Green Peace Leader Rags on Solar Power

[LMagic007]

re; Wobs posted links, purportedly on the negatives of Solar Thermal CSP technology;


I have already responded to all your links in my previous post. Really you have shown next to nothing in terms of strong evidence against Solar Thermal CSP technology and most of the information you referred to, was either significantly out of date or irrelevant and relating to ideas such as Downdraft Energy Tower technology that has nothing to do with Solar Thermal CSP technology.

You talk about geographic coverage and again nobody has ever contended that there are limitations, as with any technology. With that said, power grids can cover thousands of miles cost effectively. This really is not a significant enough issue to stop wide spread implementation of Solar Thermal CSP technology. The solar diagrams you have posted don't change anything. It's not a show stopper.

Everything in this world is limited and nobody has ever contended that. That's a given. All energy technologies are limited in their capacity to meet long term demand. Fortunately technology does not remain static. Renewable Energy technologies however are better placed to meet long term demand than fossil fuels.

Solar Thermal CSP technology, is just one of a range of renewable technologies that when combined together, help form a more powerful alliance, in helping bring cleaner electrical power generation to the planet. Nobody has ever indicated that other energy technologies won't also play a part in this energy evolution. The rest is up to history.

[Wobs]

The PDF file shows the extent of where the best solar energy production is in N.Africa and Australia, and the cost per kw in different areas. This is important, as the N.African coast shows a suprising low production, high cost per kw. Which is a shame. It shows that the best places for solar energy aren't the places where the most demand is.

You brush off the need for water, even though steam is used, and water will be needed to keep the panels clean in such dusty environments.

The reality is that the best solar conditions are in those areas that are low in water supply. Really low.

They are environmentally vulnerable, with further desertification a real threat and water resources scarce. I'd of thought that would be high on your list of things to check given the droughts you guys are experiencing.

The pictures I put up show that the world's energy demands are largely not in the areas best suited to such technology. Yes there are areas that are, but only a small minority.

The idea of putting thousands of miles of power lines for it is a predictable response from you, and shows that on your planet, money is no object. Well here on planet Earth (the pics I put up), it does matter. Also, can you say "carbon cost"?

There are of course, sites that will be ideal, and I couldn't be happier for them, but just because there are new plants being planned, doesn't mean there will be some linear or exponential expansion of this technology leading to huge inroads into the planets energy demands. Solar towers are great for things like desaliniation in certain countries, and some countries could use them for other specific energy needs, but world wide expansion is not likely no matter how publicised it will be. There is no evidence to contradict this, and saying that problems will be ironed out somewhere down the line is blindly optomistic.

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.

If you read the rest of the website you'll find he's rather knowledgeable about a wide range of energy issues. I was more than clear on the accuracy of cost issue from it as well. Although I freely admit he's pro-nuclear, its an interesting read, no matter what your own views are.

2. Your second link Energy Towers: Pros and Cons of the Arubot Sharav Alternative Energy Proposal is dated 1997
Talk:Energy tower (downdraft)/Zwirn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Speaking as someone who works on a site that recycles its water, I can tell you that you might want to consider that losses and "recharge" are good reasons that you still need a good water supply. Not to mention cleaning of panels, and other misc uses.

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

If you can't see issues that pertain to both, then I refer you to my earlier comment of "none so blind...."

4. Your fourth link dated 2004 ABQjournal: Harvesting Power From Solar Farms Target of Lab Venture 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.

Yes because 2004 was such a long time ago.
I didn't say it would prevent it from being built, but if one were to install many more in a specific area, I think it would be fair to speculate that this would impact even more on the local grid. If it used the plants own stored power source (which would be likely), this would reduce greatly the likelyhood that it would be suitable for baseload supply. Hold that thought*.

5. Your fifth link SHPEGS (energytower) Background and Prior Art 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; History of Solar Energy dated 1995. Thirteen years old and is thus not reflective of current developments of Solar Thermal CSP technology.

Again, just because something is old, doesn't mean that one should discount it. Note it says arid. ie. short on the wet stuff.

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.

I appreciate the fact you described it as a challenge. This is good.
Some challenges (or problems) can be overcome, some cannot, but many can only be reduced. Such as the issue of energy storage. Such as molten salt used for energy storage, which is limited in terms of duration (a week according to this: Solar Collectors using Molten Salt).

We should also question the availability of the salts needed for the system, as its a specific type that they need. An increase in demand will increase the cost of course.

