substance from some reputable source, other than an opinion. What I will say is that's what's happening around the world fly's in the face of most of your arguments and that's the reality I would rather put more faith in, than an unsupported forum opinion.

So you can't or daren't tackle the points I've already raised. Fair enough.

Once again your posts are so one sided that you lose any credibility. As you say that you are interested in global energy requirements, it would seem rather important to take a more balanced view, to look at advantages and disadvantages of all technologies. To realise their limitations in all situations. I love the idea of these systems, but I've seen too many other systems fall down as their limitations are often realised further down the line.

I cannot emphasis how important that is. To blindly celebrate a technology as you do, without taking a balanced view is counterproductive.

Just because I don't put up a whole waft of links does not make my points invalid, and it shows how blinkered you are that you refuse to even entertain them without a link. That you won't even try to disprove anything says much.

Listing off a whole raft of problems does not change anything and most of the points you are listing are mute, in the face of Solar Thermal being implemented on large scales in reality.

Again: None so blind as shall not see.

300MW? That may sound a lot, but is not much in the face of global energy demands, as you are concerned with.

You want a link so much? Fine:

Maintenance costs have been estimated (in a fashion comparable to some of your sums) as 1% of the captial costs per month:
"The basic cost problems with solar energy are

1.High capital cost. This is probably not insuperable.
2.The need to store energy, because of daily, hourly and weekly (from clouds) and seasonal availability.
3.The need to transport the energy long distances. This might put cloudy countries at high latitudes at a severe economic disadvantage.
4.Maintenance cost. One person, experienced in maintaining complex systems gave me an estimate of one percent a month, e.g. a system costing $40K costs $400 per month to maintain. "
SOLAR ENERGY

A lengthy discussion on impacts, highlighting some of the lack of resarch on the wildlife impacts that we lnow about it:
Talk:Energy tower (downdraft)/Zwirn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It discusses wildlife, meteological effects, and brine pollution thus:
"The sea water would be pumped some 40 kilometers through a network of pipes from the Gulf of Aqaba, sprayed into the tower and then funneled through the reverse osmosis membrane, and the ensuing highly concentrated brine would be sent back through open-air channels. If either the sea water or the brine were to leak and contaminate the soil or groundwater, the area nearby would be rendered unviable for agricultural use, and any indigenous plant and animal life would be threatened. Concentrated brine is particularly dangerous in this regard, as Zaslavsky has acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly. For this reason, the pilot plant may be situated in the aforementioned salt pond area, which is already unusable for agriculture or wildlife."

Siting such a plant poses issues as well, as I've already mentioned, that again you fail to appreciate. Australia for example has only a small number of sites that are suitable, given sun light, and water availability:
http://www.ecmwf.int/about/special_p...6_extended.pdf

Some research has highlighted having thousands of motors starting up in the morning can cause problems:
""In the very early morning the dishes shade each other, and that will certainly affect a large field," he said. "Also, these things start up using an electric generator. If 20,000 of those went on at the same time, you'd damage the power grid."
Staggering start times a minute apart for 20,000 dishes won't work because it would be dark before the last ones cranked up, Andraka said. "
And owls nesting in a smaller plant meant it had to be shutdown!
ABQjournal: Harvesting Power From Solar Farms Target of Lab Venture

As you can see, it is a complex system, and maintenance costs would seem to be significent. If you read otherwise, we should take it with a pinch of salt, as we don't know exact figures for the long term on larger scale plants.

"Traditional CSP plants do not utilize a feature of nature and scale in a linear fashion. They currently are very location limited to arid high isolation locations."
SHPEGS (energytower) Background and Prior Art

And before anyone dismisses nuclear energy, we must ackowledge that it is the nuclear energy that has help improve the efficiency of this technology:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/scale/pubs/SOL-05-1048_1.pdf
Its all quite incestuous isn't it LOL.

As you'll see, one of the main problems is that many of the ideal locations that haven't yet been exploited are away from centres population where the demand is. This will either greatly increase capital costs in terms of delivery, or make it totally unviable, depending upon the circumstances

[LMagic007]

Thankyou for the posted links. Finally something others can refer to and may be even learn from. Nobody is questioning the points you have raised. As I have already indicated though, most power generation technologies have associated problems, which is why man is seeking other solutions to electricity production beyond fossil fuel based alternatives, which is why this discussion thread exists.

