Solar Thermal. This isn't Your Grandma's Solar Energy! II

EIA subsidy report 2007.

There's an easy way to test that: end the subsidies and see what happens.

 

1 kg of refined thorium costs $25. That enough to supply the average American home with electricity for 500 years. In other words, 5 cents a year. You lose more money in the cushions of your couch. The only other fuel processing is to fluorinate the thorium, which is ultra-cheap, perhaps a few cents per kg.

Spent fuel disposal costs of a thorium reactor: zero. LFTR's have no spent fuel and produce no long-term waste. And they can't melt down.

For both solar and nuclear (and especially LFTR), fuel costs are a negligible part of the total levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). For both technologies, it's the capital cost that's the determining factor. And capital costs for solar thermal are a lot higher than for even conventional nuclear, and the disparity will be even greater with LFTR.

 

Sorry Poor Debator, we were given the old "nuclear will be cheap" singsong back in the 1960s and 70s. The truth has panned out to be that nuclear waste alone is so expensive and tricky to manage and keep away from terrorists and countries like Iran that it is a policy of madness. Only the insane would consider promoting nuclear after Japan's 3 full meltdowns at Fukushima. You can't put a price tag on the fiscal damage like this, among other problems the world will surely experience as a result of "nuclear is the way to go!"...

Taken from the mother-thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/scien...-thermal-isnt-your-grandmas-solar-energy.html

DominorVobis, yes, taxing carbon emissions is great. Here's a beautiful way to reduce carbon emissions. Combine solar thermal into the existing grid connected to carbon power plants. Run the solar thermal during peak use while the carbon plants idle. Kick the carbon plant up to full tilt while there's no sun or, when the molten salt heat runs out to run generators.

In sunny areas you're going to be producing nearly 100% free energy. In more overcast and northern climes you will be reducing the carbon footprint drastically. The savings to our country would be gigantic. We could focus on producing cheap goods [thanks to cheap energy..China has figured this out and is going solar thermal like gangbusters] to trade on the world market.

Literally, China has figured out that solar thermal will put her at the top of the world financially. The US is still trying to sell collosally-expensive nuclear and pure natural gas or coal-fired steam turbines. The US has some of the most arid and sunny areas [premium for solar thermal steam] of any developed nation. So naturally, BigDirty is convincing her lackluster politician$ that their monopolies are somehow going to carry us through the 21st century as major players. If we stick with that plan, we can bank on being poorer than Bangladesh by the 22nd century.

 

Maybe as an adjuct to this thread, or a new focus on the topic of solar thermal could be the different types and how some are made to fail while others are not and the politics surrounding the two?..

 

Someone is challenging that flat-mirrored reflection is better than parabolic or fresnel focusers.

Let's revisit the simple backyard experiment to illustrate the difference. Meanwhile, in your own backyard, set up a flat mirror and shine it at a container filled with water. Get back to me when it starts to boil. I don't think youtube has footage length allowed that long though...

A flat mirror would be just annoying to look at. Focused rays of the sun via parabolic or fresnel are a whole other enchilada with hot sauce..

Here a discussion of the differences between focused sun and flat mirrors:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-eFwiraVv8"]Solar Hot Water System with a Parabolic Concentrator - YouTube[/ame]

They're using parabolics in all sorts of ways, but creating superheated steam is by far the most competitive as far as brute force for a centralized power plant like we are used to. This is what makes the parabolic solar thermal plant so attractive. You just plug it into the same grid system and use other sources only as a backup. Carbon footprint reduced. Nuclear is off the table.

 

Proving once again that solar energy is diffuse and hard to capture. Flat mirrors at large installations like Coalingua are a different bird, because the collector (on the tower top) is large enough to intercept all the reflected rays from each mirror.

OK, I looked at the video, and it didn't once compare flat mirrors to parabolics. The cost of this solar concentrating hot-water heater, by the way, is $23,500. The cost of a similar sized electric or gas water heater is $500.

A "centralized power plant like we're used to" works at night, and when it's cloudy. Try telling your ER docs they can't do surgeries at night and see how that flies.

 

Here's the funny thing, the linear tube is also large enough to capture all the concentrated solar rays along its length. NOT DIFFUSE, C-O-N-C-E-N-T-R-A-T-E-D. Another thing: the linear tube configuration with a concentrating solar thermal plant has a nice small internal volume on any given point of exposure, relative to its conductive surface area. So the second the sun hits those parabolic or fresnel focusers, you have a powerful ray of focused heat energy capable of cutting through steel if it's close enough & boiling water within seconds instead of hours or never. When was the last time you cut through steel or vitrified sand into glass with a flat mirror? These are things that concentrators can do.