Study into molten salt:
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pd...3207_final.pdf

Sandia National Laboratories - Solar Thermal Designated User Facilities
"The size of this tank depends on the requirements of the utility; tanks can be designed with enough capacity to power a turbine from two to twelve hours."

or:"the heat of it - can be used until the next dawn when the sun will be back to heat the cooled down salt again "

You'll find that in the nrel study, that it recommends limiting the size of the tank, owing to the properties of the molten salts, so there's got to be a trade off between the two factors.

Obviously there's a contradiction there (storage times), but either way, we find a limit to the energy storage, and this puts into question any claim of 99% efficiency. It sounds like there's a real drop off when used for prolonged storage, which is an issue for baseload supply, as a change in weather will require alternative source of energy, as I've already pointed out. Such high claims of efficiency are clearly in isolation of other factors such as energy conversion, etc, and as such can be most misleading.

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.

Again "none so blind..."
Development and innovation is not some all encompassing magic wand. Some things take decades to solve, some things are easier to solve, while others are just obstacles that must be respected.

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.

Every point that I've made you either pretend to acknowledge or try to discredit with bizarre claims. Yes its an immature technology, but some things are limiting owing to the laws of physics and economics. The old claim of "things will come down in price when its established" only works so far, and can take decades.

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.

I beg to differ.

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.

I'd rather have a more balanced view thank you. Putting a whole series of links that are propogandic in nature (overly postive in your case) is not a healthy past time. You expect me to put links up that have credibilty, and then only dwell on positive aspects and put up links that are grossly one sided. Please dwell on that, as it effects the majority of posts that you put up here. You might also want to consider that one of the main reasons that I may come across to you in such a negative way is that your apporach is overly positive.



*just because you read that such technology can add to baseload supply doesn't mean its necessarily the case (there other types of supply that no doubt would be suitable for it). As we've seen, the limits of the technology are such that it is still subject to the wim of mother nature, and can only hold a charge for a limited time.

While a large plant can be very impressive, it will struggle to match that of a conventional or nuclear power station both in scale and reliability. That's not to say I don't get excited when I see one been planned, as they are great, even though they do have a huge footprint.

[LMagic007]

re; Wobs remarks

You talk about water, as if it's unique to Solar Thermal. - Coal and Nuclear use water. These latest Solar Thermal Designs re-cycle their water. Heliostat washing is a relatively small overhead. Solar Thermal CSP Tower plants use minimal water and there is minimal water loss. The system they use is closed loop. In terms of cooling, the similar issues apply as with fossil fuel based power plants and the water required. Wet or dry or air cooled cooling methods apply accross industry for both fossil fueld power generation and renewable Solar Thermal power generation. The Once Through Cooling method often used to cool fossil fuel power plants ( as mentioned in this NREL document ) , is rarely applicable to Solar Thermal power plants. Another furphy you have attempted, through lack of a substantive case.

NREL Explains further;
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/pd...ry_cooling.pdf

As indicated before, the dynamics of demand and price of fossil fuels is such that longer power transmission distances are becoming more feasible. As fossil fuels rise in cost and looming of the carbon tax, will eventually make renewable energy even more cost competitive than it is today. It's our destiny, as is Solar Thermal and other renewable energy technologies.

You have to think of the worst case of what we are doing now as opposed to what we will be doing if we migrate to renewable energy. What we are doing now with fossil fuels is far far worse, than any of these issues you have raised about environmental concerns. You need to get a clearer perspective here. Man will never be zero impact on the planet, but man has to aim for the lesser of all evils. As it stands, fossil fuel burning is so destructive to our environment, that it makes renewable energy, with all its flaws look incredibly attractive, because renewable energy technologies are far less damaging to our environment. That's the perspective you need to appreciate, but seemingly you don't.

As indicated before you have raised many points about Solar Thermal, some of which may even have some merit, but at the end of the day, this technology has been operating for decades both in test and commercially. Whatever issues you have raised have likely been considered and built into their cost models. Again though it comes down to the question of is the technology with all its limitations and benefits manageable. This concept applies to all technologies, not just Solar Thermal. There is no perfect technology and yet such technologies achieve their objectives and thus are considered successful over the course of time.

As mentioned before, you can keep nit picking on the negatives of Solar Thermal CSP ( as do all technologies have negatives and still many are successful ) as you continually do, but that does not discount what happening in the real world. Clearly the overarching view of industry is that the positives of Solar Thermal by far outweigh any perceived negatives. This overall perspective is what drives the strategic thinking and directions that man takes. Clearly Solar Thermal is a strategic platform for energy provision, around the world.

