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."

61 of 270 comments (clear)

  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 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!

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

      Way to pour salt on his wound.

      --
      meep
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.

  2. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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
    4. 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
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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
    8. 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
    9. 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/
    10. 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.

    11. 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"
    12. 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"
    13. 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
    14. 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"
    15. 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).

  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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
  7. 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"
  8. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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"
    6. 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"
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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/
  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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."

  17. 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...
  18. 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.
  19. 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.

  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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...

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

    640K ought to be enough for anybody

  24. 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.

  25. 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

  26. 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.
  27. 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 :-)

  28. 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.