Please stop. You're embarassing yourself again..

Here's the best design for solar thermal to go from 0-superheated steam that I can think of so far. Other folks might come up with something better. But if you hit that elongated tube, close to the ground with parabolics reflecting back up from the ground and fresnel focusing down from the top, you'd have that sucker pumping MW faster and more efficiently than that bogus Brightsource design, hands-down, no contest.

 

Well a member of the sham-solar-thermal group came out to play in their defense here: http://www.politicalforum.com/science-technology/219675-physics-thermal-power-plants-3.html

It was quite amusing. First "Herby" tried to denounce parabolics along a linear-tube target as "too expensive", claiming that the larger the parabolic dish, the more unwieldy and cost-inefficient it was. Then he went on to laud the advantages of Brightsource's design, which is a circle of flat mirrors focusing on a focal point hundreds of feet away.

When I pointed out that his extremely large parabolic dish was the most expensive and inefficient of all, the conversation sort of dropped away. What could he say? For that is precisely what the Brightsource design is.

Now, like I said over on that thread, at first I just found it amusing that Brightsource would design such a clearly inferior parabolic dish. It's impossible to clean and keep all the huge unwiedy flat mirrors reflecting at even 60% efficiency. The dust storms, atmosphere and so forth that those heat beams had to travel through, and the distance...means that system would be sluggish and expensive at best. Then when I learned Chevron was teamed up with Brightsource, a little lightbulb went on in my head. Team up with the competition visibly, then have the competition appear inferior in comparison to your power source [oil & natural gas in Chevron's case].

Clever. I submit though that the design in the diagram above is superior.

 

CSP is the most expensive power there is. Herby's exactly right.

All CSP is expensive and inefficient, compared to the alternatives.

It's much easier to clean a flat mirror than it is to clean a parabolic one, and much much easier to clean than a fresnel lens (they're a nightmare: the dust gets down inside those little grooves and won't come out). So no prizes there.

I don't even see how that design can even work. The collecting pipe doesn't seem to move in response to the moving suntrackers. Which way is the pipe oriented? North-south, or east-west? How does the focal point of either mirror or lens stay on the non-moving collector in the face of the changing hourly geometry?

 

There's a north-facing arrow in the diagram.

I'm sorry if you don't know how to read a simple plan-diagram. And the key delineates what components track the sun and which don't. You might want to actually look at the design first before you attack it.

 

The real question should be, why do we want to make electricity with our solar thermal systems? An average home or commercial structure uses about 70%-80% of it's energy to heat or cool (space conditioning, hot water, dryer, refrigerator, pool/spa, etc.). All of this low quality heat can be cheaply produced from non-concentrating solar thermal ( the cooling can be done with simple absorption chillers). Since we can cheaply and simply produce a huge portion of our energy needs with simple solar thermal collectors why is there so much effort going into electricity production (PV and concentrating solar thermal) and so little going into simpler solar thermal?

In fact, I did some design work on using 150 C heat to produce electricity (a temperature easily produced by evacuated non-concentrating collectors) and found that the efficiency would be as good or better than PV. If you include using the waste heat from the electrical generation to heat the structure or hot water, then the solar thermal heat engine is more efficient and many times more cost effective than PV. But keep in mind that even this use ofmsolar thermal to produce electricity would only be used when all heating and cooling needs were already fulfilled, which is the majority of energy used in structures. Also remeber that storing this relatively low temperature heat (generally below 100C) during periods of no sun, is extremely simple and cheap.

It seems that we are stuck on this model of electricity production being the main goal of energy production even though the numbers show that electricity production is a relatively small portion of our energy needs. Besides the 70-80% of energy used in structures being heat (and cooling) , transportation (cars, trucks, trains, planes, ships) is the next biggest use of energy, and we are decades away from being able to produce that energy from batteries (too expensive, too heavy, too slow to charge, too dangerous). So essentially we are putting the vast majority of our effort and resources (physical and political) into that relatively small portion of our energy use that needs to be electricity (lights, computers, etc.) Instead of focusing on the huge amount of energy that we could easily produce with simple low temperature non-concentrating solar thermal.