The point about Solar Thermal CSP technology is that it is being pursued aggressively globally, it has been tested and operating commercially over several decades and in spite of the problems you have raised with the technology, as there are problems with most technologies, it's still going forward even further. Solar Thermals high capacity factor and cheap storage possibilities, make it a prime candidate for competing with other base load power generation technologies. This view is reflected in many of the reports I have read.

As we have already discussed, as much as some of your negative points about Solar Thermal may have some merit, as with most technologies, the overall thrust of evidence shows that despite the challenges that exist, Solar Thermal CSP technology like many other technologies, have arrived at a point where they have become commercially feasible. Solar Thermal technology will likely improve from here, as does technology generally over time, which is a positive indicator that it can become even more reliable into the future.

Yes you have raised some negative points about Solar Thermal and some of the points may have some validity to them, like with other power generation technologies, most have negative aspects as already discussed and invariably exceedingly far worse than Solar Thermal, in the context of environmental footprint ( carbon and or other ).

All the points you have listed, I have read about and these problems have been reported to have been either solved, or have been said to be surmountable. It's interesting to see the points you have made, well done. What's happening on the ground though reflects an industry that has grappled with and come to terms with limitations of this evolving technology, to a point where the confidence to invest large sums of money now exists. Further more Solar Thermal projects around the world have commenced and are being planned for construction over the next few years alone. Clearly the positives of Solar Thermal CSP outweight the negatives, which is what's driving this technology forward around the world.

In the mean time I will review your welcomed links on the topic and comment further as appropriate.

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




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

Originally Posted by Wobs

So you can't or daren't tackle the points I've already raised. Fair enough.

Once again your posts are so one sided that you lose any credibility. As you say that you are interested in global energy requirements, it would seem rather important to take a more balanced view, to look at advantages and disadvantages of all technologies. To realise their limitations in all situations. I love the idea of these systems, but I've seen too many other systems fall down as their limitations are often realised further down the line.

I cannot emphasis how important that is. To blindly celebrate a technology as you do, without taking a balanced view is counterproductive.

Just because I don't put up a whole waft of links does not make my points invalid, and it shows how blinkered you are that you refuse to even entertain them without a link. That you won't even try to disprove anything says much.


Again: None so blind as shall not see.

300MW? That may sound a lot, but is not much in the face of global energy demands, as you are concerned with.

You want a link so much? Fine:

Maintenance costs have been estimated (in a fashion comparable to some of your sums) as 1% of the captial costs per month:
"The basic cost problems with solar energy are

1.High capital cost. This is probably not insuperable.
2.The need to store energy, because of daily, hourly and weekly (from clouds) and seasonal availability.
3.The need to transport the energy long distances. This might put cloudy countries at high latitudes at a severe economic disadvantage.
4.Maintenance cost. One person, experienced in maintaining complex systems gave me an estimate of one percent a month, e.g. a system costing $40K costs $400 per month to maintain. "
SOLAR ENERGY

A lengthy discussion on impacts, highlighting some of the lack of resarch on the wildlife impacts that we lnow about it:
Talk:Energy tower (downdraft)/Zwirn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It discusses wildlife, meteological effects, and brine pollution thus:
"The sea water would be pumped some 40 kilometers through a network of pipes from the Gulf of Aqaba, sprayed into the tower and then funneled through the reverse osmosis membrane, and the ensuing highly concentrated brine would be sent back through open-air channels. If either the sea water or the brine were to leak and contaminate the soil or groundwater, the area nearby would be rendered unviable for agricultural use, and any indigenous plant and animal life would be threatened. Concentrated brine is particularly dangerous in this regard, as Zaslavsky has acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly. For this reason, the pilot plant may be situated in the aforementioned salt pond area, which is already unusable for agriculture or wildlife."

Siting such a plant poses issues as well, as I've already mentioned, that again you fail to appreciate. Australia for example has only a small number of sites that are suitable, given sun light, and water availability:
http://www.ecmwf.int/about/special_p...6_extended.pdf

Some research has highlighted having thousands of motors starting up in the morning can cause problems:
""In the very early morning the dishes shade each other, and that will certainly affect a large field," he said. "Also, these things start up using an electric generator. If 20,000 of those went on at the same time, you'd damage the power grid."
Staggering start times a minute apart for 20,000 dishes won't work because it would be dark before the last ones cranked up, Andraka said. "
And owls nesting in a smaller plant meant it had to be shutdown!
ABQjournal: Harvesting Power From Solar Farms Target of Lab Venture

As you can see, it is a complex system, and maintenance costs would seem to be significent. If you read otherwise, we should take it with a pinch of salt, as we don't know exact figures for the long term on larger scale plants.