Again I stress, its not about me being blind about the perceived issues you have mentioned, anyone can see these issues, so you can end that cynical cliché. Its about appreciating that whilst there are technical problems and challenges of this technology and with all new technology, these problems and challenges can be overcome or are not significant enough to become show stoppers of Solar Thermal CSP technology growing in application throughout the world.

Thousands of miles of DC transmission is not my idea. Its an idea that's been floated in the industry. I'm reflecting that idea. Thus again your cynicism is misguided.

Studies into solar thermal storage also show a variation of storage situations. Most though show storage heat loss of only a few degrees per day from a hot tank with heat of around 565 deg C . The cold tank is stored at 240 deg C, 45 deg C above its melting point. Studies also indicate that by varying the solar collector array, concentrator, heat storage tank size and power generator size to optimal configuration to suit demand load for a given location, extended storage times can be achieved. With the sufficient configuration, storage can be 14 hours or more at increased cost. The optimum hours is based on the location and other configuration parameters. If they wanted an average of 20 hours or even 24 hours of heat storage that can be done at additional incremental cost. However the costs in the context of rising fossil fuel prices and looming carbon taxes are likely to be more absorbable over the years ahead. Solar Thermal is situated in areas that on average receive sufficient insolation in consideration of all these other parameters, to make their implementation justifiable, and that's what's happening in the real world.

I'm presenting views that exist within the industry, rather than my own views. Most of your views seem to be just that opinions you have floated and nothing you have said would be significant enough to call the whole show off. The industry would be well aware of issues relating to supply of raw materials, costs etc.... These Solar Thermal projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars are not designed and built on a whim. Exhaustive research, testing and development goes into such projects.

You are discrediting the industry by thinking that they would not have though of the issues you have raised after several decades of research, testing and operation of this technology. Everything has limits no doubt, but nobody has ever said Solar Thermal of any other power generation technology is unlimited. Yet you language and arguments seems to be based around some fallacious premise that one technology is gong to solve the worlds energy problems, which is as you put it is reflective of the "none so blind" mentality you cynically refer to when you argument runs out of puff.

Industry is pursuing Solar Thermal technology regardless of the points you have raised. Why ? because they on balance view the benefits to far outweigh any of the perceived negatives such as those you have raised. You can argue with me, but you cant argue with industry and the fact of what's happening. You can argue industry is flawed if you like, but I don't think they would be relying on your advice when they have done their own research which is more based on detailed analysis and research, testing, operation over decades, than a whimsical opinion developed by one person. The truth of the pudding is in the eating and the eating is what's now happening in the real world and not in the virtual world.

The reports and research studies are useful as a discussion point, but most of them are now outdated. This technology and developments in the energy industry are moving so rabidly today, that by the time a report is released, new developments have taken place changing the dynamics once again. Now that we have both referred to such reports, we need to look at what's really happening today. The reality needs to be appreciated in the today on the ground context. What's real today on the ground is reflective of technology that has since evolved further and overcome many of the issues you have raised as concerns.

I note you sighted NRL reports, well done, but If one looks at the NRL web site today rather than just a dated report, you will get a an impression that goes even further toward highlighting the tremendous potential of Solar Theraml technology.

Originally Posted by NRL Web Site

NREL: Learning - Concentrating Solar Power
" A power tower system uses a large field of mirrors to concentrate sunlight onto the top of a tower, where a receiver sits. This heats molten salt flowing through the receiver. Then, the salt's heat is used to generate electricity through a conventional steam generator. Molten salt retains heat efficiently, so it can be stored for days before being converted into electricity. That means electricity can be produced on cloudy days or even several hours after sunset. "

By all means view your articles from NRL warts and all;

NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Research - Publications

NREL could be said to be fairly independant US government based organization and focused on the raw facts, notwithstanding the fact they are keen to see Solar Thermal and other renewable ewnergy technologies suceed. NREL have been involved in allot of research in many forms of renewable energy technologies for decades.

At the end of the day, the articles you have referred to do not denounce Solar Thermal technology in any way shape or form. The overall indication of all these articles is that yes there are challenges, but yes there are also tremendous opportunities for Solar Thermal technology. What's happening in the real world reflects this optimism, rather than the pessimism you bring to the discussion. This optimism though is not whimsical, but rather based on decades of research, testing and development of the technology. That's why they are building Solar Thermal power stations around the world today. All you seem to be able to do is continually try to find faults with the technology ( by the way which you are most welcome to do ) , whilst I will continue to report that the technology continues to be deployed with new projects being announced around the world near every few weeks. You can continue to live in denial, whilst I continue to report on the ground what's really happening. That's fine by me.

