Can Solar Thermal replace coal?

[losthills]

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/stirling-solar-power-46012108

"Phoenix-based Stirling Energy Systems plans to begin construction in 2009 on two $1 billion solar power farms on federal land in California's Mojave Desert northeast of Los Angeles and in the Imperial Valley east of San Diego, reports USA Today. When finished the farms will be among the world's largest solar energy deployments.

The plants would nearly double the amount of solar energy produced in the U.S., would power 1 million Southern California homes, and would be around the equivalent of two dirty coal plants. "

.....

Thermal Solar energy is cheaper to produce on a large scale than PV, and better for the environment. This technology is here today and has reached a point of development where major utility companies are willing to invest in it.....

[phantom power]

1. Their collector will work even better if they aim it at the sun.

:hide:

[losthills]

4. Thanks!

I'll pass that information along....

[LogansPapa]

2. If you want to go real slow....

If you equate ‘the other’ sources of electrical power generation, exclusive of nuclear - coal - hydroelectric - tidal and such to motorized forms of transportation, solar, wind and geothermal would, at best, be like a gasoline driven skate board - instead of driving your GT Mustang.

You can settle for it - and we may have to eventually - but you’re going to be in for a culture shock. Mainland China is supposedly building a power plant every 10 calendar days. I don’t believe the Chinese are going to be satisfied with their bicycles in the upcoming generation.

Solar will be practical (for something other than heating your water in your home), when a system for bouncing the energy from a series of satellites to ground stations is invented and implemented.

Until then - all ‘the other’ forms of energy generation are for the warm and fuzzy feelings it gives everyone involved in those systems.

[GliderGuider]

3. It may be able to replace SOME coal.

In the right places, under the right conditions it probably has a role.

For many people, "replace coal" implies "replace all coal" generation. Given the amount of coal in use world-wide, that's a bit of a stretch. Whether or not it replaces PV remains to be seen - it's entirely possible that economies of scale could make PV cheaper than thermal.

The question of whether we can scale either of them up enough to take a real bite out of existing sources depends a lot on how this current economic meltdown sorts out. If the monster in the closet is as big as I suspect it is, there may be a dramatic shortage of capital for large energy projects over the next couple of decades. In that situation, lenders stay away from new and risky ventures, and go with the tried and true. Of course such a capital shortage would hamper nuclear capacity expansion as well, and would favour coal and hydro. How all that would balance out is a hard tea-leaf to read.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. Thermal solar could replace all coal

It would take a concerted effort, organized at the national level. Some compare it to an Apollo project or a Manhattan project. I think a better comparison might be to the Interstate Highway System.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan

...

The greatest obstacle to implementing a renewable U.S. energy system is not technology or money, however. It is the lack of public awareness that solar power is a practical alternative—and one that can fuel transportation as well. Forward-looking thinkers should try to inspire U.S. citizens, and their political and scientific leaders, about solar power’s incredible potential. Once Americans realize that potential, we believe the desire for energy self-sufficiency and the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will prompt them to adopt a national solar plan. 

[LogansPapa]

8. $ for little.......

The chemicals for componentry, energy to manufacture them and labor costs for installation and maintenance of solar facilities are astronomical in comparison to fossil fuels. That and the fact that nobody wants them ‘in their neighborhood’ (including the Sierra Club) makes them true white elephants.

[DCKit]

9. And exactly how is trading the cost of fuel and pollution...

for jobs in manufacturing, support and maintenance a negative? Aside from the ongoing upkeep costs, I fail to see your point. But I have a strong suspicion where you're coming from - and where you live, right down the road from D'Nile.

Even the largest solar plants require no more land than many coal or nuclear plants I've seen. Unless the Sierra club is intent that we all live in teepees, consume our own waste and have zero environmental impact, they're going to have to compromise on the insane land use requirements you claim they wish to impose.

No single alternative energy solution is either perfect or one-size-fits-all, but these empty, baseless arguments are no longer convincing. You're trying to dissuade the true believers, many with real life experience, and it's not working.

[OKIsItJustMe]

11. I don't understand...

Do you mean to say that people don't want solar plants in their neighborhoods, but they do want coal plants?