"Traditional CSP plants do not utilize a feature of nature and scale in a linear fashion. They currently are very location limited to arid high isolation locations."
SHPEGS (energytower) Background and Prior Art

And before anyone dismisses nuclear energy, we must ackowledge that it is the nuclear energy that has help improve the efficiency of this technology:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/scale/pubs/SOL-05-1048_1.pdf
Its all quite incestuous isn't it LOL.

As you'll see, one of the main problems is that many of the ideal locations that haven't yet been exploited are away from centres population where the demand is. This will either greatly increase capital costs in terms of delivery, or make it totally unviable, depending upon the circumstances

[LMagic007]

re; Wobs posted web links below, supposedly on the negatives of Solar Thermal CSP technology;


1. Your first link SOLAR ENERGY is dated 1995 and presumably written by an IT professor - John McCarthy SOLAR ENERGY I will say little more on that. It's now 2008 and IT professors don't usually build, design or operate Solar Thermal power stations. Solar Thermal was barely mentioned other than some link to a Boeing Power Tower project, which was a dead link. That post did your case a disservice.

2. Your second link Energy Towers: Pros and Cons of the Arubot Sharav Alternative Energy Proposal is dated 1997
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Energy_tower_%28downdraft%29/Zwirn

This link mentioned the word Solar Thermal once. The so called "Energy Tower (downdraft)" technology, mentioned is nothing like what Solar Thermal CSP technology is. Its irrelevant to CSP technology. Nobody is going to be pumping sea water from any sea. Somewhat a distraction from this thread and the Solar Thermal CSP technology I have been consistently referring to. Solar Thermal CSP technology recycles water.

3. This link refers to an article that talks about electricity and desalination from "Energy Towers" ( downdraft ) and again does not even mention the term Solar Thermal. This technology has nothing to do with Solar Thermal CSP technology. Another distraction.
http://www.ecmwf.int/about/special_p...6_extended.pdf

4. Your fourth link dated 2004 http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/apsolar11-22-04.htm talks about powering up the dishes and seeking solutions. It's now 2008 and the plants are being built. I guess they solved the problem. If one wanted to speculate, one might suggest that perhaps the dishes either have their self contained power source that's recharged or they get power from the power station. Beyond the speculation though, the power stations are being built.

5. Your fifth link http://www.shpegs.org/background.html where you talking about location location location. Umm yes and ??? Yes we appreciated solar needs sun. Nobody has said any technology is applicable in all localities. In fact I have repeatedly indicated where appropriate, which covers all factors including location. With that said though, coal fired power stations commercial viability are influenced by location dependant factors. The point about nature and scale is not that significant, given the projections of the total land area required to provide meaningful power generation from Solar Thermal CSPs. That other referring document; http://www.solarenergy.com/info_history.html dated 1995. Thirteen years old and is thus not reflective of current developments of Solar Thermal CSP technology.

6. Finally your PDF link: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/scale/pubs/SOL-05-1048_1.pdf dated May 2007 seems more reasonable and current. The conclusion of this article is that yes there are challenges for a closed Brayton cycle Solar Thermal, but the potential economic gains warrant serious consideration. Its now 2008 and many plants are either under construction of being planned.

From reading the articles you have referred to its clear to me that there appears very little evidence and especially evidence that's current, that suggests Solar Thermal does not have a bright future. Yes there are challenges with technology, but as mentioned other power generation technologies have more than their fair share of technical hurdles, yet they have thrived. The points you have raised might have some merit, but they equally have largely been addressed by the designers of this technology. You really only posted one link of current significance and relevance and that was far from damning and in fact on balance was complimentary of Solar Thermal technology.

Every point you have raised is manageable within the context of the typical raft of technical issues that are overcome when designing such technology. Most importantly though, the fact that Solar Thermal CSP plants are continuing to be built around the world, is the best and ultimate indicator of the health of the Solar Thermal industry, which although has been operating commercially for several decades in some locations, is still relatively immature and has huge potential for improvement and for development globally and that's what's happening today.