One the ground NREL projects for Solar Thermal of varying forms alone;

NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Research - Projects

Southwest Concentrating Solar Power 1000-MW Initiative

NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Research - Southwest Concentrating Solar Power 1000-MW Initiative


Some Australian Government Initiatives
Renewable Energy Commercialisation in Australia - Solar Thermal Projects

Renewable Energy - Home Page

Unfortunately the Australian government has been a bit slack with renewable energy over the last decade. Hopefully things will change with our new government.

As said before and I will say it again, it's by combining renewable energy technology from a range of sources that include, Solar PV, Solar Thermal ( CSP, Trough, other etc... ), Wind, Tidal, Bio-fuels, the world can go a long way toward building a new electricity generation infrastructure that's cleaner and safer for our planet, than anything that has ever come before. In combination these technologies can offer strong base load potential in the longer term and begin to replace existing fossil fuel based power generation technologies. In fact, in many instances, these technologies are already making inroads to offsetting additional future base load requirements.

You keep going on about Nuclear power, but fail to recognize that for a whole range of reason, nuclear power can't power the entire world as we head into the future. I think it's clear who's in denial and where the bias lies. As indicated before I'm reporting on what's actually happening and you are reporting on what you think is a concern. Nobody is contending your concerns, but that does not change what is happening on the ground and for that you can remain blissfully in denial for ever more. While you are dwelling on the negatives, the technology and industry is marching forward.

[LMagic007]

Further more to Wobs criticisms of Solar Thermal energy;

As I have already remarked, by varying the parameters of storage, collection, concentration, generation, reprocessing of heat in combination and relative to load requirements and environmental factors, in regard to weather and insolation averages, its possible to extend the energy reserves for further prolonged periods. It just means that the cost rises to achieve more lasting thermal storage.

There is plenty of scope in the mid to longer term, for higher cost in Solar Thermal storage, in consideration of the fact that as mentioned, fossil fuel demand is pushing up costs of fossil fuel based electricity and the looming carbon penalties that will further increase fossil fuel electricity cost delivery, both in the near and distant future.

Solar Thermal storage and the other key components can be modularly applied to meet the changing dynamics of the energy industry in terms of future cost projections of our dwindling supply of fossil fuels, relative to global demand for energy and the higher prices we are paying for fossil fuel based electricity today and will be well into the future.

By 2020, I suspect this discussion will have been had many times by many people and I suspect by then this discussion will be over, because Solar Thermal technology will have likely evolved even further and its application wide spread throughout the world in many forms. By 2020 Solar Thermal technologies will be well entrenched as a formidable electricity generation technology playing their part among many other renewable energy technologies, in helping contribute to the worlds sustainable energy demands. The core objective is for long term sustainable energy and that's where the world right now is heading. Solar thermal electricity generation is likely to play a significant part in that direction.

Its still early days for Solar Thermal technology of varyng forms in terms of the longer term picture, but one can already see whats happening in the market place.

Annual Solar Energy Report Demonstrates Record Growth of US Market


Annual Solar Energy Report Demonstrates Record Growth of US Market

Yes in absolute terms solar contribution is still relatively small compared to fossil fuel power generation, but in projected growth in terms of its contribution, can be seen clearly as being hugely significant.

If you combine all solar technologies Solar Thermal and Solar PV growth indicators you get some very impressive facts emerging. PV is ahead of thermal at present, but I belive the evidence shows Solar Thermal to be a sleeping giant. This especially the case for baseload potential with sufficient thermal storage. PV and Thermal compliment eachother, where PV can help meet peak day time loads and thermal help contribute to night time loads and staggered 24/7 backup power for times when wheather is less than optimal, along with other renewable energy technologies and when absolutely required, fossil fuel energy.

Solar PV Growth indicators below;

Eco-Economy Indicators: SOLAR POWER - Solar Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007

Eco-Economy Indicators: SOLAR POWER - Data

Solar Energy: PV Cell Production Jumps 50 Percent in 2007 - Seeking Alpha

Photovoltaic production rose 50% in 2007


When you have exhausted all your negative points about Solar Thermal technology and eventually you will ( otherwise you will simply be repeating yourself ), one thing will remain clear. Solar Thermal energy technology of varying forms and in particular of the CSP form, will be increasing in its deployment throughout the world ( as they already are - this is an immutable fact ), along with other renewable energy technologies. All the negatives will by then, have been proven to be surmountable and in the context of the time, proven to be absolutely untrue.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

re; Wobs remarks

You talk about water, as if it's unique to Solar Thermal. - Coal and Nuclear use water. These latest Solar Thermal Designs re-cycle their water. Heliostat washing is a relatively small overhead. Solar Thermal CSP Tower plants use minimal water and there is minimal water loss. The system they use is closed loop. In terms of cooling, the similar issues apply as with fossil fuel based power plants and the water required. Wet or dry or air cooled cooling methods apply accross industry for both fossil fueld power generation and renewable Solar Thermal power generation. The Once Through Cooling method often used to cool fossil fuel power plants ( as mentioned in this NREL document ) , is rarely applicable to Solar Thermal power plants. Another furphy you have attempted, through lack of a substantive case.