I, for one, would love to have a solar plant right next to my house.

[LogansPapa]

16. Maybe, but.....

In all honesty, the Sierra Club would rather man not be on the planet at all.

As an avid deep sea fisherman, I occupy the slot marked "Murderer", so I’m quite familiar with their routine. Here in CA the desert plants are fine with everyone, because people that live near them are in mobile homes or have put $2,500 down on a two-bedroom place out in the high desert where they’ll never be able to open the windows - because of the blowing sand.

Kansas solar farms, maybe. SF Bay solar farms? NFW. Even the wind folks take a major rash from the tree huggers for killing birds and pristine vistas.

On the economic side of the equation - trading money and creating vast amounts of hazardous waste (making mirrors and such) to create installation and maintenance jobs smacks both business leaders and conservative politicians as "W.P.A".

We can do those kinds of things if we ever slide into a Depression again.

Until then - we need to build more aircraft carriers - to project our slipping power around the world - to keep the flow of oil going.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. You don't understand environmentalism at all

It's not about getting rid of people.

Environmentalism is about protecting the environment so people can survive.


I (for one) would love to see the return of the WPA and the CCC. I don't understand why some "conservatives" like "workfare" but not programs like the WPA and the CCC.

Your notion of solving the problem by building more aircraft carriers simply scares me.

Assuming for a moment I accepted the premise of a military build-up being an appropriate response (which I don't.) How long does it take to build an aircraft carrier?

[LogansPapa]

18. Okaaaay...

WPA was an emergency response in a time of a truly national emergency.

The economy of this country and the world market is very different presently. Many folks simply fall through the cracks - because they can’t compete or simply don’t have the will to stand up and do the right thing for themselves and/or their family.

We could build a massive wheel out in the middle of the ocean and generate all the electrical power we’ll ever need - all for free to the consumer - and we could set around picking flowers and smoking pot for the next hundred years. But the taxpayers of the United States might have something to say about funding this utopian power project.

People "surviving" at the cost of entrepreneurial businesses going under won’t work in America for about the next five-hundred years. Denmark? Maybe. But not the USA. We built this society on the procurement of real estate and the vast resources therein, from it’s rightful owners - 150 or more years ago, because of vastly superior technology - and that’s how it will remain until somebody comes along with better gadgets and takes it from us.

Economically blind environmentalism will eventually bury our country under fees, taxes and Pollyanna legislation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Who recommended building a massive wheel out in the middle of the ocean?

Clearly you're a "conservative" (I put it in quotes, because I feel most "conservatives" today don't remember what a true "conservative" is.)

Now, as a "conservative," you don't like the idea of putting people "on the dole" do you? You want people to work for their money. (Right?) On the other hand, you also realize that private enterprise does not provide enough jobs to employ everyone. (Right?)

Okay, great.

Consider the Interstate Highway System for a moment. In this case, government (that is to say "tax-payers") have paid a great deal to contractors to work on a massive "public works" project, first creating the highways, and then maintaining them (something they should probably do more of.)

Do you have any gripe with that? (Any?) We're talking about private companies, employing people to work on a project to benefit the nation. (Right?)


Okay, so let's use the same model. The federal government will set about building a new nationwide electrical grid. (We know that needs to be done.) Let's construct it along the Interstate Highway System (we've already got the right-of-ways, and the IHS goes to most of the places we want the main trunk lines of the grid to go!)

Now, mind you, we'll hire private companies to build it, and we're going to need a lot of workers to do it. They're probably going to need some training. The grid will require maintenance, and there will still be plenty of local power lines to be maintained. The local lines will be controlled by the people who control them now. The main grid will be controlled by a commercial entity or entities with government supervision. (Any problems with that plan?)

Great! Now, let's hire private companies to start building some solar plants. Once again, we're going to need a lot of workers, who are going to require training. After the plants are built, they will require maintenance and management. That can be handled by the current regional power companies. They may have to hire some new people of course. (Any problems so far?)

Of course, there's no need to limit ourselves to solar plants. They can construct and maintain wind plants, and hydro plants, and geothermal plants and...


