Slashdot Mirror


CA's First Molten Salt Energy Plant Approved

An anonymous reader writes "This year we've seen molten salt power plants start to pick up steam around the world, and now the technology is heating up stateside — California just approved its first molten salt energy plant. Designed by SolarReserve, the plant uses heliostats to focus thermal energy on a power tower filled with salt, which is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold heat for an extraordinary length of time. Heat from this reserve of molten salt can then be pumped through a steam generator to provide on-demand energy long after the sun has set."

270 comments

  1. TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Funny

    We get it already, heat jokes. Knock it off!

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by clone52431 · · Score: 4, Funny

      It took me 4 reads just to find the two puns that you appear to be so steamed over.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    2. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by spun · · Score: 1

      You sound a little hot under the collar. Maybe you should chill out.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yep, even I get annoyed by Slashdot summaries pretty often, but this one didn't even trip my detector. Had to go over carefully to see the two at the beginning. Sorry, lower your sensitivity, because you're making us intolerants look tolerant in comparison!

    4. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by beakerMeep · · Score: 3, Funny

      Way to pour salt on his wound.

      --
      meep
    5. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to rub salt in your wounds, which will probably just boil your blood more.

    6. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Funny

      Way to pour salt on his wound.

      Careful, you'll make him hot under the collar. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      I think M. Freak may have been talking about the combination of the summary and the article. I have to admit that I was a bit tired of them by the time that I was done with the article.

    8. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by clone52431 · · Score: 3, Funny

      You RTFA? I’m sorry, but I’ll have to take that claim with a grain of salt.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    9. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or turn this into a salted battery.

    10. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 1

      Way to pour salt on his wound.

      Careful, you'll make him hot under the collar. ;-)

      This kind of flamebait is an assault on our sensibilities.

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    11. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      If you’d add a bit of butter you’d make the bitter battery better.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    12. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by snooz_crash · · Score: 1

      John Stewart is onto this growing phenomenon

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig
    13. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by noidentity · · Score: 1

      Amazing, I didn't see any heat puns in the article itself. You say there were many? I need to have my eyes checked :(

    14. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      You make a saline point.

    15. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by BBF_BBF · · Score: 1

      The correct Title for your post should be:

      "TWO MANY PUNS!!!

      ;-)

    16. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Well, my goal was to be crystal clear. All these puns, makes you want to shake your head.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    17. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Comboman · · Score: 2

      Stop peppering him with bad puns. It's thyme for serious discussion.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    18. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by bored_engineer · · Score: 1

      Well, now I look like an idiot. I would swear, when I first read through, that I identified two or three of them. Now, I can only find a mention of "savory technology." Sorry.

    19. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by O-Deka-K · · Score: 1

      New headline: "PG&E Charged With Assault"

    20. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by eth1 · · Score: 1

      I don't care about the heat puns, I just want to know if all of that sodium will cause high steam pressure.

    21. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      I thought Jon went over this already...you're not punny!

      http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-november-29-2010/you-re-not-punny

    22. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Let's all just simmer down now.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    23. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by angrytuna · · Score: 5, Funny

      I tell ya, if I had a NaCl for every pun on here...

      --

      It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork.

    24. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by domatic · · Score: 1

      This whole thread should be taken with a grain of salt.

    25. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by AndyAndyAndyAndy · · Score: 1

      Jeez everyone's a little hot under the collar today.

      --
      It's always confirmation bias!
    26. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Well, they do say too much sodium is bad for your blood pressure.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    27. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Ooooh, burned!

    28. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These aren't normal puns. These are ENERGY PUNS. TURBO PUNS!

    29. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

      Damn You DAMN YOU DAMN YOU!!!!! I'm so dium tired of this!!! Back to the hole with you!

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    30. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like my nukes with a dash of Cobalt.

    31. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARRRRRRRRRRRR! 400 babies!

    32. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Seriously, in a pun thread, you spell it right?

      "PG&E Charged with a Salt" ... to which the subtitle would presumably be "They are ionising it."

    33. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      I tell ya, if I had a NaCl for every pun on here...

      That's it, I'm keeping my i on you...

    34. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just take it as a grain of salt.

    35. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by invalid-access · · Score: 1

      New headline: "PG&E Charged With Assault"

      ...and Batteries.

    36. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh!

    37. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by kheldan · · Score: 1

      No need to get so hot under the collar about this, Anon; you're getting up a full head of steam over nothing!

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    38. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh simmer down, he's just venting a little.

    39. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get so hot under the collar!

    40. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheesy steamed puns over rice?

    41. Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Puns? That's because this story make it to the reddit front page and redditors are famous for puns. So here we are.

  2. Mascot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Their mascot? The Molten Salt Girl

    1. Re:Mascot by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Their mascot? The Molten Salt Girl

      And if they do this in situ in a salt mine, then what could go wrong?

    2. Re:Mascot by thrillseeker · · Score: 0

      Mmmm - hot salt ... and grits.

    3. Re:Mascot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "When it rains, it burns"

  3. Fahrenheit? by mrphoton · · Score: 1, Informative

    810.777 Kelvin .... nuff said.

    1. Re:Fahrenheit? by noidentity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Eliminate that make-believe accuracy, as the original was probably rounded at least +/-50 F to the round 1000 figure. 800 Kelvin is plenty accurate here.

    2. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      accuracy != precision

    3. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1491.67 degrees Rankine

    4. Re:Fahrenheit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      640K ought to be enough for anybody

    5. Re:Fahrenheit? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Eliminate that make-believe accuracy, as the original was probably rounded at least +/-50 F to the round 1000 figure. 800 Kelvin is plenty accurate here.

      Wrong.
      1: You're confusing accuracy and precision.
      2: Significant digits have nothing to do with calculation or conversion - they're only for measurements. The fact that teachers and professors don't understand this doesn't mean that you should go lopping off digits willy-nilly.

      If you measure something as being .25 meters, you don't then say it's 9.8 inches. It's 9.842519685039370078740157480315 inches +/- the accuracy of your original measurement.

      If you were only precise to 2 decimal places, then your shit probably is between .245 and .255 meters. Or 9.6456692913385826771653543307087 and 10.039370078740157480314960629921 inches. (Or, if you practice the even dumber version where you just truncate shit instead of round, it'll be between .25 and .26).

      No amount of rounding or truncation of the original 9.842519685039370078740157480315 inches result will represent those bound.

      You can round these results however you want for the final results, but all internal calculations should use as much precision as possible. The more calculations you do, the more your rounding errors grow. Depending on what you're doing, they can grow geometrically or exponentially at each fucking step.

      Significant digits are what you use when you don't understand your measuring equipment or how variances will effect the upper and lower bounds of a result. I.E., they're for people who shouldn't be doing anything that important anyway.

      Convert 1 meter to inches, then meters, then inches, then meters, etc.

      1 meter = X inches.
      By definition, 1 inch = .0254 meters.
      Using significant digits, 1 inch = 3x10^-2 meters

      1 meter = 33.333333 inches.
      Using significant digits, 1 meter = 3x10^1 inches

      Now take that result and convert back to meters...

      3x10^1 inches = X meters
      By definition, 1 meter = 39.37007874015748031496062992126 inches
      Using significant digits, 1 meter = 4x10^1 inches

      You can see how this is getting fucked up now, can't you? You get even worse problems when you truncate instead of round. Significant digits, as taught and practiced, is a TERRIBLE THING.

    6. Re:Fahrenheit? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Significant digits is the "good enough" for tracking error bars across units in most cases. It's almost always right to say that 0.25 m is 9.8 in. It's not preserving exactly the same error bars, but it's usually close enough, even for scientific work.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:Fahrenheit? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I would say that it's close enough for the kind of scientific work where using non-metric units is acceptable.

    8. Re:Fahrenheit? by MarkTina · · Score: 2

      Going back to the original topic of how hot the salt is .. if you stuck one hand in molten salt that was 810.777 kelvin and the other hand in molten salt that was 800 kelvin could you tell the difference ?

      To mere mortals 800 kelvin or 1000 Fahrenheit is perfectly acceptable :-)

    9. Re:Fahrenheit? by noidentity · · Score: 1

      And the full-page reply as to why 810.777 K was correct is priceless (about to read through it carefully, since I have plenty to learn on the subject).

    10. Re:Fahrenheit? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Metric? What kind of fool uses metric?!? Any real scientist, or any real man, uses the Furlong-Fortnight-Firkin system! Are you some kind of communist mutant traitor, or something?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. home use? by bhcompy · · Score: 2

    Any way to work this out for home use? Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

    1. Re:home use? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Home use? Sure, here's your order of molten french fries...