Again, behold your black and white thinking.
Most industrial scale boilers reuse water, and have a bleed off (recharge), I should know, as I've worked on a number of plants that do this (in areas without a water shortage). Solar thermal will be no different. The scale of the use may differ, but given the type of area that one must put them, it suddenly becomes an issue compared to the same useage elsewhere. Unless of course you're not bothered about the impact on such sensitive environments?

If you want to compare coal with solar, you fall into the trap that solar thermal plants must be in an arid region, whereas you tend to put a coal plant next to a large water supply and not worry about the weather so much. Thus, you need to find an arid region with a steady supply of water, such as the coast or a river or good ground water supply. Which limits location. Which among other factors limits its potential.

The same water requirement in a more damp region probably wouldn't be an issue.

As indicated before, the dynamics of demand and price of fossil fuels is such that longer power transmission distances are becoming more feasible. As fossil fuels rise in cost and looming of the carbon tax, will eventually make renewable energy even more cost competitive than it is today. It's our destiny, as is Solar Thermal and other renewable energy technologies.

You have to think of the worst case of what we are doing now as opposed to what we will be doing if we migrate to renewable energy. What we are doing now with fossil fuels is far far worse, than any of these issues you have raised about environmental concerns. You need to get a clearer perspective here. Man will never be zero impact on the planet, but man has to aim for the lesser of all evils. As it stands, fossil fuel burning is so destructive to our environment, that it makes renewable energy, with all its flaws look incredibly attractive, because renewable energy technologies are far less damaging to our environment. That's the perspective you need to appreciate, but seemingly you don't.

Heard it before many times. You put environmental cost above all else, (well usually ). "Renewables good fossil fuel bad" is what you're saying. But when that attitude finds the economic factor becoming too great, sooner or later you must maintain economic stability and use a more conventional supply of energy.

Also, technical issues get in the way as well, which of course is just as important, but I'm sure little things like that won't bother you.

As indicated before you have raised many points about Solar Thermal, some of which may even have some merit, but at the end of the day, this technology has been operating for decades both in test and commercially. Whatever issues you have raised have likely been considered and built into their cost models. Again though it comes down to the question of is the technology with all its limitations and benefits manageable.

You've not actually disproven anything I've said, and given that its been around for decades and not yet expanding to global energy demands would suggest limitations. Both financial and technical.

As mentioned before, you can keep nit picking on the negatives of Solar Thermal CSP ( as do all technologies have negatives and still many are successful ) as you continually do, but that does not discount what happening in the real world.

What's happening in the real world is that a few plants are been planned in some good sites. While I hope they build many more, they won't make that much of a difference on global energy demands.

Again I stress, its not about me being blind about the perceived issues you have mentioned, anyone can see these issues, so you can end that cynical cliché. Its about appreciating that whilst there are technical problems and challenges of this technology and with all new technology, these problems and challenges can be overcome or are not significant enough to become show stoppers of Solar Thermal CSP technology growing in application throughout the world.

Again I say - not all problems can be overcome. Many must be considered, and used as a limiting factor to a technology's expansion.

Thousands of miles of DC transmission is not my idea. Its an idea that's been floated in the industry. I'm reflecting that idea. Thus again your cynicism is misguided.

Its and idea that's been floated around but that just might be because you're not the only idealist in the world. You just read them and put up a link.

Studies into solar thermal storage also show a variation of storage situations. Most though show storage heat loss of only a few degrees per day from a hot tank with heat of around 565 deg C . The cold tank is stored at 240 deg C, 45 deg C above its melting point. Studies also indicate that by varying the solar collector array, concentrator, heat storage tank size and power generator size to optimal configuration to suit demand load for a given location, extended storage times can be achieved. With the sufficient configuration, storage can be 14 hours or more at increased cost. The optimum hours is based on the location and other configuration parameters. If they wanted an average of 20 hours or even 24 hours of heat storage that can be done at additional incremental cost. However the costs in the context of rising fossil fuel prices and looming carbon taxes are likely to be more absorbable over the years ahead. Solar Thermal is situated in areas that on average receive sufficient insolation in consideration of all these other parameters, to make their implementation justifiable, and that's what's happening in the real world.