At the same time, let's think again about the WPA and the CCC: When I was a child my parents took us to parks which had been built by the WPA and the CCC. Those parks (like some of our interstates) have since fallen into disrepair. What is the harm in the government putting the unemployed to work rebuilding these public works? (Or would you rather simply pay out "welfare" instead?)


Finally, let's look at the word "Conservative."

My Mother complained to me a few years back, "I always thought I was conservative." Both my parents grew up with the depression, and with war rationing. Mother grew up on a farm. They learned what being "conservative" meant.

Conservatives are supposed to be cautions. Conservatives avoid rash spending. They save their money. They're not supposed to be wasteful. They don't buy a new car when they can fix their old one.

Environmentalism is a form of conservatism.

A "conservative" approach to natural resources (for example) is to recognize that they are finite, and to realize that we might have need for them some time in the future. (So maybe we should "conserve" them today.) It is not "conservative" to say, "The oil is running out, so we have to use it as fast as we can." (That's simply foolhardiness.)


A "conservative" approach to the environment is to say, "I want my kids to enjoy nature just as much as I did as a kid." You're a fisherman, so you should be in favor of preserving/conserving your favorite fishing hole.

When I was a kid, we never thought twice about whether we could eat a freshly caught fish. However, today, thanks (in large part to coal-fired power plants) many of the ponds in New York State are sterile, and many of the fish should not be eaten.
http://www.dec.ny.gov/environmentdec/18654.html
http://www.health.state.ny.us/environmental/outdoors/fish/fish.htm

Do you see what I'm talking about?


Today, many "Conservative Christians" have figured out that "Conservation" of the natural world is consistent with their religious beliefs.
http://www.creationcare.org/
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2007/sep/15/green-clean-environmental-awareness-taking-root/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1491-2005Feb5.html

They see environmentalism as a form of "stewardship."

You really need to sit down and think for a while about your values. Are you conservative? or are you a wastrel?

[Kolesar]

22. I don't know if you think you are being funhy, but your comments are borderline "slander"

Where do you get this shit: "In all honesty, the Sierra Club would rather man not be on the planet at all. " ?

[LogansPapa]

24. Ah,

Yes - confrontational statements sometimes do that.

[Kolesar]

25. shit

[Kolesar]

21. The Sierra Club supports photovoltaic solar generation

http://sierraclub.org/globalwarming/cleanenergy/factsheet/sun.asp

[philb]

48. Thin film solar PV and CPV and other techniques for increased efficiency

with less silicon material is rapidly becoming available. The concentrators mean a lot less solar cells needed and aren't just applicable to solar thermal.

[DCKit]

5. If a $1 Billion investment powers 500K homes...

Then the $2 Trillion Iraq's going to cost would power a billion homes.

Obviously that's not practical 'cause we don't have a billion homes to power. What's your next great idea?

:sarcasm:

[XemaSab]

6. .

:D

[cascadiance]

10. When looking at alternate fuel sources should also evaluate centralization vs. decentralization...

The corporate lobbyists of course want centralized power sources that they can control and make tons of money off of, like Enron did with the energy trading disaster at the beginning of this century. That is why a lot of them now also push nuclear energy too, since that power source by necessity is centralized too (and therefore controllable).

If we got to solar, though perhaps centralized dish collection might be cost efficient for some energy usage on the grid, I also like the idea of balancing that out with tons of houses, etc. having their own collectors feeding the grid, so that there's no single point of failure/control that a central collector would have. I also have to believe that centralized solar collectors would lose a lot of energy along the way where localized collectors might have less energy lost when it is used locally in a person's home.

Citizens should speak strongly for decentralized alternative power sources in addition to them being renewable, since corporations won't speak for that choice.

We should push for updating California's laws to not only credit people with the energy they create going back onto the grid from their solar collectors of amounts up to their usage, but actually PAY them money if they use less than they generate. Then you'd have more optimal solar collection built into people's house every place for maximum usage, and not just what a given person uses, which might be a lot less than the person buying a house might use, which would force that person to have to rebuild the solar collectors to have greater capacity. Doing so also reduces our dependency on centralized sources of energy too.