    2. Re:home use? by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Realistically? No. The thermal mass required to keep a steam turbine running 24/7 is not something you want in your house. This is large scale industrialized energy production. The only personal scale applications are solar hot water heaters and greenhouses, and in those cases your goal is to take advantage of the stored heat directly instead of converting it to electricity.

    3. Re:home use? by Raptoer · · Score: 2

      You would have to get it up to a high enough temperature to stay molten throughout the night, while still providing power. It's a lot more practical to use other solar technologies for home use and keep these ones in big arrays. It's a bit like why power plants will always have higher efficiency than home generation, it's a matter of scale.

    4. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

      I don't think this would be viable on a small scale.

      National Geographic had a decent article sometime in the past couple years on different solar energy technologies. Part of that article was an excellent writeup (and photos) of this technology, which is currently in use in Spain.

      The basics are:

      A column with a salt reservoir at the top
      A field of mirrors that can focus the reflected solar rays onto the salt
      A heat-exchange system to drive steam to a steam turbine.

      I don't think this would be a good idea on a small scale -- there are other solar thermal energy systems already used on a small scale that would be better (such as passive solar thermal used for night-time heating). Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:home use? by Just_Say_Duhhh · · Score: 1

      it depends on how big your lot is. You're going to need enough land to construct a pretty large mirror array, and then you'll need a power tower to collect all that heat. If you can't get away with building a tall structure, you could use a parabolic trough. The main reason you wouldn't want this on a small scale is you can't shut it off. If the salt cools into a solid, you'd never get it flowing again.

      For your safety, as well as the safety of your neighbors, I'd say it's best to leave that 800-degree (Celsius) salt out in the desert where it belongs.

      --
      I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
    6. Re:home use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any way to work this out for home use? Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

      How about fail in first question and fail in the 2nd statement too... Both are false and epically so.

    7. Re:home use? by skids · · Score: 1

      You're stuck waiting for flywheels or redox batteries to be packaged for consumer level installations, I'm afraid. This one here is a "big boy only" toy.

      However, if you are interested in space heating, look up Glauber's Salt.

    8. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.

      Hi, I'm here to point out that efficiency means nothing when your fuel is free, and that cost is all that matters. Just like I do in every other renewable energy story.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    9. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      If the salt cools into a solid, you'd never get it flowing again.

      It's common to use simple electric heat-tracing to liquify the salts on start-up.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    10. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2

      Fuel is not free, since there are capital costs involved in setting up the apparatus to receive the fuel, and the apparatus does not have an infinite lifetime.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    11. Re:home use? by dr2chase · · Score: 1

      Whoa, cool. I had no idea. Wikipedia missed one use -- if you want to get the most intense turquoise from procion dyes (tie-dye, often), you use Glauber's salt instead of salt when mixing the dye (note that the referenced site sells anhydrous sodium sulfate, not the deca-hydrated form you were thinking of).

    12. Re:home use? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Actually you could, but not with salt. there are other liquid that would work well enough for home use. You could also use troughs. BUT, you need a heat exchangers, storage device. If I had a free 1/2 acre I would give it a try. Even if it doesn't last through the night, if it got you just an extra 2 hours after sundown, it would still be a big help.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:home use? by MadUndergrad · · Score: 2

      Fuel is free. Capital and maintenance costs are something that another power plant would have, in addition to fuel costs.

    14. Re:home use? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Efficiency is going to directly impact the size of the collector you need for a given application, and thus cost. So yes, efficiency is quite important in solar power, as it is in every other renewable energy source. It is less important than with other energy sources, yet still quite important. And it could easily mean that below a certain size of application, the technology is economically infeasible.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    15. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Collector size has nothing to do with cost. Sugar cane is one of the least efficient forms of renewable energy we have, with collector efficiency under 1%. Yet it profitably produces several orders of magnitude more energy than solar panels with 40% efficiency.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    16. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      If your home came with 100 acres of unused field, sure, you can totally work this out at home.

      Otherwise, no. Carnot Efficiency always favors creating the highest energy differential you can, which in turn means that centralized energy production will always be more efficient.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    17. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      You don't need a turbine. You could run a small steam engine, around a horsepower or so.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    18. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      Fuel is not free, in terms of opportunity cost. In other words, putting up a 20% efficient solar converter loses you the opportunity to put in a 50% efficient converter instead. Converting this to monetary value is left as an exercise to the reader.

      Further, capital and maintenance costs mean something. Since equipment has an expected lifespan, it's not true that you spend (for example) $100k now and its free energy forever. If the plant is expected to last 50 years, then the initial capital cost can be amortized at $2k/year.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    19. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      The laws of physics may say otherwise, but the laws of economics say that the price you pay will be at least 4x the true cost due to transport and middle-men. So even if you're half as efficient as they are, you'll come out ahead.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    20. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      That's because Brazil is slash-and-burning rain forest land to farm sugar cane. As currently practiced, its no more sustainable than oil.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    21. Re:home use? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      Collector size has nothing to do with cost.

      Of course it does. A bigger solar concentrator is more expensive than a smaller one, and a bigger sugar cane field is more expensive than a smaller one.

      You can't directly compare the efficiencies and costs of wildly different technologies, but that's a vastly different statement than saying efficient does not matter! If you are converting sugar cane with an efficiency 1/10th of someone else, that is going to mean you're growing 10 times as much sugar cane for the same output as someone else and that will significantly impact your cost in insanely obvious ways.

      For the matter actually under discussion, molten salt solar concentrators and possible home use, it works like so: To collect enough energy for a given application (city/region vs a residential home) you need a certain size of collector. However, smaller turbines are less efficient. Therefore the power output/size curve and thus cost/desired power output curve is not linear, and favors larger installations.

      Efficiency directly affects cost. Efficiency matters.

      Whether that actually makes it impractical for home use or not is another question.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    22. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      I've never seen a home energy system that actually works out that way, once all the numbers are crunched.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    23. Re:home use? by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      That's all true, but the fuel (sunlight) is still free.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    24. Re:home use? by sribe · · Score: 1

      The only personal scale applications are solar hot water heaters and greenhouses, and in those cases your goal is to take advantage of the stored heat directly instead of converting it to electricity.

      Exactly my thought--wonder if this lends itself to residential sized thermal storage?

    25. Re:home use? by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

      Just build your house next to a volcano and harness the energy of the lava. That's what I would do (if i was a bad enough dude).

    26. Re:home use? by John+Meacham · · Score: 2

      Heat capacity is proportional to the volume of the liquid while radiative heat loss is proportional to the surface area. volume grows to the third power while surface area grows to the second as you add more liquid (assuming a non pathological design) so a smaller facility is signifigantly less useful than a simple scaling of the power output of a larger one might imply.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    27. Re:home use? by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 horsepower isn't enough to run a house. And smaller heat engines are inherently less efficient than larger ones. And a smaller reservoir will loose heat faster than a larger one that has proportionally less surface area.

      You still don't want the thermal mass in or near your house. A thousand degrees is enough to make paper and wood instantly catch fire. It is enough to melt aluminum and damage commercial bricks and concrete. It is enough to cause 3rd degree burns in seconds.

    28. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Fuel is free. Capital and maintenance costs are something that another power plant would have, in addition to fuel costs.

      No, fuel is not free. Fuel costs include all the costs associated with acquiring the fuel. Marginal fuel costs are zero. But fuel costs are not zero in this case.

      Besides which, we were talking about the potential of using this technology on a small scale, such as a backyard deployment. This makes your point completely extraneous.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    29. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      The fuel is not sunlight. The fuel is sunlight directed at the receiver. The cost of directing the sunlight at the receiver is part of the fuel cost.

      In the same manner that the cost of fuel to a coal plant includes the cost of extracting and delivering the fuel to the plant, the cost of fuel for a concentrated solar plant includes the cost of concentrating that solar and delivering it to the receiver.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    30. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Efficiency directly affects cost.

      If you're trying to argue that modifying some technology to make it more efficient will necessarily make it cost less per unit of energy, then that is patently false. I can make any thermoelectric device more efficient by making it out of diamonds and gold, but that won't make it cheaper. Any technology with a different efficiency is a different technology, full stop. If all we care about is cost/energy, there are lots of factors more important than efficiency to consider.

      smaller turbines are less efficient

      With CHP systems, turbine efficiency doesn't matter. You can heat your house or your hot tub with the 20% more waste heat that a small turbine generates. In fact, a small system can be more efficient as well as cheaper than a larger one by utilizing the 60% waste heat produced.

