Molten Salt-Based Solar Power Plant

rcastro0 writes "Hamilton Sundstrand, a division of United Technologies, announced today that it will start to commercialize a new type of solar power plant. A new company called SolarReserve will be created to provide heat-resistant pumps and other equipment, as well as the expertise in handling and storing salt that has been heated to more than 1,050 degrees Fahrenheit. According to venture capitalist Vinod Khosla 'Three percent of the land area of Morocco could support all of the electricity for Western Europe.' Molten Salt storage is already used in Nevada's Solar One power plant. Is this the post-hydrocarbon world finally knocking?"

Comments

Nuclear's the future.

[urcreepyneighbor]

Is this be the post-hydrocarbon world finally knocking? A "post-hydrocarbon world" has been available for a long time - nuclear. She's been knocking for so long that her hand is sore.

While I would love to believe some form of solar power would meet the world's needs, it simply isn't feasible with current technology.

We'll probably have wormholes, sexbots and universal prosperity before solar can meet the demand. :)

post hydrocarbon already here

[thule]

" Is this be the post-hydrocarbon world finally knocking?".....

It was here 50 years ago with nuclear power. Thankfully, it's finally getting attention again.

Re:post hydrocarbon already here

[BlueParrot]

On a related note, nuclear engineers were using molten salts decades ago, and even developed a special corrosion resistant alloy, Hastelloy-N, to deal with the corrosion problems. However, the molten salt system turned out to be more expensive than water based technology, thou this may change if thermochemical production of hydrogen kicks of.

Essentially, proponents of solar power usually like to fantasize about theoretical advances in solar technology, while simultaneously refusing to recognise advances in nuclear technology. As an example, electric cars are usually touted as being CO2 neutral "if the electricity comes from renewables". It is outright obvious that this remains true with nuclear as well, but that is scary and hence rarely mentioned. Similarily advances in electric storage is usually touted as a means of allowing solar to be used for baseload, but rarely is it pointed out that the same tech coudl allow nuclear to deliver peak-energy at increased efficiency by running the plant at its maximum output even when demand is low.

Re:Nuclear is not the future..

[Entropius]

What are you smoking?

It requires an absolutely tiny amount of uranium to run a nuclear plant, compared to the 10,000 tons/day that a 1GW coal plant uses. Uranium is rare, but you don't actually need that much *of* it. 95% of the fuel used in fission plants can be reprocessed. Coal producers are chopping off the tops of entire *mountains* in Appalachia;

"Disposal" isn't as big a problem as it's made out to be; reprocessing reduces the amount of waste produced tremendously, and storing a little waste for a time is a whole lot better than *not* storing it and dumping it into the atmosphere, as we're doing with coal.

There are other forms of power generation than nuclear, but at the moment it is the only proven, scalable, clean, and economical alternative to fossil fuels for power generation. Perhaps solar-thermal (as in this article) or geothermal or tidal power or some sort of wind power can be used to carry a lot of the load, but nuclear power is available now, and the only thing lacking is the political will to implement it.

France had that political will, and now they have the cheapest power and the cleanest air in Europe.

Re:sun renewable?

[Dorceon]

I guess the relevant terms should be exhaustable vs. non-exhaustable. Using sunlight for power doesn't change when the sun will die. Using fossil fuels for power changes when the fossil fuels will run out.