[diane in sf]

12. I agree wth your decentralization premise. It is inherently democratic.

Also I would happily live near a solar or wind installation (though not right under the power lines of a huge one). I would not want to live near a coal, oil, natural gas or nuke generator or their fuel mining operations.

[suziedemocrat]

43. BRAVO!!!!! I too want decentralized power!

It is a main beef of mine. I used to drive down Dry Creek Road in Denver in my convertible and listen to the power lines they had just added crackle and pop. Ever since then, I have wondered why we insist on this inefficient power-grid. Of course, it allows the big-boys to charge me exhorbitant prices and get rich off of me, and I guess that is all that matters.

And I am glad someone else is bring this up as well!!! I have been amazed that this issue almost never comes up on this forum.

[NNadir]

13. Um...um...um...

Instead of asking this question for 50 fucking years, the "solar will save us" crew should really to point to one fucking coal plant that has been shut either by a wind or solar plant.

It's a little fucking late for "could," don't you think?

You don't?

You couldn't care less that the little "solar will save us" cult here spends 50% of its time with little science fiction vignettes and the other 50% attacking the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy?

Why am I not surprised?

When you people come here to announce the first fucking solar electricity exajoule (out of the 500 exajoules now used by humanity) that will be a great fucking day.

In the meantime, Ignorance - including the kind of ignorance that substitutes wishful thinking for reality - kills.

[losthills]

14. These two projects are in the works right now...

and they each will have the output of a large coal plant.

Wouldn't you agree that is good?

[diane in sf]

15. I think NN thinks solar and wind are evil--doesn't matter to it if they work.

[NNadir]

45. You have zero conception of what I think.

I'd ask you to get real, but it is always a dubious enterprise to ask for reality based analysis in these discussions.

[NNadir]

44. Did you ever here of LUZ? No? Why am I not surprised?

LUZ built solar thermal plants in California in the 1980's and 1990's.

Here's a "solar thermal will save us" weblink from 2003, about 100 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide ago:

http://www.solargenix.com/news_details.cfm?id=6

There are only nine solar thermal plants - all located in California - known as SEGS plants that were built by LUZ International during the 1980s and 1990s. During construction of a tenth plant in 1991, the company filed for bankruptcy citing a combination of eroding Renewable Energy incentives and plummeting energy prices, according to Hank Price, Parabolic Trough Technology team leader of SunLab at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).

I merely note - since I actually have educated myself about energy and don't just tell myself what I want to hear - that solar energy has not, ever, not once, zero times, produced an exajoule of electrical energy in this country.

One of the big, big, big, big things ignored by the "solar will save us" crowd - which has been prattling on for 50 years about how "solar will save us" - is that fact that climate change is not going to happen in some make believe future. It is happening now.

I merely note, that despite ZERO opposition and lots of cheering, solar electricity has yet to produce an exajoule. I would wager a bet that the top 5 solar energy promoting websites (including the viewers) consume more electricity than solar energy produces.

I am hardly opposing these plants. In fact, I'm old enough and aware enough to have cheered loudly for LUZ. Everybody cheers for solar plants, but some of the badly educated and poorly informed anti-nuke fundamentalist crowd - that would be the crowd that opposes the world's largest, by far, form of climate change gas free energy - thinks that big promises are enough.

Not only is the fundie cult poorly educated in science, but if you look, their knowledge of the history of energy is abysmal and extremely dull.

Why don't you get back to us when the LADWP has announced plants to shut its coal plants because there are so many solar toys running? There is NOT ONE fundie anti-nuke on this site or any other anti-nuke website who can show a case where a coal plant was shut by solar energy. There are ZERO fundie anti-nukes on this site who can show a single state or country where the increase in solar electricity (and more broadly the entire grab bag of renewable wishful thinking technologies) has kept pace with the increase in demand.

Nobody has ever opposed a solar plant anywhere, as best as I can tell.