      Smaller components can be built on assembly lines, using automated processes, instead of in a one-off fashion. This can make them less expensive and more reliable. Smaller components can be sourced from multiple producers, leveraging market forces to lower costs and increase quality. Smaller systems are also easier to finance, and can be more resistant to fraudulent investment schemes, legal barriers and market manipulation.

      These are all more important factors to consider with renewable energy than mere efficiency. But cost is clearly the biggest factor. And it should be plainly obvious that the relationship between cost and efficiency is tenuous at best.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    31. Re:home use? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      You may not have to pay money to get the fuel, but it is limited, so efficiency matters.

    32. Re:home use? by __aatirs3925 · · Score: 1

      That depends, maybe the sun doesn't know that we are taking its energy and making it our own and perhaps one day it will get angry at us. Mark my words, the sun will get angry one day and it will look exactly like that sun in SMB3.

    33. Re:home use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is more a function of what you insulate it with than the material itself. The critical factors are the thermal capacity of the heat-mass, the thickness and conductivity of your insulating materials, and the ratio of the surface area to the characteristic length of the salt pool. I'm sure without too much effort, you could come up with some dimensionless units that predict a home-sized configuration that would last through the night.

      The efficiency would be lower for the same reason as the large plants, which is not *quite* the same problem as maintaing the thermal mass to begin with: it's possible to design containers that have arbitrarily low heat loss to surroundings.

    34. Re:home use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, a hair dryer needs 1250 watts, that's almost two horsepower. For a hair dryer. Do you see where maybe your idea of the scale of energy is maybe off?

    35. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 0

      Economics isn't about money. It's about how to most effectively manage limited resources. The amount of sunlight hitting the Earth, as well as the amount of sunlight hitting a given plot of land, is very much a limited resource. Sunlight cannot be correctly called free under any realistic economic system.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    36. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      There are examples of direct solar heating systems that are profitable without being particularly efficient. You've seen greenhouses. Commercial CHP systems are not as efficient as electric plants, but they are profitable.

      And you've seen it for all sorts of other things. You probably use a washing machine instead of professional cleaners. You probably drive a car instead of riding the bus. Hell, you probably live in a single-family house instead of an apartment building. None of those are more efficient.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    37. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      1 horsepower isn't enough to run a house.

      Okay, 5 horsepower then.

      You still don't want the thermal mass in or near your house. A thousand degrees is enough to make paper and wood instantly catch fire.

      Probably not in a densely-populated area, but your self-cleaning oven reaches 900 degrees so it's not anything to get hysterical about.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    38. Re:home use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part of your oven at 900b degrees is half a cubic meter of air and maybe 50lbs of steel. Not a couple tons of circulating molten salt.

        And like I mentioned. You have a lower efficiency engine, more heat lost from storage. You also need to actually gather the energy. It isn't something you can panel the roof with. You either need a tower and a large field of heliostats or a very large flat field of parabolic troughs.

    39. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      Uh, a hair dryer needs 1250 watts, that's almost two horsepower. For a hair dryer. Do you see where maybe your idea of the scale of energy is maybe off?

      I use, at most, around 450 kWh/mo, which is 625 Watts continuous or 0.83 horsepower. I'm accounting for some battery storage for short term spikes, but the scale isn't too far off. Given conversion losses, I could easily live with a 2 hp steam engine as my sole energy source.

      The average US house consumes 920 kWh/mo or 1.7 hp. I think you have real problems if you couldn't make do with, say, a 10 hp steam engine even without battery storage. So it's within an order of magnitude at least.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    40. Re:home use? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

      If you're trying to argue that modifying some technology to make it more efficient will necessarily make it cost less per unit of energy, then that is patently false.

      Why even have a conversation with someone who only sees the possibilities that "efficiency doesn't matter" or "increased efficiency necessarily reduces cost regardless of mechanism" and argues against one idiotic half of this false dichotomy to prove the other?

      Any technology with a different efficiency is a different technology, full stop.

      Nonsense, because many technologies have different efficiencies at different scales or other parameters. If you want to define a diesel generator and a diesel generator that is 0.1% larger or with an operating RPM 0.1% slower as "different technologies" then be my guest at abusing semantics in ways nobody will ever agree with.

      With CHP systems, turbine efficiency doesn't matter.

      What a silly thing to say. That's only true if the only thing you care about is heating, and the only use for electricity you have is to power electric heaters. Otherwise, efficiency is going to affect the size of system you need to achieve a given desired amount of P.

      In fact, a small system can be more efficient as well as cheaper than a larger one by utilizing the 60% waste heat produced.

      Larger systems can make more effective use of waste heat, too.

      But cost is clearly the biggest factor. And it should be plainly obvious that the relationship between cost and efficiency is tenuous at best.

      What's plainly obvious is that efficiency effects cost, in particular within the parameters of a given technology, and can make the difference between it being practical for a given use or not.

      It's why you aren't going to have a molten salt solar collector, or a sugar cane plantation with biodiesel generator plant in your yard, but you might have roof solar panels. While for large-scale city/region sized deployments, the opposite will be true.

      What's also plainly obvious is that the statement "efficiency does not matter in renewable energy" is false.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    41. Re:home use? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Correct, but that doesn't matter. All the matters is the the end product produces enough electricity for your home.

      It's less efficient, I'm not arguing that. I'm simply stating it's 'doable' I could createa enough power for my home, but it wouldn't be very efficient.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    42. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      Economics is about how to most effectively manage limited resources.

      Well, regardless of the solution you come up with, the first step is:

      1) Manage the resource.

      Since half of the sunlight that hits the Earth isn't managed by humans at all, and the other half is only managed in a secondary or tertiary sense at less than 1% thermodynamic efficiencies, squabbling about limited resources is rather pointless.

      It's like, it's raining money. And instead of dragging out a huge net that will catch 5% of the money that falls on it, people are standing outside holding out their shirts and talking about how limited the money is and how they need more efficient shirts.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    43. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Okay, so let's do this. You're not going to agree that cost is the only factor. So I'll grant you that efficiency matters, up to a certain point. Let's decide what that point is.

      What would you suggest should be the ideal global average solar energy collection efficiency target?

      Because I'm going to say that anything over 3% is a complete waste of time and resources.

      And here's a simple, relatively conservative way of justifying that number. If you take all the desert land on Earth and multiply it by the average global insolation and divide that among all people in the world, at 3% efficiency you get over 12 kilowatts per person, which is about the average energy usage in the US and more than twice the total global energy usage in 2008. And that's just desert. At 3% efficiency, an average roof generates over 400 watts continuously.

      You're not launching solar energy into space. You're not putting it on top of your car. Why should it be more efficient than 3%?

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    44. Re:home use? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      These are all salient observations that must be taken into consideration. I just can't get behind calling what is almost entirely an up-front fixed cost a fuel cost. Each extra pound of coal has significant and real costs associated with acquiring it. But once you've built sufficient mirrors to collect all the light you want, the ongoing cost for the sunlight that mirror reflects is, what, the power needed by a one-revolution-per-day tracking motor? You could amortize the fixed costs over the total watts reflected over the lifetime of the mirrors and call that the 'fuel cost', but that's just not how normal accounting is done.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    45. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      You can be finding a more efficient shirt. I'll be running to the bank, to convert my money into directly tangible assets, in order not to be hit by the hyperinflation that will happen shortly.

      What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deeply misinformed understanding of economics amongst the environmentalist movement. I hear arguments all the time of the form "spend the money on solar/wind/whatever once, and it's free forever!". That doesn't work at all.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    46. Re:home use? by wilec · · Score: 1

      You could possibly build a micro turbine or and array of such for power generation, it would be a pretty expensive undertaking so the payback ratio would suck. A better use might be for heating and cooking purposes. The advantages of using a "salt" storage solution are mostly temperature -MAX DEG- and size-BTU/FT3-related. Another material that works well in such a storage application is a liquid metal such as tin/antimony solder. I would think that the best heat transfer medium between collector and storage would be a high temperature silicon oil or maybe paraffin. It would be nice I think to be able to use such to power cooking devices such as ovens and ranges where the ideal temperature requirements could exceed most practical air or water based solar systems. The temperatures here are so far above most home heating needs -except steam based- that the only real advantage would be storage size advantages. It might work very well for adsorption process chillers or refrigerators, these could be fun to build but last I knew used dangerous unstable and/or toxic mediums such ammonia or lithium bromide, maybe some safer compounds are available today.

      wabi-sabi
      matthew

    47. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Joke's on you the banks are all run by idiots who invest in my efficient shirt factory.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    48. Re:home use? by Bugbear1973 · · Score: 1

      1 horsepower isn't enough to run a house.