Also there is nothing blind about talking in positive terms about a technology that shows great promise. Not focusing on the negatives does not imply there aren't any. The overwhelming bulk of the evidence on Solar Thermal CSP clearly shows the positives to by far outweigh the negatives. Thus at the end of the day you end up with a net positive, which highlights the great potential of Solar Thermal CSP technology.You are most welcome to dwell on the negative, I will stick with the net positive.

Originally Posted by Wobs

So you can't or daren't tackle the points I've already raised. Fair enough.

Once again your posts are so one sided that you lose any credibility. As you say that you are interested in global energy requirements, it would seem rather important to take a more balanced view, to look at advantages and disadvantages of all technologies. To realise their limitations in all situations. I love the idea of these systems, but I've seen too many other systems fall down as their limitations are often realised further down the line.

I cannot emphasis how important that is. To blindly celebrate a technology as you do, without taking a balanced view is counterproductive.

Just because I don't put up a whole waft of links does not make my points invalid, and it shows how blinkered you are that you refuse to even entertain them without a link. That you won't even try to disprove anything says much.


Again: None so blind as shall not see.

300MW? That may sound a lot, but is not much in the face of global energy demands, as you are concerned with.

You want a link so much? Fine:

Maintenance costs have been estimated (in a fashion comparable to some of your sums) as 1% of the captial costs per month:
"The basic cost problems with solar energy are

1.High capital cost. This is probably not insuperable.
2.The need to store energy, because of daily, hourly and weekly (from clouds) and seasonal availability.
3.The need to transport the energy long distances. This might put cloudy countries at high latitudes at a severe economic disadvantage.
4.Maintenance cost. One person, experienced in maintaining complex systems gave me an estimate of one percent a month, e.g. a system costing $40K costs $400 per month to maintain. "
SOLAR ENERGY

A lengthy discussion on impacts, highlighting some of the lack of resarch on the wildlife impacts that we lnow about it:
Talk:Energy tower (downdraft)/Zwirn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It discusses wildlife, meteological effects, and brine pollution thus:
"The sea water would be pumped some 40 kilometers through a network of pipes from the Gulf of Aqaba, sprayed into the tower and then funneled through the reverse osmosis membrane, and the ensuing highly concentrated brine would be sent back through open-air channels. If either the sea water or the brine were to leak and contaminate the soil or groundwater, the area nearby would be rendered unviable for agricultural use, and any indigenous plant and animal life would be threatened. Concentrated brine is particularly dangerous in this regard, as Zaslavsky has acknowledged both explicitly and implicitly. For this reason, the pilot plant may be situated in the aforementioned salt pond area, which is already unusable for agriculture or wildlife."

Siting such a plant poses issues as well, as I've already mentioned, that again you fail to appreciate. Australia for example has only a small number of sites that are suitable, given sun light, and water availability:
http://www.ecmwf.int/about/special_p...6_extended.pdf

Some research has highlighted having thousands of motors starting up in the morning can cause problems:
""In the very early morning the dishes shade each other, and that will certainly affect a large field," he said. "Also, these things start up using an electric generator. If 20,000 of those went on at the same time, you'd damage the power grid."
Staggering start times a minute apart for 20,000 dishes won't work because it would be dark before the last ones cranked up, Andraka said. "
And owls nesting in a smaller plant meant it had to be shutdown!
ABQjournal: Harvesting Power From Solar Farms Target of Lab Venture

As you can see, it is a complex system, and maintenance costs would seem to be significent. If you read otherwise, we should take it with a pinch of salt, as we don't know exact figures for the long term on larger scale plants.

"Traditional CSP plants do not utilize a feature of nature and scale in a linear fashion. They currently are very location limited to arid high isolation locations."
SHPEGS (energytower) Background and Prior Art

And before anyone dismisses nuclear energy, we must ackowledge that it is the nuclear energy that has help improve the efficiency of this technology:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/scale/pubs/SOL-05-1048_1.pdf
Its all quite incestuous isn't it LOL.

As you'll see, one of the main problems is that many of the ideal locations that haven't yet been exploited are away from centres population where the demand is. This will either greatly increase capital costs in terms of delivery, or make it totally unviable, depending upon the circumstances

[Wobs]

Evidence is not exactly like fruit. It doesn't go off.

Some problems cannot be overcome and must be accounted, which means limiting the technology.





See the differences between where demand and desert locations are.

See also the pdf file (which should work) for studies of where the best locations in Australia and N.Africa are. "Limited" is the key here.