Thank you for demonstrating how such technology would be inappropriate for baseload supply.
But you always counter any cost issue with some hopeful increase in fossil fuel cost or prices coming down on new technology. The truth is that these things have limited influences. That diminishing returns will be seen the more you provide energy storage owing to the lack of use of a percentage of it. The capacity of the storage will last less than a day in many instances and as such will need fossil fuel back up, therefore baseload supply should not be on the list of jobs for it to do.

I'm presenting views that exist within the industry, rather than my own views. Most of your views seem to be just that opinions you have floated and nothing you have said would be significant enough to call the whole show off. The industry would be well aware of issues relating to supply of raw materials, costs etc.... These Solar Thermal projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars are not designed and built on a whim. Exhaustive research, testing and development goes into such projects.

Don't try that one. You present your views based on wishful thinking, as I've just shown. You read biased articles and put them up by the dozen, offering no discussion other than some postive spin.

You are discrediting the industry by thinking that they would not have though of the issues you have raised after several decades of research, testing and operation of this technology. Everything has limits no doubt, but nobody has ever said Solar Thermal of any other power generation technology is unlimited. Yet you language and arguments seems to be based around some fallacious premise that one technology is gong to solve the worlds energy problems, which is as you put it is reflective of the "none so blind" mentality you cynically refer to when you argument runs out of puff.

I'm not discrediting anything. As I've already pointed out many times, I wish nothing but well for it. Its your over postive attitude that is blind. That any problem can be solved, that fossil fuels will destroy the environment, that costs in renewables will keep coming down in price.

Such black and white thinking is not healthy, as does you no favours.

The reports and research studies are useful as a discussion point, but most of them are now outdated. This technology and developments in the energy industry are moving so rabidly today, that by the time a report is released, new developments have taken place changing the dynamics once again. Now that we have both referred to such reports, we need to look at what's really happening today. The reality needs to be appreciated in the today on the ground context. What's real today on the ground is reflective of technology that has since evolved further and overcome many of the issues you have raised as concerns.

Again, none so blind.
Just because a research is x years old, doesn't mean you should just discount it.

I note you sighted NRL reports, well done, but If one looks at the NRL web site today rather than just a dated report, you will get a an impression that goes even further toward highlighting the tremendous potential of Solar Theraml technology.

You clearly haven't read it all. You clearly skipped the part that showed the solar potential of Australia and N.Africa. And the issues that I've highlighted connected with using the best sites.

[Wobs]

At the end of the day, the articles you have referred to do not denounce Solar Thermal technology in any way shape or form. The overall indication of all these articles is that yes there are challenges, but yes there are also tremendous opportunities for Solar Thermal technology. What's happening in the real world reflects this optimism, rather than the pessimism you bring to the discussion. This optimism though is not whimsical, but rather based on decades of research, testing and development of the technology. That's why they are building Solar Thermal power stations around the world today. All you seem to be able to do is continually try to find faults with the technology ( by the way which you are most welcome to do ) , whilst I will continue to report that the technology continues to be deployed with new projects being announced around the world near every few weeks. You can continue to live in denial, whilst I continue to report on the ground what's really happening. That's fine by me.

Maybe if I say it enough it will sink in.

I'm not denying that this technology has its place, but the global energy demands (which you've stated you are interested in) cannot be served in any kind of sizeable portion by this technology. I never said you were saying it would serve all our needs, but you want to paint it as some major player in the energy market when it clearly can't be, and to ignore any negatives is pandering to the propoganda that you put up.


Such as the Environmental Masturbation that you've put up in this thread.

One the ground NREL projects for Solar Thermal of varying forms alone;

NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Research - Projects

Southwest Concentrating Solar Power 1000-MW Initiative

NREL: Concentrating Solar Power Research - Southwest Concentrating Solar Power 1000-MW Initiative


Some Australian Government Initiatives
Renewable Energy Commercialisation in Australia - Solar Thermal Projects

Renewable Energy - Home Page

As said before and I will say it again, it's by combining renewable energy technology from a range of sources that include, Solar PV, Solar Thermal ( CSP, Trough, other etc... ), Wind, Tidal, Bio-fuels, the world can go a long way toward building a new electricity generation infrastructure that's cleaner and safer for our planet, than anything that has ever come before. In combination these technologies can offer strong base load potential in the longer term and begin to replace existing fossil fuel based power generation technologies. In fact, in many instances, these technologies are already making inroads to offsetting additional future base load requirements.