      And I thought you typed "1 horsepower isn't enough to run a horse"

      What???!!

      --
      Wanted: A better sig than this one. I have neither the wit nor motivation...
    49. Re:home use? by dbIII · · Score: 2

      Just using it for hot water saves a pile of electricity and removes the annoyance of a cold shower in a blackout. For those that think it's a bleeding heart liberal communist green hippy sort of idea I suggest you direct those insults at the government in Israel where solar hot water is inb the building regulations (it's just that good an idea when you have a lot of sun).

    50. Re:home use? by connect4 · · Score: 1

      So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it? Maybe you haven't thought this through :)

      What I'm arguing against here is what I see as a deep misunderstanding amongst pop-economists of thermodynamics and the economics of energy supply (eg. EROI), the disastrous failure of existing economic models to effectively manage limited energy resources, the vulnerability of economies, and industrial civilization itself, to sudden collapse in the face of declining cheap energy supplies, and ignorance amongst economists about the necessity of maintaining atmospheric homeostasis for the continued existence of our species.

      I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.

      Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties, their capacity for big picture analysis, and their ability to help us prepare for / prevent a future characterized by hazardous environmental conditions and absence of cheap, availably energy sources.

    51. Re:home use? by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Thermal mass and energy uptake should be intelligently used in a building, period. No, you're not going to run a turbine. But yes, lots of south-facing windows, overhangs to keep out the summer sun while admitting the winter sun onto a large thermally absorptive surface could greatly improve the comfort and energy efficiency of your home, perhaps to the point where when combined with other efficiency gains, you can afford the smaller number of solar panels it'd take to run everything.

    52. Re:home use? by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Your claim is stupid. The fuel arriving at the power station is solar radiation and is free. The power station is made of a tower, a bathtub of salt and a bunch of mirrors. What part of the schema do you not understand?

    53. Re:home use? by hardburn · · Score: 1

      So you'll avoid hyperinflation by engaging in the very herd-behaviour patterns that cause it?

      The herd will be getting t-shirts and bed sheets, not thinking through the implications. But if it's raining money, then money will be useless very shortly. In this instance, it is in my personal best interest to have my assets in something that isn't currency. It's not converting it to land/gold/stocks/whatever that would be causing hyperinflation here. It's the fact that there's a sudden oversupply of money.

      I hear arguments all the time of the form "$x/bbl oil will make energy technology x economically viable.", as though there would be capacity in an economy to re-equip its industry at a time when the vast majority of its people cannot obtain food or fuel and their homes are underwater. That doesn't work at all.

      It is, in fact, a great argument for Keynesian economics. Things like windmills, solar, and nuclear plants become more and more economically viable as the price of fossil fuels rise. All the more so when the externalities are included in the price. In this situation, there is an oversupply of labor combined with an undersupply of capital. Running up government deficits to solve both problems may sound like a suicide plan, but does anybody have a better idea?

      Unfortunately economics today is a counterproductive pseudoscience that compromises people's critical faculties . . .

      Nonsense. Economics has ideas like "externalities" that tell you that not only is government intervention not evil, but is often necessary. Even Austrian economists do not ignore this point--they just give different suggestions on how to fix it.

      Economists actually have thought out these problems. Too often, their advice gets passed off as either socialism or corporate whoring.

      --
      Not a typewriter
    54. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Each extra pound of coal has significant and real costs associated with acquiring it.

      Which includes, of course, some of the capital cost of the equipment used to receive the coal -- the wear-and-tear on that equipment does contribute to the length of its useful life. I think we're mostly talking about the difference between fixed and variable costs.

      You could amortize the fixed costs over the total watts reflected over the lifetime of the mirrors and call that the 'fuel cost', but that's just not how normal accounting is done.

      Sure it is, at the analytical level. Accounting feeds into the analytics. When you have a situation where the unit cost approaches zero, then the fixed costs dominate the cost side of the proifitability equation -- so the best way to increase unit profit (only looking at cost, of course) is to produce more with the same fixed costs. This is why the efficiency of the steam turbine, etc, is so important. You get more production out of the same fixed costs on the fuel side.

      The thing is, fuel cost as the OP considered it (and as I think you're referring to) is meaningless. What matters is the COGS. That'll include the fuel cost, the cost of receiving the fuel, the cost of converting the fuel to usable energy, the cost of delivering the energy, etc.

      The claim that efficiency is meaningless because the fuel is free just doesn't stand up -- the fixed costs are very important.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    55. Re:home use? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Which includes, of course, some of the capital cost of the equipment used to receive the coal -- the wear-and-tear on that equipment does contribute to the length of its useful life.

      Yes but the up-front cost of the equipment would not be attributed as part of the incremental cost of getting the coal. Neither by the coal mining company, who would call that the fixed capital cost and any ongoing costs the operating costs (which is also distinct from depreciation). Nor would the purchaser, where the cost of coal would not be (coal companies fixed costs + operating costs for acquiring a unit of coal)/(total units of fuel acquired up to that point).

      The incremental cost of getting additional coal is different than the fixed costs of setting up the operation.

      I think we're mostly talking about the difference between fixed and variable costs.

      Indeed. And fuel cost is a variable, or operating, cost. If coal fell from the sky, you wouldn't call the funnel you built to get the coal into your a "fuel cost". You'd pick a given size of funnel to get a desired amount of coal from the sky, and that'd be a fixed cost. Because it would be fixed.

      Sure it is, at the analytical level. Accounting feeds into the analytics.

      The amortized cost over the expected lifespan would be considered, because it's important, but it would not be catagorized as an operating or fuel cost. And you wouldn't start doing this just because otherwise the fuel costs would be close to zero.

      With solar power, the fuel is (very close to) free.

      The claim that efficiency is meaningless because the fuel is free just doesn't stand up -- the fixed costs are very important.

      Fuck yes, absolutely true. The OP's point was stupid. Of course efficiency is still important. If your heat engine is half as efficient as it could be, then you're going to need twice the collected solar energy to produce the same amount of power. Gee, how could having to build a collector that is twice as large affect costs?!

      Like I said, all your comments about the relevant costs are correct. You just don't need to incorrectly call fixed up-front costs a "fuel cost" to make that point. It didn't help them understand the point anyway! :)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    56. Re:home use? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      You just don't need to incorrectly call fixed up-front costs a "fuel cost" to make that point. It didn't help them understand the point anyway! :)

      Thanks. I understand your point very clearly.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    57. Re:home use? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      There is no good argument for Keynesian economics, because it not only ignores but actively subsidizes the biggest negative externality of all: human consumers.

      Modern mainstream economists have managed to be both socialists *and* corporate whores.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  5. Figures... by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    RTFA, looks like a giant penis...

    1. Re:Figures... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA, looks like a giant penis...

      May I offer a suggestion? You need to get out more!

    2. Re:Figures... by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Design heritage of Arnold?

    3. Re:Figures... by ocdscouter · · Score: 1

      A Cigar with odd proportions, judging by that picture.

    4. Re:Figures... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      ...and that's why it got approved. Sex sells!

    5. Re:Figures... by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, energy-efficient technology always finds a way of looking phallic.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    6. Re:Figures... by MrQuacker · · Score: 1
      Are you sure that's not just a steampunk dildo? ;P

      Is there a gif of that somewhere? I think I get how it works, but its a tad puzzling from just that pic.

  6. Not the first... by Foo2rama · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert


    Only if you ignore Solar II that ran from 1996 to 1999....

    --


    ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
    1. Re:Not the first... by Canazza · · Score: 1

      not forgetting Helios 1

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    2. Re:Not the first... by Foo2rama · · Score: 1

      That's in Nevada and uses space lazzors

      --


      ---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
    3. Re:Not the first... by wildstoo · · Score: 1

      Helios One doesn't "use space lazzors" to generate energy, but contains the control mechanism for the Archimedes II space-based laser weapon.

      It's clear from looking at the pictures that Helios One was modelled pretty directly on Solar One and Solar Two.

