Slashdot Mirror
Tech That Will Save Our Species - Solar Thermal Power
NoMoreCoal writes "Salon has up a story by Joe Romm, former undersecretary of energy during the Clinton administration, discussing a lesser-known alternative energy solution. It's a technology that (he claims) is ready to provide zero-carbon electric power big, fast, cheap and (most importantly) right now: solar thermal power. 'Improvements in manufacturing and design, along with the possibility of higher temperature operation, could easily bring the price down to 6 to 8 cents per kilowatt hour. CSP makes use of the most abundant and free fuel there is, sunlight, and key countries have a vast resource. Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a 92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest could generate electricity for the entire United States. Mexico has an equally enormous solar resource. China, India, southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East and Australia also have huge resources.'" Interesting stuff, even if he does mention the Archimedes Death Ray.
I think it's quite interesting that a lot of the poorer, indeed third world [LOL - Australia ;-)], countries of today could be the power suppliers of tomorrow. Of course that will depend to a large degree on them stopping killing each other long enough to allow the current rich nations to come in and setup the plants!
The problem then becomes one of supply - how do you get the Solar Thermal riches of the Sahara up to Europe without massive power losses. There was a Chinese scientist 5 or 10 years ago who put forward an idea for a "Super Grid" to allow us to move power around the globe more efficiently. Maybe this needs a bit more thought!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
It's well worth examining here what "begs the question" means in a technical sense -- and not as a usage Nazi. I understand that most people mean "leads to the question" when they say "beg the question."
"Begging the question" is to ask a question which only makes sense to ask after certain other questions have been answered. The classic example is, "have you stopped beating your wife?" You cannot expect a meaningful answer to that question unless you have established that the person being asked has, at some time in the past, beat his wife. It's not valid to ask the first question until the second has been dealt with.
In this case, the argument is that plants such as this could produce a given amount of energy does not beg the question of the resources needed to create or maintain them. It leads to that question, but does not beg that question. If we were, on the other hand, to ask the questions in reverse order, we would be begging the question. It makes no sense to consider asking how many of our current resources will will apply to these plants until we have answered how many of our current resources these plants will replace.
Furthermore, "How much of our current resources will it take to create/maintain these plants?" is a kind of catch-all question. You aren't saying, "Well this stuff requires a million kilos of unobtainium per watt produced, wouldn't that be more expensive than oil over the next twenty years?" That would be a valid question.
Asked generically, your question amount to this:Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper just to go on as we have indefinitely? This indeeds begs a question, namely, which is can we?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
This makes me wonder, is generating electricity using this method more efficient to do with heating water to go into a turbine... or using a (huge) stirling engine? I've read that a Stirling Engine is the most energie efficient way to turn heat into movement (thus electricity?).
Can anybody shed some light on this? (no pun intended)
My blog: http://www.redcode.nl
Grids are expensive and security risks. A decentralized power system would be much more economically efficient, more resilient to regular local outages caused by weather storms, and much more competitive in offering consumers lower prices. Grid = Monopoly. It's economically efficient to transport oil and gasoline by tankers and by semi truck to decentralized filling stations.
When solar power can be stored and transported similarly at competitive costs to world oil distribution markets, the solar energy market will be ready. The market certainly won't be ready, won't be competitive, if you are building "super grids". That's nothing more than a massively economically inefficient subsidy (payoff) to politically connected constituents (just like ethanol farmers and processing plants).
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
STP is a very common technology here in Brazil, especially in households that use it to heat water to be used in the shower (replacing our famous electric shower heads). Some industries also use it to pre-heat water that they use in the manufacturing process, saving millions of dollars every year. -vava
With Pebble Bed reactors, nuclear power has a great future:
:)
1. Yes, but it's easy to store pebbles (they're sealed in graphite, waterproof, and can just be loaded into barrels and put underground. They're also rather small (the size of a tennis ball).
2. Pebble Bed reactors can't melt down. If they get too hot, they generate less heat, resulting in an abandoned reaction stabilising long before thermal damage can occur in the containment
3. Ignorance will always be a problem
4. Hardly. The level of security at nuclear power plants is ridiculously off the scale. Also, with pebble bed reactors, the pebbles are practically useless for making weapons.
Pebble bed reactors seem to be the way forward. I suggest reading about them to see their benefits. It's interesting stuff.
Most solar thermal plants use some medium that the sunlight heats up. That medium is pumped close to the bottom of a water tank to generate your steam. The thing is that the sun heats up the stuff a lot, and you can store that medium in a well insulated tank. You can then pump it from that storage tank to the boiler after the sun goes down. Even the early versions setup in California in the 70s did this, and that plant is still running today; albeit with some upgrades. Beyond that, as another commenter pointed out, using some electricity to electrolysize(sp?) water into hydrogen to be burned in an ICE or better yet used in a fuel cell would get you power after hours just fine.
- Mike
Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
Hmm, how about using the variable power sources like solar and wind to drive pumps to fill hydropower or compressed-air reservoirs. Power can then be drawn from them at a predictable rate. You'd lose some efficiency, but you could just throw a few more square miles at the problem.
Forget subsidizing this with tax dollars. I have a few bucks to invest. Let me buy some stock. Or how about some energy bonds? The US sold war bonds during WWII, let us buy Alternative Energy Bonds for investing in solar and geo and fuel cells.
The cancel button is your friend. Do not hesitate to use it.
Okay, we use about 100 quadrillion BTUs of power a year, that's would be about 3 terawatts of installed power. Wikipedia claims that the installed cost of coal is 1 to 2 dollars per watt, which means that it would cost 3 to 6 trillion dollars to replace our energy production capacity with new coal plants today.
In comparison, the wikipedia article on thermal solar plants claims that most plant designs aim to achieve $1 per kWh/year (that makes the installed cost about $10/watt). Using the $10 figure, you get an installed cost 30 trillion dollars.
"First, the reference to the 92x92 mile grid says "Solar thermal plants covering the equivalent of a 92-by-92-mile square grid in the Southwest..." You might note that "plants" is plural. So we're not talking a single 92x92 mile plant, but a large number of plants that cover an equivalent area. However, it's unclear how large an individual plant in this scheme would be vis a vis the ones in operation today."
I was refering to the 3 gigawat plant metioned in the article. the largest they've proposed building was around 100 mw. Is it really possile to build one thirty times larger? I have never seen a design that big.
"Others put the cost at $1 to $2 trillion"
That's because they are conuting secondary effects, like health care and disability. That is hand waving. I could make wild claims about the oppurtunity costs associated with solar too (there's a lot you could accomplish with that $30 trillion, and what about the environmental effects? that aluminum has to come from somewhere), but you don't see me making up numbers and adding them to my cost to make it more compelling. I will stick with the congressional budget, thank you very much.