This begs the question - not that there is a single anti-nuke who can do a simple mathematical (or social) inequality, why, almost two decades after LUZ went bankrupt, this table says what it says:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/table1.xls

[Kolesar]

19. The economics that have solar have also doomed your nuclear development

Both of which have been more expensive than coal or gas fired electricity plants. There has been no policy to address the externalized costs of air pollution, CO2, etc, other than the Clean Air Acts. The Clean Air Acts only addressed smog, acid rain and particulates.

There has been no policy to address CO2, except for the very recent renewable energy portfolio standards in a few of our states.

[LogansPapa]

20. E=MC2

Nuclear power plants, on a micro-scale (like nuclear powered ships and submarines) could be mass-produced (pun intended), switched out on a regular basis (say every 25 years), upgraded with the latest technology, run into a grid and give us all the electricity we’d ever need. Sending the waste into the deep-ocean trenches (subduction zones) would allow the planet to consume the waste. All it requires is engineering, funding and the will to do so.

[Kolesar]

23. not economical either...eom

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. ... All it requires is engineering, funding and the will to do so.

Oh... and a reliable fuel source:
http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/August/20070814170850saikceinawz0.4011194.html

...

In addition, utility executives worry about the future supplies of uranium fuel. They say supplies will be uncertain after an agreement with Russia to provide uranium from its decommissioned warheads expires in 2013. The Russian supplies represent about half of the fuel burnt in U.S. commercial reactors.

...

As for nuclear fuel, the Energy Department has been circulating among utilities an innovative plan to extract nuclear fuel from retired U.S. nuclear warheads and wastes from the process of enriching uranium for U.S. nuclear weapons, according to Kerekes. And, with prices for uranium ore skyrocketing, an interest in reviving U.S. uranium mining operations is growing, he added.

...

and a viable way to dispose of the waste.

[LogansPapa]

31. Go South, Young Man!

Once Antarctica is opened up to mining - the uranium problem will melt away.

(already proposed a viable way to rid ourselves of the waste)

[OKIsItJustMe]

33. I just don't know where to begin

So, you're willing to go half way around the world, after another limited resource. You're willing to overhaul the entire US electric supply. "All it requires is engineering, funding and the will to do so."

Okay, so why not put that effort into building solar instead? (All it needs is the funding and will. The engineering's already done.)

http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=mg18625012.700

...

Subduction zone insertion was - one idea proposed for the disposal of radioactive waste during the early history of atomic energy. Other ideas included a serious proposal to dump canisters of waste on the Antarctic snow and leave them to melt their way to the bottom of the ice sheet.

In fact, subduction zone insertion is perfectly sound in theory, but there are significant practical problems. The zones are inherently unstable and unpredictable, and the sediment on top of the subducting ocean crust plate tends to get scraped off rather than being carried into the mantle, to form what is known as an accretionary prism. This could lead to the waste being squeezed back to the seabed in the future. Drilling it deep into the basalt of the crust may solve this, but at the depths typically encountered in subduction zones, drilling is all but impossible.

...

[amandabeech]

46. I think that the chances of shutting any power plant down are not good

because the population keeps growing, mostly from immigrants and the larger families that many immigrants tend to have in the first generation.

Government charts show the best areas for solar thermal in the southwest, which is a growing area.

Perhaps you'd settle for an increasing percentage of power generated or some very large absolute number as a gage?

[Xithras]

27. Only if 50,000 square miles of solar panels is OK to you.

The math has been done and posted before. Even with a mythical 100% efficient solar panel system, you'd need nearly 15,000 square miles of panels to generate the power needed to eliminate fossil fuels from the U.S. electrical system. Since our best systems are only about 30% efficient, you're actually looking at around 50,000 square miles of panels. That's a lot of panels.

You can't take more energy from the sun than it beams onto the Earth, and the sun only beams down about 50KWh per meter per year. The US uses TRILLIONS of KWh's of electricity annually.

[bananas]

28. It's ok with me

http://www.ez2c.de/ml/solar_land_area/
Total primary energy supply: Land area requirements

Solar power systems installed in the areas defined by the dark disks could provide a little more than the world's current total primary energy demand (assuming a conversion efficiency of 8 %). That is, all energy currently consumed, including heat, electricity, fossil fuels, etc., would be produced in the form of electricity by solar cells. The colors in the map show the local solar irradiance averaged over three years from 1991 to 1993 (24 hours a day) taking into account the cloud coverage available from weather satellites.