  7. Really really bad idea by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nothing from or controlled by Computer Associates should be trusted with warm water, much less molten salt.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Really really bad idea by eepok · · Score: 1

      why?

  8. They are going lend some salt too. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Funny

    Any excess salt left over after building the plant will be given to Gawker to help them improve their salted password hashes.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:They are going lend some salt too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any salt they don't use for that will be provided, one grain at a time, to accompany their stories.

  9. Silicon Production by UdoKeir · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Slightly off-topic (or on-topic considering the bigger picture). Can this method of heat concentration be used in the refinement of silicon. My understanding is that silicon production is expensive because of the energy needed to generate heat for the process.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Production

    1. Re:Silicon Production by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes of course. It could even be used to create mirrors for more solar towers. The whole damn thing could be self-replicating.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    2. Re:Silicon Production by ThorGod · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the premise for a very bad science fiction, Borg rip-off.

      I still really like the idea of making it self reproducing.

      --
      PS: I don't reply to ACs.
    3. Re:Silicon Production by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Silicon melts at a very high temperature so it is unlikely that it would be suitable. Also zone refining involves careful control and movement of the hot zone and no vibrations. There nothing better at the moment for that than electric heating with no moving parts since the goal is growing large single crystals orientated in a specific direction with a very small (10nm?) acceptable flaw size.

    4. Re:Silicon Production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think concept is called solar furnace. It can melt anything including T-1000.

    5. Re:Silicon Production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome our new Silicon/Salt Overloads!!! (obligatory self-replicating comment)

  10. It's a tower? by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

    Why is this thing a tower? What if the system controlling the mirrors fails and suddenly they melt the tower, causing the molten salt to crash down on everything below?

    Wouldn't it be safer to have that molten salt at ground level?

    1. Re:It's a tower? by mweather · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't it be safer to have that molten salt at ground level?

      Not if you wanted to get within 100 feet of the central collector during the day.

    2. Re:It's a tower? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Did you look at the picture? How do the mirrors reflect the light onto something on the ground and still be able to have more than one row of the mirrors?

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    3. Re:It's a tower? by gandhi_2 · · Score: 1

      Because mirrors are easier than a ginormous magnifying lens.

      http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/12/Rice-Solar-Project-CA-2.jpg

    4. Re:It's a tower? by RaboKrabekian · · Score: 1

      The salt isn't kept in the tower, that's just the thermal energy receiver.

      --
      "Moderate drinking can help prevent amputated limbs" -- Abigail Zuger, NYTimes, 12/31/02
    5. Re:It's a tower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because mirrors can't shine through or under each other very well.

    6. Re:It's a tower? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative

      Besides that it is also a "trivial geometry" case. If you assume the collector constant the more obtuse the angle of reflection requires a bigger mirror. If the receiver is low, you end up with an obtuse angle out of necessity. The higher it is, the easier to obtain that magic 90 degrees that minimises the mirror size and from there cost and everything else.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    7. Re:It's a tower? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, lord knows the solar energy people don't want to literally make a pillar of salt.

      It would drive the Fundies nuts, that they could then equate solar energy with Sodom and Gomorrah.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:It's a tower? by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      God, that thing looks like it's going to be used to power ARCHIMEDES II

    9. Re:It's a tower? by kent_eh · · Score: 2

      I assume that with the target being higher off the ground, the mirrors can focus the sun on it when the sun is closer to the horizon, allowing for more hours of heating per day.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    10. Re:It's a tower? by magarity · · Score: 2

      Yes, lord knows the solar energy people don't want to literally make a pillar of salt.

      It would drive the Fundies nuts, that they could then equate solar energy with Sodom and Gomorrah.

      Not only that but I prefer my utility bill as it is: measured in kwh not in Lot's Wives.

    11. Re:It's a tower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      they could then equate solar energy with Sodom and Gomorrah.

      In this case, more likely Sodium and Gomorrah

    12. Re:It's a tower? by John+Meacham · · Score: 1

      If the system controlling the mirrors fails, then you are just going to get a very sunny tower. to concentrate solar energy requires extremely fine control of the mirrors to focus them on just the right spot. A failure mode that results in a perfect focus somewhere else seems unlikely.

      In any case, it is somewhat irrelevant due to the different albedo's of the materials used, the target will be pitch black, the rest of the tower will be white, black pavement gets much hotter to the touch than white sidewalk during the day, the same thing happens here, paint the tower white and even the fully concentrated rays won't be enough to cause damage.

      --
      http://notanumber.net/
    13. Re:It's a tower? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Because if the top melted first, there would be hot, salty, stick fluid running down the hard pillar?

      I can see why they'd be troubled.

    14. Re:It's a tower? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The majority of the molten salt is at ground level: the top of the tower is just where it is heated. If you look at the images accompanying the article, you'll see that in their schematic. Also, you'll see an image showing the two heat storage tanks down on the ground: they are actually a bit below grade, and there is a bowl-like structure surrounding each in case of a release.

    15. Re:It's a tower? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is california, so it's more likely Sodium Ban and Gonorrhea

  11. Heat retention for how long ? by Taibhsear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does anyone know exactly how long the reservoir tanks will keep the molten salt at a high enough temp to be useful? It says it can run for 24 hours but should an abnormally long string of cloudy days occur would this inhibit its usefulness? I realize it's California so it should be fairly sunny year round but I'm not familiar with the area it's being built at. Looked up the salt as well. (Had a hard time thinking it would be sodium chloride...) It's a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate. I was a bit worried as nitrates tend to be violently reactive/explosive but this would only be with reducing agents. (so it should be relatively fairly safe if there was a leak.) However when potassium nitrate is heated above 560C (as it would in this plant) it turns to potassium nitrite and gives off oxygen. I'm curious if this would be an issue or if the sodium nitrate or something else in the mixture inhibits this. I imagine the oxygen would either stick in the solar collector part as a gas bubble or just be dissolved in the molten salt mixture. Anyone know? (My expertise is more in biochemistry than inorganic/industrial chemistry)

    1. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      It could, but I don't know how cloudy it would have to be or for how long. If the designers were wise, they might have a backup system using natural gas or hydrogen to keep the boilers hot in case of emergencies.

    2. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The duration of energy storage depends on how large the container is and how well it is insulated. Wikipedia claims: "the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week."

    3. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 2

      I realize it's California so it should be fairly sunny year round but I'm not familiar with the area it's being built at.

      As a Californian, let me *facepalm* over such an asinine comment for the rest of my Golden Coast brothers and sisters.

    4. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by corbettw · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's being built in the Mojave Desert. Anything capable of causing sufficiently cloudy days for long enough to prevent solar collection is going to be a bigger problem by itself that not being able to pump out heat from the now-cooled salt. An eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, comet impact, nuclear attack, something on that order is what we're talking about.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    5. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, What you really need is a physics dude and a few numbers. The maths to do phase transitions are pretty easy. We know the current temp (~>560C), and we know when it goes from a liquid to a solid (300 or 400 c?).

      I could do it, but I unfortunately spent all of my time in my physics class playing on my TI-83 calculator.

    6. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      A lot of that wouldn't be so much to try to cover cloudy days, but to not waste good days. If you have to turn off the mirrors more than x percent of the time because you can't store more thermal load, you've probably under built for the conditions you're in.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
    7. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Biogenesis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've been doing some research into renewable energy in an Australian context at the University of Newcastle. The most commonly thrown around figure is 1C/day of loss at operating temperatures.

      In doing some simple simulations (using real world demand, wind farm output and direct solar irradiance data) I've found that 50GW of wind farms (peak, scaled by 50x from Australia's current ~1GW peak wind capacity) and ~42GW of concentrated solar thermal (roughly 53x53km square area, spread across Australia on 12 sites) with 24hrs of storage is able to supply all of Australia's current electricity demand. The thermal storage dropped to ~10% capacity at it's lowest point.

      The simulation tried to closely model the Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia 2020 plan. Their modeling uses a different demand profile, one scaled to a proposed 2020 level after compensating for growth, electrification of cars etc.

    8. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by jcr · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see them expand to a system with enough salt that they'd have a week or more of reserve heat capacity. This is an elegant and simple way to solve the time of use/time of generation issue.

      I don't think that oxygen outgassing would be an issue, since the salt is going to be in a pressurized system.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    9. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pressurized container?

      Honestly a wild guess - I am neither biochemist or industrial chemist.

    10. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't think that oxygen outgassing would be an issue, since the salt is going to be in a pressurized system.

