Slashdot Mirror


World's Largest Solar Array to use Stirling Engine

An anonymous reader writes "Stirling engines are not a neglected or forgotten technology after all, according to a story at PESN. With 20 years of in-the-field fine-tuning, Stirling Energy Systems is now ready to go big -- real big. They signed a purchase agreement Tuesday with Southern California Edison (SEC), to install a 20,000 dish array that will cover 4,500 acres and will be capable of generating 500 megawatts of electricity -- more than all other U.S. solar projects combined -- making this the largest solar installation in the world. Each collector has a 37-foot-diameter array of mirrors to focus the sun's rays on the Stirling engine, which turns the heat into rotational torque for electricity generation. According to a spokesperson for SCE, this purchase will be in their commercial interest, requiring no subsidy in order to compete, implying that the efficiencies of the technology will give them an edge in the market."

19 of 720 comments (clear)

  1. Good by RandUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to see alternative energy sources being developed, I just wish public opinion would change faster so we can get some more nuclear plants as well.

    1. Re:Good by magarity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As long as they're pebble bed reactors, I'm all for it. The hugemongous three mile island style are white elephants in comparison.

    2. Re:Good by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If gas hits $3/gallon, and stays there for a year, the American public will accept anything. While I cringe when I have to buy gas, I hope the price keeps going up. Maybe then, we will have the economic incentive to kick the oil habit.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes..

      The key is the diversification of energy production.

      Solar energy works fine, but only in certain areas. but it's currently not cost effective.

      Wind energy has very severe limitations.. only in very certain areas with constant and strong winds will be able to produce energy.. and that's only for small local areas. It will probably never be cost effective (meaning it will use up more resources then it ever produces)

      Hydroelectric is pretty much already used as much as it can be, except if people figure out how to use tidal forces.. and that's not easy and only for certain areas.

      Nuclear is the only thing that is a universal solution. If they standardize nuclear plant design it can be cost effective and safe.

      Then after that we can begin using hydrogen fuel as a effective energy transportation method.

      (right now you need a source of electricity to generate hydrogen fuel, and that uses up more fossil fuels then simply putting the fossil fuels in the cars themselves. It's more efficient and consumes less fossil fuels just to use gasolene.. but if we get a non-fossil fuel source of electricity then it can make hydrogen a effective source of energy to power our cars.)

      If solar-powered sterling motors can be cost effictive and a company can make a profit using them.. with NO subsidies this is VERY significant.

      You have to understand that money is how we distribute resources in a successfull country. (ie communism is a complete failure were ever it's been used) If you make a profit, that means that your creating a product that is efficient and effective.

      This means that if they make money then solar energy will realy be a REAL solution we can use! And not no self-dillusional feel-good bullshit like wind power.

    4. Re:Good by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yeah but britain is much smaller and its economically feasible to build nationwide mass transit systems.

      The US relies on trucking and personal automotives for its economic basis because of the extreme expense it would take to build the massive mass transit systems such a large nation would need, to equate.

      --

      -

    5. Re:Good by Draveed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I share your enthusiasm for pebble bed nuclear tech, but I would think the reason this southern power company isn't planning on using it is because it's not a proven technology. Given how nuclear energy is such a sensitive issue, they probably want to stick with proven designs and concepts. Yeah it's not innovative but it's safer for them. I mean how many reactors have actually been built using the pebble bed concept? AFAIK, just one test reactor in South Africa.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    6. Re:Good by orz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt that slashdotters (or policicians) making decisions based upon idealogy and buzz will produce better reactor designs than people who have incentive and resources to make smart decisions.

      That said, I'd be happy to see more research into pebble bed reactors, and into energy amplifiers / ADS (subcritical fission reactor plus a particle accelerator), and other promising nuclear reactor designs that come along.
      I just wouldn't assume that just because pebble bed reactors have some clever safety and efficiency benefits means that they are automatically better for commerical power generation than conventional reactor designs today.

    7. Re:Good by Danger+Stevens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the big argument against all-electric (also called gas-optional) cars is that the electricity has to come from *somewhere* and coal plants aren't much better than combustion engines.

      If the grid runs off clean and safe nuclear, cars can run of batteries.

      --
      World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
    8. Re:Good by Squalish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've been convinced after doing some research that the likelyhood of the geiger counter becoming a whole lot more active very quickly is greater in the struggle over the last few oil fields than it is from waste plutonium.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    9. Re:Good by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Would you happen to know his reasons for banning them and if they may still be valid?

      Fast breeder reactors produce Plutonium 239. For those others who don't know Pu-239 is the form of plutonium used in nuclear weapons. As for carter, See this post.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  2. Environmental loop... by ergo98 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    4500 acres of solar collectors? This must throw hardcore environmentalists into a infinite loop.

    1. Re:Environmental loop... by Manchot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, if you think about it, 4500 acres is really only a 2.65 by 2.65 mile square. That's not really that much environmental impact, especially if the thing is in the middle of the desert.

    2. Re:Environmental loop... by JanneM · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4500 acres of solar collectors? This must throw hardcore environmentalists into a infinite loop.

      This makes sense to have in dry, hot areas (where you have lots of dependable, strong sun). Much better than using the same land to grow wheat, corn or rice - a monoculture is no better than this, and the use of scarce water is much less with the solar array than with crops.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    3. Re:Environmental loop... by syphax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK, here are some notes on this:

      1. It's not like you are covering 4500 acres (that's 7 sq. miles) with solid concrete. The actual footprint of these dishes is fairly small; the main impact will be the amount of sunlight hitting the ground. judging from the area, this may not be such bad thing. Shade for the desert tortoises and the like.