[hunter]

36. Oh wow, you think this graphic *supports* your position?

:yoiks:

[Xithras]

37. That destroys the Grand Canyon, the southern half of Utah, and big parts of AZ and NM

At 8%, the way that map is, the environmental impact on those regions would be devastating. You'd have fairly united opposition against that idea on both sides of the political fence.

The desert ecosystem is just as important to this planet as the arctic ecosystem or the forested ecosystems. If we destroy one to save the other, we will have accomplished nothing.

[bananas]

38. LOL - they can be more widely distributed

they don't have to be located in just those six dots.

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. How much land is required for a concentrating solar plant

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/faqs.htm

...

Question: Do concentrating solar plants require a lot of land?

Answer: Relatively speaking, no. Consider the Hoover Dam. Lake Mead covers nearly 250 square miles. A Concentrating Solar Power system occupying only 10-20 square miles of land could generate as much power on an annual basis as the Hoover Dam did last year. Considering the land required for mining, concentrating solar power plants also use less land than coal power plants.

...

[losthills]

41. Those are two excellent points....

[OKIsItJustMe]

42. How much land is required for concentrating solar power plants?

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunlab/faqs.htm

...

Question: How much land is required for concentrating solar power plants?

Answer: Land requirements for plants vary with generating capacity and technology. A 250-kilowatt plant composed of ten 25-kilowatt dish/engine systems requires less than an acre of land. A parabolic trough system uses about 5 acres for each megawatt of installed capacity.

...

[NickB79]

30. How much water do solar thermal plants need to operate?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x130782

One should realize that ALL plants that generate steam to spin turbines (not just nuclear plants) are being affected by prolonged droughts. And I have a sneaking suspicion that droughts are going to become much more common in the future.

[bananas]

32. These are Stirling Engines and shouldn't need much water if any. nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

34. None actually

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/products.asp?Type=solar

...

The Stirling engine’s cylinder block incorporates four sealed cylinder assemblies (pistons, piston rods, and connecting rods domes) along with coolers, regenerators and heater heads. Concentrated solar energy heats up self-contained gas (hydrogen) in the PCU, causing the gas to expand into the cylinders, moving the cylinders and generating electricity. ...

[losthills]

35. It's a beautiful system, really.

And it avoids the environmental drawbacks involved with water boilers and mass production of PV...

The only problem I see with it is land use. These facilities take up a lot of acreage, whereas PV can go right on people's roofs. But, as part of a portfolio of renewable electricity generating assets, I think it's destined to play a major role.

[OKIsItJustMe]

39. Infinia has a smaller unit

http://www.infiniacorp.com/applications/clean_energy.htm

...

Infinia’s revolutionary Stirling Solar will make more power than and cost less than photovoltaic (PV) solar energy systems. Infinia's Stirling Solar concentrates sunlight onto a 3kW free-piston Stirling engine to generate up to eight megawatt-hours of electricity per year. By replacing grid-supplied electricity, a one megawatt (1MW) array of Infinia’s 3kW systems will remove 1,867 tons of carbon dioxide, 7 tons of nitrogen oxides and 11 tons of sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere annually. The carbon dioxide avoidance is equivalent to the burning of 190,476 gallons of gasoline or 8.6 rail cars of coal.

...

[amandabeech]

47. Over the holidays, I read an article in the NYT, I think, but I couldn't find it on their website.

It discussed a solar thermal plant that was capable of providing a max of 5,000 kilowats (I think) of power at peak. It had a big sodium heat storage tank attached that theoretically could let it make power 24/7. However, it made only 50 kilowatts (I think)in that mode though a 24-hour cycle.

It seems to me that in the right location, solar thermal could replace some increasingly expensive natural gas during the day. However, the number of plants that would be needed for base-load would be extremely large, take up huge amounts of space, and be prohibitively expensive.

I just don't see any magic bullet here, not even for locations with favorable climate and geography.