      Don't count on a pressurized system staying pressurized. I'm sure they've figured how to deal with the issue, but it is a risk.

    11. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by shermo · · Score: 2

      Electrical systems for heating ... can have significantly higher efficiency

      Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    12. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Everything I read about molten salts seems to indicate that they are high temp and low pressure systems.

    13. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more likely the Long Valley Caldera

    14. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by benjamindees · · Score: 2

      It sort of depends on the climate. In a mild winter, a heat pump can approach the efficiency of the best small-scale furnaces. And with the low transport cost of electricity, it is obviously more convenient. But when it's really cold, heat pumps don't work well and electric heat isn't very efficient.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    15. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Heat pumps generally pump relatively small amounts of heat but do it very efficiently... much more efficiently than the best traditional furnaces.

      If you’re not losing large amounts of heat quickly, they do quite well. But if you are, they can’t keep up. Then the regular old furnace part of the heat pump kicks in, which is much less efficient than the heat pump, and your average efficiency drops toward that of the traditional furnace.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    16. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.

      Electricity lets you use heat pumps. If you have a sufficient source, open system heat pumps (for example, most geothermal heat pumps) can really make efficiencies look very strange. Due to the "open" nature, you can easily have >>100% efficiency -- which is a symptom of an insufficiently defined closed system, but if you're taking heat from a source you don't care about, it's okay.

    17. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by benjamindees · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't have anything to do with the amount of heat loss. That just affects sizing. Heat pump efficiency depends on the temperature differential between outside and inside.

      And I'm including the efficiency of electricity generation via fossil fuels in my statement. That should be obvious, since the thermodynamic efficiency of the heat pump alone can be upwards of 400%. Also, comparing the efficiency of renewable energy generation to fossil fuels is pointless.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    18. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by shermo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good point. Heat pumps break the rules, so to speak.

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    19. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by bertok · · Score: 1

      Electrical systems for heating ... can have significantly higher efficiency

      Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.

      It's counter-intuitive, but it's true. You're thinking of "space heaters", where the electricity is used to directly heat the environment, which is less efficient than direct heating with fossil fuels compared to using the fossil fuels to generate the electricity.

      In practice, electricity for heating and cooling is primarily done using air-conditioners, which are heat pumps, and don't heat or cool the air directly. Heat pumps are very efficient, sometimes over 100%! In other words, one can obtain more than 1W of heating using 1W of power, as long as the heat is simply "moved", cooling something else (the outside air, typically).

      It's possible to create heat pumps without electricity, but that technology is not commonly used. I'm not sure why, but there's probably a good reason. I suspect complexity and/or reliability.

    20. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      as a hint to the peanut gallery i think these folks would stick this in an area that normally gets blocking cloud cover maybe 5 days out of the year since:

      1 its a fracking big tower with a large array of mirrors
      2 Deserts are not known for having a lot of rain to begin with (hint define:desert in goggle)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    21. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      It's possible to create heat pumps without electricity, but that technology is not commonly used. I'm not sure why, but there's probably a good reason. I suspect complexity and/or reliability.

      Because its the electrical companies that put in all the R&D money....

    22. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Biogenesis · · Score: 2

      I'm not familiar with the context of your quote, but I suspect the logic is something like this: gas "amount" is typically measured is joules, as in "the number of joules of heat energy you'll get from burning x "amount" of gas. So, burning 1J of gas results in roughly 1J of heat being deposited in a room. However, if you use a heat pump powered by electricity 1J of electricity produces ~2-3J of heat in the room, as a heat pump cools down outside in order to heat inside.

      The same logic is applied when comparing traditional electric heating (bar radiators, for example) to modern reverse cycle air conditioners.

    23. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mojave is not the Sahara.

      I drive by this thing on the way home, it's overcast today, was raining yesterday, and near the hills we got some snow last weekend. Yes, we do get long stretches of overcast days here, not like in other states, but still a week wouldn't be all THAT uncommon. His question is valid, when we have a cold, dark 2/3/4 days what happens, i would assume it would be more efficient to burn electricity to keep it warm than completely let it power down and have to re-heat it?

    24. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I had mod points I'd mod you up, especially since I work in Mojave and it's been overcast and rainy all week.

    25. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot Brotherhood of Steel coming in an turning off your facility.

    26. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by quokkaZ · · Score: 2

      According to one report, Proposed 150 MW Solar Plant Would Store 7 Hours

      This storage is similar to the Andasol 1 plant in Spain. It certainly would not be sufficient for 24/7 operation at nominal 150 MW output by a fair bit.

    27. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.

      OP is correct, so long as you're not concerned about where that heat is produced... (40% at the generating station, 5-7% during transmission...)

    28. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      How about a heat pump? You are back to even, worst case. Best case, you save all the transmission losses at compressor stations for gas, and eliminate the pollution.

    29. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by shermo · · Score: 1

      Yes you're right, as I posted earlier, heat pumps cheat!

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    30. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I could do it, but I unfortunately spent all of my time in my physics class playing on my TI-83 calculator.

      Does this mean you could do it but you don't know how? Strange to say you could do it in that case.

    31. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then your power comes from something else. This is why we have a grid.

    32. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      It's less about dealing with locally cloudy days than producing for 24 hr baseloads and being able to respond quickly to demand variance. Most importantly you want this plant to be able to pick up the slack for _other_ renewable energy generators when they get cloudy days or unpredictable winds. The only large-scale technology we have that can do that now is hydro.

    33. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Does anyone know exactly how long the reservoir tanks will keep the molten salt at a high enough temp to be useful?

      That all depends on the design and how much heat goes into how much salt doesn't it?
      Very large molten salt baths of various types have been commonly used in steel heat treatment since at least the 1950s. All that is different here is the heat source.
      Even pipes painted black would work, but of course mirrors, tracking etc would give you better performance.

    34. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh you mean modern day excuses for days off work because you have some crappy bug that is doing the rounds of the stupid (needs to be turned of and thrown out) air con system , They are nothing but sources of germs and infections

      Bring on the Nukes and stop whingeing

    35. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Heat pumps don't work worth a damn when it's -15C outside like it was the other night. The general rule of thumb is heat pumps are useful down to ~30-32F which means they are worthless for ~4.5-5 months a year around here, in more temperate climates they are the obvious choice but a 93+% efficient gas unit is definitely the choice here.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    36. Re:Heat retention for how long ? by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      This just in! Previous poster discovers that power plants are dangerous!

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  12. Approved, but when is it actually implemented? by iONiUM · · Score: 0

    The summary says approved.. I.. didn't read TFA. When will it actually come online?

    1. Re:Approved, but when is it actually implemented? by NoKaOi · · Score: 2

      From TFA: "SolarReserve is hoping to begin construction toward the end of 2011." Doesn't say when they plan to actually have it functioning. From their own press release on SolarReserve's website, they still have to get environmental approval from BLM and Wester Area Power Administration and "anticipates concluding financing arrangements by mid-2011 in order to begin full on-site construction in the third quarter of 2011."

  13. jamie and adam said "busted" by fred+fleenblat · · Score: 1

    I though mythbusters proved that this was impossible.
    They even reported their findings to the president.

    1. Re:jamie and adam said "busted" by Raptoer · · Score: 2, Informative

      They didn't have the desert sun pouring onto a thousand large mirrors perfectly aligned on something for hours on end. Their test was more about the ability to align all of these mirrors without technology. These kind of things are dependent on energy going in vs energy going out. A thin sail surrounded by cool damp sea air only being shone upon from one side is going to have a lot less energy going in, and a lot more energy going out than a desert solar array.

    2. Re:jamie and adam said "busted" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, Mythbusters and "proved" in the same sentence. Although entertaining and good in that it encourages interest in science, their approach is hardly methodical, completed with enough samples, nor independently verified enough to use the word "proved".

    3. Re:jamie and adam said "busted" by skids · · Score: 1

      This will use heliostats.

      Not twitchy third graders.

    4. Re:jamie and adam said "busted" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no. They said getting 500 people together to shine a mirror at a random time of day wn't catch a ship on fire.

      If you built stand and got them all at a fixed point at the same timer while the sun was at 90 degrees to the mirror, it would catch on fire.

      What they have NOT done is take the other tack. How can we catch a boat on fire using mirrors? home many, what angle and put the mirror on a fixed platform where every mirror position is accurately calculate to hit the same point.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:jamie and adam said "busted" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obligatory - http://xkcd.com/397/

  14. Over 1000 by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    ...over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

    Wake me up when it's over 9000.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Over 1000 by jcr · · Score: 0

      If it's hot enough to boil water, it's hot enough to get useful power out of it.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Over 1000 by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Wake me up when it's OVER 9000!?!?!!!?