      2. It's reasonably scalable. Using SGS's numbers, and being conservative, let's say these things can crank out 400 kWh/m2 per annum. At 2004 US electrical consumption of roughly 1.2 trillion kWh (source: EIA), you're talking about needing ~30 billion sq. m. of collectors, which is about 12,000 square miles, to supply 100% of current electrical needs. You could fit that in about 5% of Texas- not an insignificant amount of land, but doable (you don't have to have all the collectors in one place, and you can probably install them on under-utilized land- say, parking lots- just jack up the collectors a few feet to provide SUV clearance).

      So although I'm sure some people will get bent out of shape, I don't see the land area requirements as a big deal. If these things are truly economically competitive, as the article suggests, watch out.

      --
      Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
  3. Re:4500 Acres Sounds Like a Lot by Chmarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Cheap, not free. Cheap.

  4. Cooling? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The pictures have huge dishes to collect heat, but what about the other end? How do they keep the cool part of the cycle cool?

    I was expecting to see the engine behind the dish (receiving light via a secondary mirror) and big radiator fins attached to the engine in the shadow of the dish.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  5. Just did a couple quick calculations... by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... and based on a 37ft dia dish, 20,000 count we're talking 21,504,183 sqft of total collector area. Divide that into 500,000,000W, the projected peak output of the installation, and you end up with around 23W per sqft.

    Now I could swear I've seen a higher efficiency per sqft specified using a related but different technology: steam turbines. I can't find the link right now, but I was hoping to build one of these things one day myself to take some real world measurements. The projections I read admittedly may have been inaccurate which is why I want to build my own to find out, but the project site was claiming the potential to pull approaximately 3KW of usable power out of a steam turbine from a 6 ft diameter parabolic dish.

    There are a few completed collector dishes out there in this size and they are making between 600-1100 deg fahrenheit at the focus where a heat exchanger is placed to boil water into steam pressure which drives a turbine. The only thing that leaves me questioning the accuracy of the projections is that the turbine is a somewhat unconventional one, called a "Tesla Turbine".

    Nonetheless, if the figures are remotely accurate, you'll find that a 6ft dish putting out 3KW is worth over 100W per sqft. I believe this possibility alone makes it well worth examining the potential for higher thermal conversion efficiency than the sterling engine model because it could potentially reduce the size of this installation to 25%... or quadruple the output!

    Regardless, both approaches are quite fascinating because they're so simple - it's mind numbing that nothing like this is yet operational. It's so technologically unsophisticated that it could be built and installed nearly anywhere. Even the sun tracking circuit can be done on the cheap for about $25US in bits & pieces.

  6. Re:OK, so what's the catch? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yeah, but an earth-fill damn can never power a car, hydrogen can.

    RTF post I wrote: "The only real advantage to hydrogen is that it burns very cleanly, in theory making it an ideal vehicle fuel." Also, you may have noticed that we're not talking about hydrogen's suitablility as a vehicle fuel, we're talking about how SCE is going to store solar energy for nighttime use. Get with the program. Read what people are writing so you can actually follow the conversation.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  7. Re:No way, San Jose by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The rest of the equipment: heat collector at the focus, flexible piping, insulation, pipes, evaporators, heat sinks, pumps, working fluid, turbines, gears, cogs, lubricants, generators, buildings, staff, land

    What do you need all that stuff for?

    With the exception of land (which you will need a lot of but it's all desert and not suited for much else) and a minimal staff, none of that junk is required.

    The Stirling cycle runs at 10% efficiency. { Note: most Stirling engines are about 5x less efficient that this}.

    This is a little ambiguous. The theoretical Stirling engine can achieve the ideal Carnot efficiency. Real Stirlings can reach 50 percent of this maximum theoretical value.

    With a ambient (sink) temperature of, say, 110F (316K) and a temperature of 1400F (1033K - Actually a conservative estimate) our Carnot efficiency is 69.4%. A real high-end Stirling can reach 50% of that, or nearly 35% thermal. After you generate the electricity you are *still* looking at 25% overall efficiency or better.

    All that stuff cleans and maintains itself at no cost.

    Practically would! If a crew of 3 guys can take a hose truck and rinse the dust off the mirrors of each dish in ~15min, they can do about 30 dishes per day. Each dish would probably only need to be washed once a month, so 30*30 = 900 dishes a month. You'd need 23 crews of 3 men each to maintain 20,000 dishes, or 67 people. A 500MW coal plant would employ about 100. (Guestimated from here) Moreover, the people running a coal plant would have to be skilled to maintain the high pressure steam equipment, which means they would cost more. You would not need special training and licensing to operate a hose truck.

    As for the Stirling gen sets themselves, they are hermetically sealed and virtually maintenance free. You can contract out any service that might be required rather than having your own staff. In fact, I would think SES would offer a nice warranty that includes service, so if one does go down simply replace it with a spare unit (They are small and modular, you know) and send them back for service.

    The tracking systems are also fairly low maintenance and could be contracted out.

    So in light of the above, you may wish to revisit your calculations.

    They make a breakthrough and develop an efficient Stiring regenerator, which is simultaneously long and short, conductive and insulating. See : www.tinaja.com/glib/muse116.pdf

    So you based your argument on three sentences (one copied almost verbatim) from a journal that seems to deal mostly with electronics? Brilliant. You, sir, seem woefully uninformed about how Stirling engines operate. I will grant you that the regenerator is perhaps the biggest hang up when it comes to design, but by no means is it impossible to create. What you are tying to do is make a medium that stores and rejects heat quickly ("highly conductive") with minimal internal volume ("long and thin") and low pressure loss for gas flow ("short and fat") and does not create a thermal short ("highly insulating"). In practice, a stack of fine mesh stainless steel screens works quite well. I have also read storied about people stuffing the passages in the engine with brass wool to great effect.
    =Smidge=