If anyone has any doubts about my energy use stats. you can check on the EIA website
www.eia.gov

 

We really need to look at what the IEA actually stated. It said that, "in some cases providing investment opportunities without the need for specific economic support" and that does not imply in all cases. We've seen viable solar thermal applications for the home such as in water heating where it has been economically viable for decades. Other cases of renewable energy such as large scale electrical production by either wind or solar thermal have not met that test and remain not just very expensive but cost prohibitive when compared to other forms of electrical power production.

 

What a load of manure Shiva. I love it when you take non-comparables and compare them.

Flat passive black panels sitting on the rooftops heating bathtub water is completely out of the same league as powerful solar focusers. Why do you persist?

You know parabolic focusing can vitrify sand into glass, and cut through steel. You know the energy potential of that focusing power. Yet you try to pretend like it's some "great expensive tricky" energy that is some pipe dream to realize.

I've seen the numerous youtube videos on taking a parabolic reflector and using it to quickly boil water to run generators. So I tried it myself to see the potential in even a simple & silly little reflector. I found an old light with a plastic convex reflector behind the bulb. I simply removed the bulb from the pronged holder and inserted a piece of hardwood there. I aimed it at the late afternoon sun on the Winter solstice in our northern latitude. Within seconds the wood began to catch fire. The reflector cost maybe 20 cents.

This isn't rocket science, nor is it expensive. The fuel is free and any startup costs will more than pay for themselves in five years or less. Yes, it's been BigOil's best kept secret for decades. But cat's out of the bag now. And their schills are blogging their little fingers off with strawmen right and left trying to keep this "dangerous" competition from going viral...

 

Of course the two aren't in the same league.

Solar water heating is economically viable and doesn't require any government subsidies. Water heating alone accounts for about 20% of all personal energy needs and it can be heated for less than even using natural gas with solar energy. 42 million Americans heat their water with electricity and every single one of them could reduce their electrical power consumption by 20% if they switched to solar heated water. The actually save money doing it.

That reduction in electrical usage alone would represent more than all of the electrical production from all renewable sources in existance in the United States today.

Large scale electrical power generation from solar energy is not economically viable without government subsidies which is why it isn't in the same league with solar water heating. The cost of electricity from renewable sources as a whole is two to three times the cost of electricity from coal fired powerplants. Solar water heating costs less than coal fired electrical powerplant production required to heat water.

 

You keep repeating the same mantra over and over, that setting up parabolic reflectors to catch the sun's rays and focus them on a fluid-bearing tube that quickly and easily creates the same superheated steam temperatures produced at coal or nuclear plants to run their turbines, is somehow "different", "more pricey" and "trickier", "more dangerous", "less cost effective".

Let's see your figures. And be careful, because if you quote only partial figures for returns in MW for $$ invested, I'll call you on it. You know I will. And you know I have sources...do you really want to go around this circle again? Or will you admit the obvious..that solar thermal is simply, cheap, effective and free way of superheating steam to run those centralized power plants that used to be the monopoly of nuclear and carbon?

 

If MegaWatts per dollar is an inappropriate measure of cost for power, what do you propose instead?

 

What an inane comment. What do you propose measuring by, gigawatts? Why the preference for kilowatts? Do you have some sort of mathematical prejudice against megawatts? And why are you introducing a strawman right now? Is it because you're afraid you've lost this debate again?

 

Hey, you were the one who said:
"if you quote only partial figures for returns in MW for $$ invested, I'll call you on it."

If you don't like MW per dollar, do you have an alternative? Or is it return on investment you object to?

 

We won't give any partial figures at all. Rated capacity is the maximum capacity of an electrical powerplant. Coal and nuclear powerplants can produce at near-rated capacity 24/7 virtually without interuption year after year and have a "capacity factor" of 90% or more. Because solar thermal can only produce it's "rated capacity" for a very short period of time daily it has a very low "capacity factor" of only 18%. That means that it requires over four times as much "rated capacity" for a solar thermal powerplant to equal the same power output of a coal or nuclear powerplant on a 24/7 basis over a year.

The construction costs are estimated for "rated capacity" without regard to the "capacity factor" being included. The initial cost for a solar thermal powerplant for an identical "rated capacity" is less than for either coal or nuclear power but when we have to multiply that by four to equal the same output over the course of a year the cost is three times greater to build a powerplant with the same total output.