      FTFY

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    3. Re:Over 1000 by LanMan04 · · Score: 2

      Meh, it's just a broken scouter, nothing to wake yourself over.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    4. Re:Over 1000 by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Whoosh.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    5. Re:Over 1000 by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Actually why do they have to use water? Wouldn't some liquid with lower boiling point be better?

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    6. Re:Over 1000 by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      Water holds a lot of calories per degree, relatively speaking.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    7. Re:Over 1000 by skids · · Score: 1

      Steam generation is used because utilities have staff and equipment to maintain steam generation facilities already.

      There are proposed systems with rankine engines, sterling engines, and IIRC some ammonia based contraption, but the utilities like them some good ole steam.

    8. Re:Over 1000 by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Yeah, so you need much energy to make it into steam and then you have to remove much of energy from leftover steam which gives you large cooling towers.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    9. Re:Over 1000 by clone52431 · · Score: 1

      You’re converting heat to mechanical energy, so you want something that holds a lot of heat.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    10. Re:Over 1000 by jcr · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Steam turbines are available off the shelf, have been for many decades.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  15. Mythbusters by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    Didn't I just see something about this on the Obama episode of Mythbusters?

  16. an extraordinary length of time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long is that actually? A few hours? Ten hours? Four furlongs? Less than twelve parsecs?

  17. I hope to see more of these soon by MerceanCoconut · · Score: 1

    I hope to see more and more of these solar plants built in the desert. They don't use arable land, don't burn fossil/organic fuels, and don't take food and make it into fuel. It could also be a major game changer for countries with a lot of desert land turning them into energy exporters.

    1. Re:I hope to see more of these soon by oatworm · · Score: 2

      Seems to me there are more than a few countries with a lot of desert land that are already energy exporters. Now they can just export their energy in something other than liquid form.

    2. Re:I hope to see more of these soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I thought molten lava was a liquid!

      If Electric lines were more efficient than supertankers, they would already be exporting their energy in non-liquid form. Unlink California, most deserts would have an electric power distribution problem.

  18. Don't know where you got that from... by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    According to Wikipedia the melting point is 801 degrees Celsius (1074 Kelvin).

    The boiling point is 1686 K and the specific heat capacity is 864 Joules/Kilo/degree so you can do the numbers... :-)

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Don't know where you got that from... by mangu · · Score: 1

      According to my experience and my digital thermometer salt melts at 800 Celsius.

      Of course, my thermometer has a 0.5% +/-1 digit accuracy, so that's consistent with the 801 degree theory ;)

    2. Re:Don't know where you got that from... by Dersaidin · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the ~800K is the temperature in the storage tower, so it was higher when it was melted.

    3. Re:Don't know where you got that from... by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't see anywhere in the article where they say that Sodium Chloride (i.e. table salt) was going to be used. I thought power plants typically used a different kind of salt (Sodium Nitrate?) to store thermal energy?

      Since the diagram in the article shows the "cold" tank being at 550 degF, then they must not be using sodium chloride or it would be a solid in that tank.

    4. Re:Don't know where you got that from... by fartingfool · · Score: 1

      Close: a mixture of Sodium Nitrate and Potassium Nitrate actually. Melts around 430*F and maintained at the 550*F noted. Various plant projects use slightly different mixtures but this is the baseline.

      Wikipedia has a decent enough article, but I also saw a very good series on National Geographic called "Powering the Future" and they went into great detail about how these systems work.

    5. Re:Don't know where you got that from... by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Looks like saltpeter (sodium nitrate and potassium nitrate) with a bit of calcium nitrate mixed in is the currently preferred mix with a ~220C melting point.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  19. Someone Will Sue by JonBuck · · Score: 1

    And like so many other solar energy projects in California someone will sue to prevent it from being built because it's on "pristine desert habitat".

    1. Re:Someone Will Sue by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      According to the press release, it is on "previously-disturbed land." So, nope, no problem there.

  20. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when a bird flies too near to the tower?

    1. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Roasted bird for lunch.

      Other than that, I like this technology. Good old fashioned boiler plate technology with virtually no strategic metals involved. There's been some discussion about the temperature at which the salt melts but the article didn't say, or I missed seeing, which salt they were proposing to use. There are many different salts besides plain old sodium chloride and they'll all have different melting points and heat capacity.

    2. Re:Question by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 1

      Extra crispy.

    3. Re:Question by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      A bird dies.

      Now take the time to go look up how many birds die from hitting high rise buildings every year. I'll maybe accept that windmills have an issuebut only because they are, by their very nature, positioned along common soaring and migration routes for many species. This is in the middle of the desert, with no special wind currents around it, the avian population is going to be as near to zero as you could hope for.

    4. Re:Question by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      It'll feel and avoid the massive intense heat put out by the tower long before it is in KFC range. Kinda how birds don't fly into the burning man sculptures in the desert, or forest fires.

  21. Global Warming by SnarfQuest · · Score: 0

    power tower filled with salt, which is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold heat for an extraordinary length of time.

    Sounds like a great source for Global Warming. Why worry about a lousy 1C increase when they have 1000F right there!

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    1. Re:Global Warming by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      right... as if that sunlight wasn't already going to be making the desert hot. This just changes the distribution of heat a little.

    2. Re:Global Warming by skids · · Score: 0

      And I was so hoping to reach the bottom of the page without a facepalm...

    3. Re:Global Warming by hardburn · · Score: 0

      You can hope, but we both know that this is Slashdot.

      --
      Not a typewriter
  22. FLAT OUT LIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was researching the Solar two power plant that is now shut down in the Mojave Desert.
    I have actually been out to the site and knew the former owner.

    It was a molten Salt plant.

    http://thegreentank.blogspot.com/2009/09/solar-power-plant-links.html

  23. Answer: by copponex · · Score: 4, Funny

    What happens when a bird flies too near to the tower?

    A republican will pretend to care about the environment long enough to sound like a complete asshole.

    1. Re:Answer: by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, the tower itself will be ridiculously hot, so I don't think many birds would voluntarily get near it. It's not like you cross a threshold and suddenly fry, it's more like walking toward a large fire. You'll feel uncomforatble long before it's actually dangerous, and if you keep approaching you're probably doing your species a favor.

      The energy reflected from the mirrors isn't inherently dangerous. In any given beam, you'll get twice the solar energy that is expected; the normal part fromt he sun plus the reflected beam. This won't be fun to stand in on an already hot desert day, but it's not like you're walking through a high-powered microwave beam or something.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Answer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happens when a bird flies too near to the tower?

      A republican will pretend to care about the environment long enough to sound like a complete asshole.

      A democrat/liberal IS a complete asshole.

    3. Re:Answer: by Charcharodon · · Score: 0
      A Liberal will pretend to.... oh wait they don't need to pretend in order to sound like complete assholes.

      Bitching loudly about everything and trying to control what everyone else does does not make you an environmental saint.

      We'd already have big solar plants out in the desert if the green crowd would quit suing to shut them down in order to protect the desert.

  24. You can bet... by rally2xs · · Score: 1, Troll

    If its being built in California, the anti-progress luddite envirowackos will either stop it, or the power wires necessary to distribute its electricity, or both. Nobody should try to build ANYTHING in California until it undergoes a serious attitude adjustment and embraces progress.

  25. Something to ponder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real question is how do we use this green renewable source of energy to create petrochemicals so that we don't have to change our current habits in any way.

    1. Re:Something to ponder by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1

      The real question is how do we use this green renewable source of energy to create petrochemicals so that we don't have to change our current habits in any way.

      Do you want petrochemicals or do you want something to power your car? For the latter, hydrogen seems to be a popular choice.

  26. Doesn't thermal inertia work both ways? by aGuyNamedJoe · · Score: 1

    So, they're relying on thermal inertia, right? The salt stays hot even after the heat's turned off. So it can be used after the sun goes down.

    Next time the sun comes, up, the salt's all cooled down, right? So, can they start generating right away, or do they have to wait for the salt to heat up again?

    I mean, what keeps it from just shifting the generation time from "sunup to sundown" to "(sunup to sundown) + N hours"?

    1. Re:Doesn't thermal inertia work both ways? by clone52431 · · Score: 2

      Next time the sun comes, up, the salt's all cooled down, right?