Combining wind solar tidal etc will not solve the worlds energy needs. It can make differences in selective places, but globally, where the demands are, they make small contributions. And talking of baseload contributions by these proves your gullibility.

I'd love it to be different. No really.

You keep going on about Nuclear power, but fail to recognize that for a whole range of reason, nuclear power can't power the entire world as we head into the future.

Name one time that I've stated that. Or anyone else for that matter.
Do you have any more strawman arguments?

I think it's clear who's in denial and where the bias lies. As indicated before I'm reporting on what's actually happening and you are reporting on what you think is a concern. Nobody is contending your concerns, but that does not change what is happening on the ground and for that you can remain blissfully in denial for ever more. While you are dwelling on the negatives, the technology and industry is marching forward.

What you're doing is reading some pro solar report and stating it as fact, while anyone who says the slightest things against such technology is some traitor. You clearly feel threatened by such discussions.
"Marching forwards"? You do like your propoganda don't you.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by LMagic007

PV is ahead of thermal at present, but I belive the evidence shows Solar Thermal to be a sleeping giant. This especially the case for baseload potential with sufficient thermal storage. PV and Thermal compliment eachother, where PV can help meet peak day time loads and thermal help contribute to night time loads and staggered 24/7 backup power for times when wheather is less than optimal, along with other renewable energy technologies and when absolutely required, fossil fuel energy.

It would indeed appear that solar thermal could overtake PV in the future. Maybe, but here's hoping. But after that you fall down with more idealism.

When you have exhausted all your negative points about Solar Thermal technology and eventually you will ( otherwise you will simply be repeating yourself ), one thing will remain clear. Solar Thermal energy technology of varying forms and in particular of the CSP form, will be increasing in its deployment throughout the world ( as they already are - this is an immutable fact ), along with other renewable energy technologies. All the negatives will by then, have been proven to be surmountable and in the context of the time, proven to be absolutely untrue.

And when solar technology fails to deliver on a global scale, you'll do what? Blame someone?

"All negatives proven to be surmountable?" More evidence of your blind faith. Thank you.

[LMagic007]

re; Wobs views against Solar Thermal

Speaking about wishful thinking, its the thinking of industry and not mine that has strong belief that Solar Thermal energy can be a major energy player. Again you're shooting the messenger simply because you don't like the message. Anyone will find articles from key industry players that believe Solar Thermal energy can play a significant part of the global energy mix, not a small part as you suggest. There is nothing wrong with reporting what industry is saying.

I was not referring to the boiler water reuse aspect. I was clearly discussing the cooling aspect as were you, but you have again changed your track to make another case on another point I had never contended. I briefly mentioned the different cooling methods.

Again you're not making any new argument here. You have talked about location before, but people appreciate that location is always a consideration with in any power generation facility. Everything has limits but that applies to all technologies. You have talked about water and weather and ? The Solar Thermal plants are still being built despite your reservations in regard to such matters. The point you make and in fact most of your points are reflective of challenges that are not unique to solar thermal. Industrial infrastructure of varying kind is location sensitive, nothing new that you're telling us there. We have already been over this ground and you are just repeating your same arguments that fall over in the face of the fact that industry is building the technology and has been operating the technology for decades.

What do you mean if we migrate to renewable energy ? We are migrating to renewable energy. It's happening all around us already. Renewable Energy migration is not a question of if. The migration is well and truly underway. Where have you been ?

Again contrary to your misrepresentation of my remarks, I indicated that renewable will contribute toward and not solve all the worlds energy needs. I maintain that the contribution can be significant. Simple growth projections alone show that.

Again your habit of generalizing with unsupported evidence and misrepresenting my remarks continues unabated. I never said fossil fuel is bad. When one starts misrepresenting another's comments, it's a sign that one is running out of decent arguments. Again you are just making assumptions in the face of lack of a substantive case against Solar Thermal. Another non argument.

All technologies have financial and technical limitations. Again you are telling us nothing new here, just repeating yourself. Solar thermal grew 18% in the US last year but this year is set to grow a whole lot more. There comes a point where the economic and technical factors reach a stage where a technology matures to a price point, where its growth rate picks up. This point has been reached and we can now expect this uptake of Solar Thermal to increase. This is not my opinion, this is reflective fact of what's happening in industry.