This also affects the operation and maitenance costs as well. Once again for the same "rated capacity" the solar thermal powerplant is less but once the "capacity factor" is included which requires a four times greater "rated capacity" for solar thermal the O&M costs for solar thermal exceed the same costs for both coal and nuclear.

This information was all provided previously with the supporting links but apparently it simply isn't being understood. A solar thermal powerplant does not produce any energy at night, period.

 

Just exactly as I thought Shiva. "We" eh? Got a mouse in your pocket or are you part of a team hired to beat back solar thermal with any strawman you can hurl at it?

It's the 21st Century. Go tell your bosses that they need to go through the pains of switching over their monopoly on power production. China is installing these tube-form parabolic solar thermal fresnel plants to defeat us in cheap energy. You can drive your horse and buggy all you want but it's a new century and time to get in a new vehicle and go forward...

 

Yep, China got it right, especially having a policy in place to comission a new coal plant every week. With such a green giant, how can you compete?Naturally, China supplements its coal, hydro and other plants with solar on a small scale, but most of it is for export, considering how Europe has spent $200 billion on green technologies in the last few years. Now since Europe's economy tanked, it may not not be able to bank on the expensive green improvements so lavishly. Moreover, if the thorium reactors use up most of their radioactive fuel and don't run a risk of a meltdown, then how can they be both expensive in terms of fuel disposal, and dangerous?

 

On a further note, a lot which has to do with China's economic success was its realization that manufacturers love having access to cheap energy sources. Hence its gov't imposed low caps on energy fees which the powerplants can charge to the consumers. This in fact created a crisis quite recently, as the price of coal went up, but the powerplants were legally forbidden to hike their rates, and many came off with unbearable deficits and having to suspend their operations, resulting in power shortages, blackouts. Solar did not rescue the situation here.

 

Just because China opted for coal doesn't mean a thing about the viability of solar thermal. Your black and white "logic" falls flat.



What could be cheaper energy than a system run mostly on free concentrated solar energy with a carbon backup for cloudy/rainy days? Locate a bunch of those power plants in a sunny region & you're talking HUGE savings in money and to the environment..

China will piggyback these systems together and be a world leader in energy production. The US will remain slaves to BigOil and BigNuke and will go to the poorhouse while they become the laughingstock of the world. Much like insisting on driving horse and buggy around. We will be the "energy Amish" of the 21st Century..lol..

 

I agree with Shiva on this one. Its true that passive solar and solar using mirrors, lenses to heat a working fluid such as oil water or sodium are a great improvement on passive solar etc as well as solar cells underdeveloped globally. I would like to point out that I was being intentionally brief in my laying out the solar hand of cards. I wont cover all the solar bases nor cross all the t's and dot a 'i's, for lack of time. I love the green technology and it was the dream of my youth that we would change our ways of voracious energy consumption and scale down our population and energy needs. Additionally, I was hoping we would change to a population with a mind set accommodating a world village paradigm of 'we are in this mess together' and we will all conserve and pull ourselves out of the selfish self-serving muck we had set ourselves squarely in (up to our fat necks!). Well sadly it didn't happen my brothers and sisters! Ha ha. Not at all! The 'we are in this together' world village idea died in the late 70's to Mid 80's! Insult to injury was what came after ; God awful disco crap 'get it while you can and slap granny if she gets in the way' generation became dominate. Now after the even more selfish wallowing in coke and X Rave 90's etc finally, mercifully ended, some how , again, its highly PC to be green.

But I am not all eggs in one basket throwing in with green tech, once bitten twice shy eh? I do not find any pleasure in saying this; Solar WILL NOT take care of our needs. Not now, not in 20 years. We need to go to standard constructed massive containment domed light watered mega mega way megagigawatt [sic] fission nukes and hope for fusion via pumping serious cash into the already well funded fusion R&D. We could get by on fission reactors, which could do everything from making the desert bloom via using waste heat to desalinate sea water, to electrifying our interstates making the pure electric car desirable cheap (no new battery tech needed, old lead acid or newer contemporary could be used) and beautiful. Clean electrical resistance heating could be employed along with ice cold home AC and other luxuries only dreamed of. Fission is not a monster under our beds ready to eat us, or melt us with Godzilla radioactive lizard vomit, no light water FISSION reactors' could turn places on earth to real Edens , and make the third world disappear in a decade! Everyone, even the terrorists would be so happy from the absence of poverty I predict that they would end most and worst of terror attacks. Its double and

 

Black and white logic, as in Erin Brokovich?