      TFA says it’s capable of producing electricity 24 hours a day, so presumably it doesn’t cool all the way down overnight.

      --
      Distributed Denial of APK: It takes 15 seconds to reply to him anonymously, but wastes tons of his time if we all do it.
    2. Re:Doesn't thermal inertia work both ways? by Unkyjar · · Score: 3, Informative

      It takes several days and nights of little to no sunlight for the salt to cool down enough to no longer be molten and useful.

  27. CANADA! by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 0

    CA is for Canada, you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:CANADA! by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1

      It's also the U.S. Postal Service abbreviation for California. But you already knew that.

    2. Re:CANADA! by vrmlguy · · Score: 1

      CA is for Canada, you insensitive clod!

      I've already tagged the article "!canada" and I urge others to do the same.

      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  28. Adam & Jamie have a bit of troll in them by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm beginning to suspect the Mythbusters intentionally blow it once in a while just to give the geeks something to argue about. That gets them more buzz.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  29. The headline should be more specific by squallstrifeau · · Score: 2

    I read it and got prematurely excited because I thought someone finally had the balls to ignore the anti-nuclear-as-a-religion crowd, and started building a Molten Salt Reactor. Then I read the article and found out it's just a new take on boring old solar. Oh well.... one day...

    1. Re:The headline should be more specific by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1

      I read it and got prematurely excited because I thought someone finally had the balls to ignore the anti-nuclear-as-a-religion crowd, and started building a Molten Salt Reactor. Then I read the article and found out it's just a new take on boring old solar. Oh well.... one day...

      I realise that their are people who would reject nuclear even if it were proven safer than the alternatives but you hardly sound any more rational. Are you only interested in sources of energy if they are nuclear?

    2. Re:The headline should be more specific by squallstrifeau · · Score: 1

      No, no, nothing like that. I'm definitely interested in things like geothermal and tidal energy. I'm not even anti-solar, obviously if the energy is there to be used, use it. I just can't get behind solar as a baseload technology, because no matter how you wrap it up, it still needs sunny days to melt the salt, fill the capacitors, spin up the flywheels, whatever.

    3. Re:The headline should be more specific by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Well it looks like someone finally had the balls to ignore the nuclear-as-a-religion crowd. And believe me these are the worst, because not only are they unshakably convinced that they have the one and only valid solution, like all the others, but in addition to that they despise all their contenders as stupid, gullible ignoramuses.

      Because they understand about all the little beasts, you know, protons, neutrons, those things, thus they can haughtily laugh and scorn at the stupid hippies concerned with hidden costs (they are due to excessive regulation, see how better things are without regulation, like the Gulf coast?), contamination of the environement (that's ridiculous because Chernobyl cannot possibly happen again, never another gram of radioactive material is ever going to be released in the wild, even when all the countries in the world will run dozens if not hundreds of reactors), waste disposal (a really laughable concern, the solution is obvious, just use breeder reactors that will be commercially viable anytime soon now, just at the same time commercial fusion arrives in fact, besides the French already do it with great success, only not but let's move on) and proliferation (that's really ridiculous, you only have to use totally different reactors that do not exist yet but are really amazing).

  30. Why not use boilers instead of steam generators? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would save money. Oh, wait.

  31. Solar base-load power by BlackSabbath · · Score: 1

    I know that solar=thermal base-load approaches have been tried before - to my recollection pumping heated oil under pressure into rock strata to heat the rocks, while a different set of parallel pipes transfer the heat from the rocks to water turning it into steam. Kind of like man-made geothermal. I can't find the article now but my memory tells me they had some problems at a pilot plant (minor tremors or something?).

    In any case, its great to see solar thermal being exploited as a source of base-load power. I'd love to see this all over the Australian outback.

  32. Modify this by WindBourne · · Score: 2

    As I pointed out in my logs about 3 years ago, we should build molten salt generators, BUT use these for excess electricity storage. By building SMALL units (1-20 MW) these will take 1 acre or less to run. Then set up tax breaks to encourage small businesses of these. With that approach, it could buffer energy from AE, but also, it would allow grabbing the energy at night (cheaply) and then selling it during the day (for a profit).

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Modify this by geekoid · · Score: 1

      so every 100 houses you want to have an acre devoted to this?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Modify this by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Not a bad idea. You could do this already in states with small producer tariffs and time-of-day pricing. It would be interesting as a CHP system though it depends on how well you can make use of low-level heat.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    3. Re:Modify this by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a good idea, but would widespread use cause cheap power at night to no longer be cheap? It would help to even out electricity prices, but I don't see it being a viable long term business under the current electricity trading system.

    4. Re:Modify this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I would DOUBT it, but it is a possibility. I would think that power companies would want to make certain that they charge less at nights to encourage this approach. The reason is that it is much cheaper to run a power plant at a solid speed then to vary it. In fact, down in texas, they have to keep boilers mostly fired up to handle the loads due to wind drops. So having buffers (such as thermal or hydro storage) allows them to cut significantly the number of boilers that they have on-line and just spinning.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Modify this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I must not have hit submit. Well, long story short, 1MW would provide around 1000 homes. If they wanted to provide long time storage for this, then they might cut back who they serve during power outages. Perhaps hospitals, streetlights, etc. OTH, if cheap enough, then provide a days worth for the area, and then count on ppl cutting their usage during an outage.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    6. Re:Modify this by Biogenesis · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess it all depends on the proportion of generating capacity. My logic was along the lines that electricity is only cheap at night because the demand is very low. If the demand at night became on par with daytime (ie: if sufficient storage was implemented such that demand was near constant) then the day/night price difference could potentially be much smaller, making stand along storage much less economically viable.

  33. Handout INC!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where are they getting the money to do this? They are borrowing 40 million dollars a day just to pay for unemployment (many are illegals), so how exactly is a state that is going to be 11 billion in the hole this year going to afford to put in a new powerplant and for what reason? People (mosty the tax paying citizens) are leaving california is droves ... there energy demand is decreasing!

  34. Water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, just hook this guy up to run a desalination plant... Use the salt you've extracted in your energy plant and Voila! All the fresh water those crazy desert folk could ever need.

  35. Combining Tech-Disrupting oil barons by neurosine · · Score: 1

    Great, now we combine this tech with desalinization and we can use the 'practically infinite' ocean water, once we figure out how to get that useless oil out of it. And really, it just means more land to develop...the upsides are never ending.

    1. Re:Combining Tech-Disrupting oil barons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Californians are the most delusional people on Earth. They actually think they're going to bring their "state" back to solvency by fighting the evil oil barons who offer to sell them cheap natural gas instead of expensive gasoline. You will never be able to build these things fast enough to keep up with the illegals flooding in through your open borders into your sanctuary cities and onto the public dole.

  36. I have one word for you . . . water by Latent+Heat · · Score: 1
    Actually there is a serious concern that persons concerned about the environment may have.

    Any time you run a steam power plant, you have to figure out how to cool the condenser. Usually that means using a lake or a river as a source of cooling water; the next best is to use a "wet" cooling tower; what you don't want to have to use is a "dry" cooling tower.

    A source of water for a lot of these things could be a problem in the desert, although I suppose you could use brackish water or other water not suitable for drinking. Then, if you are pumping such water from a well, where do you discharge it?

    Not saying solar-thermal power is without merit or that the anti-progress faction is right about everything, but this plan does have the problem of cooling water in the desert.

    1. Re:I have one word for you . . . water by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that is an _engineering_ problem, not a cause for the envirowackos to get involved and try to stop it. That's my beef - they are absolutely not satisfiable, and simply attempt to stop _everything_. They even stopped a power wire from a solar farm from crossing a mountain range to get to where the power was needed on the California coast. I'd post a link but CNN appears to have taken it down. But... its preposterous. Am I fed up? You bet.

  37. Finally! Solar technology that makes sense by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Photovoltaic scamufacturers should be crapping their pants about now, and with good reason. Solar-thermal is about to show them up as the pork barrel frauds they've always been.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  38. Interesting material science by ErikZ · · Score: 1

    So, you have a thousand mirrors pointing at a target, heating the salt in it to the melting point.

    What in the world is that target made of? It has to be able to conduct heat, be immune to liquid sodium's effects, AND not melt or burn at 1500f+

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  39. Mission accomplished. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 1

    I'm a huge fan of puns, I just wanted to see how many people would reply with. :-D

    "I tell ya, if I had a NaCl for every pun on here..." is definitely the best.

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.