It's not my aim to disprove anything you say, because what you say is not the issue. As I have indicated before, like most technologies, there are technical issues, but such technologies only need reach certain point in the development, where by their net benefits outweigh their costs. Solar thermal has reached that point, so matter how much you rattle off all the negatives of Solar Thermal technology, it makes no difference. The technology has arrived and the technical issues are surmountable and they are not show stoppers. Clearly the benefits of the Solar Thermal technology outweigh the costs and this is reflected in industry and in the fact that the US has 1000 MW of solar thermal planned for 2008 and far more beyond 2008. Again this is not my opinion, but industry opinion.

This issue of the "best sites" has been discussed by many in the industry and again you have non argument. It's already been stated in industry circles that 92 miles squared ( 9 percent of the state of Nevada ) could power the entire US electricity grid. Again this is not my opinion, but industry opinion. There are plenty of good sites all around the world. Another non argument. This is the opinion of industry. I'm just telling what industry is saying. Even applying this conservatively and usng 3 times as much land, shows more than adequate land thats usable for solar.

http://www.worldofrenewables.com/index.php?do=viewarticle&artid=804&title=sahara-could-power-europe-middle-east and-north-africa

In Europe - TREC - DESERTEC Concept
http://www.desertec.org/downloads/summary_en.pdf
http://www.desertec.org/

Wrong again. Blindingly wrong. Relying on fossil fuels is leading to global economic instability, because increasing global consumption rates of fossil fuels are not sustainable. This is why we are getting price rises of oil and other fossil fuels. Global growth of in particular, China and India and Asia in general, is putting additional pressure on demand for both fossil fuels and natural resources. The world needs to get of relying on fossil fuels for very good economic reasons that pertain to long term economic growth. If we stay dependant on fossil fuels we are doomed economically.

Go talk to an economist. It's basic demand and supply. In fact I would go as far as to say, that if the world does not aggressively uptake renewable energy, the global economy will eventually collapse under the ever increasing demand for the diminishing supply fossil fuel and the increasing damage that fossil fuels are doing to the productive fabric of the environment, with regard to climate and environmental degradation all linked to rising prices.

Again in relation in base load storage for Solar Thermal obviously storage returns diminish incrementally, but again it's not the question of if fossil fuel prices rise, as they are already rising. It's not a hypothetical, it's a
fact. You are presenting fact as hypothetical. Fact ! Everyone knows fossil fuels are rising in price already and have been for some time. Even if Solar Thermal did not improve from here and costs remained the same, it's now reached sufficient development, that its economically feasible already.

There are limiting factors to all technologies. Nobody said there weren't. Again you present a non argument here. Every power generation technology has limiting factors. No kidding. Again you arguing on matters that are common knowledge. I'm not contending the issues you have raised, other than to say, these issues are surmountable amd in fact are being surmounted.

It's a nonsense to say Solar Thermal wont make a difference. It clearly will. If you look at Solar Thermal across the board you can clearly see a range of technologies both of commercial central distribution scale and also on a domestic level. On a domestic level approx 30% of energy consumption is used to heat water. Domestic solar thermal hot water systems alone can produce a 15% to 30% reduction in domestic energy consumption. 2020 at 20% could be met on the domestic electricity side just by people installing solar hot water systems, let alone implementation of other renewable energy technologies. Add Solar thermal heating, Add Solar PV, Solar Thermal CSP and Grid based Wind energy into the mix and that clearly increases. Application of renewable energy is always a combinatorial approach.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/solar-hot-water-overlooked-in-rush-to-reduce-pollution/2006/12/08/1165081157714.html

The research although old, is not automatically discounted, but the mere fact that industry is building Solar Thermal plants and has many planned, is a clear indication that they don't view the issues you have sited as significant enough to halt construction. The industry obviously believe
these issues have been overcome. Again its not my view, it's industries view.

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. There are plenty of secondary sites more than suitable for solar energy. Speaking of NREL though, from which you draw your own twisted argument from their own web site, it's clear they think 70% capacity factor is feasible;

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

It's clear Solar Thermal in general has significant potential.

So again your argument fails. You would have to convince industry that you are right and they are wrong, not me. Of course that won't happen, because primarily I suspect, industry has more information than you or me and have more experience than you or me and are working in the field and know the business batter than you or me.

Again you continue to make up representations that I have not made in regard to my views on your statement falsely suggesting that I think " any problem can be solved, that fossil fuels will destroy the environment, that costs in renewable will keep coming down in price." Statements I never made, but rather just another assumption formed by yourself based on your flawed perception and not based of fact of what I said. In this context, you presenting my views as "black and white" is grossly misleading. I again suspect this is because you have failed to present any strong case against Solar Thermal technology.