Slashdot Mirror


Morocco's Solar Power Mega-Project (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Morocco, located along the northwestern African coast, is in prime position to take advantage of solar technology, and they've committed to one of the biggest such projects in the world. The city of Ouarzazate will host "a complex of four linked solar mega-plants that, alongside hydro and wind, will help provide nearly half of Morocco's electricity from renewables by 2020." It will be the largest concentrated solar power plant in the world. "The mirror technology it uses is less widespread and more expensive than the photovoltaic panels that are now familiar on roofs the world over, but it will have the advantage of being able to continue producing power even after the sun goes down." The first phase of the project, called Noor 1, comprises 500,000 solar mirrors that track the sun throughout the day, with a maximum capacity of 160MW. When the full project finishes, it will be able to generate up to 580MW. "Each parabolic mirror is 12 meters high and focused on a steel pipeline carrying a 'heat transfer solution' (HTF) that is warmed to 393C as it snakes along the trough before coiling into a heat engine. There, it is mixed with water to create steam that turns energy-generating turbines."

102 comments

  1. Funding origin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Original names and full background of funders anyone?

    1. Re:Funding origin? by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      The http://www.theguardian.com/env... has a link to
      "Morocco: Works on World’s Largest Solar Plant Financed by AfDB Go Underway"
      http://www.afdb.org/en/news-an...
      breaking down the different phase funding AC.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  2. Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 0

    Coal or nuclear, or GTFO!

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's Morocco, not UK. They ideally situated for solar plants like that.

    2. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you babbling about? The full national project, at 580MW, is almost half of what a minimal nuclear power plant puts out. The Moroccans are demonstrating that dedicating massive resources to not only a major national project, but one of the biggest in the world using cutting edge solar technology, can almost equal half the value of a single 1970's era nuke plant. Nothing like being underwhelmed...

    3. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      It's Morocco, not UK. They ideally situated for solar plants like that.

      Oh heck, I was being sarcastic. I'm really a nuc or solar/wind guy at heart. Coal? It's a killer.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re:Wat? by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It has the advantage of not having to worry about where to store radioactive waste. Not to mention no meltdowns or radioactive leaks. So it's only half a Nuke plants output? Build two.

    5. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      What are you babbling about? The full national project, at 580MW, is almost half of what a minimal nuclear power plant puts out. The Moroccans are demonstrating that dedicating massive resources to not only a major national project, but one of the biggest in the world using cutting edge solar technology, can almost equal half the value of a single 1970's era nuke plant. Nothing like being underwhelmed...

      There is nothing cutting edge about this project. Regardless, I was being sarcastic.

      I don't have much against nuc plants, although I don't trust the bean counters and top management, who are primarily interested in minimal costs, deadlines, and safety is well down on the list despite what we're told. But if they want to build a mirror plant, they can have at it. At least they don't have to worry about fuel disposal.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    6. Re:Wat? by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

      They ideally situated for solar plants like that.

      Am I the only one that thinks the combination of precision mirrors/optics and Saharan sand storms might not be a good combination?

    7. Re:Wat? by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 1

      Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 74,258 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about eight yards deep.

      http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-C...

      So a country that invented nuclear power, currently runs 100 reactors constituting the largest nuclear generation in the world and has been for the last 50 years, only has produced enough "waste" to cover a football field eight yards deep?

      That's less space than this plant will take up, for the world's greatest stockpile of nuclear waste...

    8. Re:Wat? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 2

      The problem is the waste and ecological damage of building massive solar and wind projects are not considered in this logic. Calculate the mining, milling, toxic wastes, etc involved in building massive low output energy devices.

    9. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's the same country that banned the recycling of fuel, unlike every other country that has nuclear power. Those eight yards by a football field of "waste," as you so kindly quoted it, are ripe for reprocessing if Congress ever lifts the ban on doing so.

    10. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will also produce more electricity than nuclear, solar or wind combined in the future, in which you're still alive.

    11. Re:Wat? by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the ecological damage of mining nuclear fuel and building huge reactors and cooling towers? I don't oppose nuclear power but don't pretend it doesn't have problems. I don't understand why every time somebody builds a solar power system people crawl out from under rocks everywhere to attack it. Sure, solar power isn't a panacea but then nothing really is. All energy production comes at a cost both economical and ecological.

    12. Re:Wat? by bluegutang · · Score: 0

      What's the ecological damage of mining nuclear fuel and building huge reactors and cooling towers?

      Pretty damn small, given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants, and one unit of nuclear energy requires thousands of times less mining than one unit of fossil or solar (for the panels) energy.

    13. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Ouarzazate is on the outer reaches of the Sahara. In fact, Morocco barely contains any Sahara at all, that's over on the Algerian side.

      The desert around Ouarzazate is mostly rocky, and it takes several hours in a 4x4 to get to the sandy Sahara people are familiar with.

    14. Re:Wat? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Morocco: north west coast of africa. Dominant wind direction: west.
      How often is there a sand storm anyway? Sandstorms are more a concern because they darken the sky then because of potential damage.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    15. Re:Wat? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pretty damn small,
      So is a solar pant in Morroc, considering it is built in the desert :D
      given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal
      It can perhaps Substitute *one* coal plant, not hundrets.
      or solar power plants As the sizes of plants vary this is not a safe bet either :D

      and one unit of nuclear energy requires thousands of times less mining than one unit of fossil or solar (for the panels) energy.
      So you never actually informed yourself about how uranium is mined?
      But you dare to give your uneducated opinion?
      (*facepalm*)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re:Wat? by sabbede · · Score: 1

      Well, they aren't the usual solar panels, just mirrors, so toxic byproducts from their production should be minimal if they exist at all. And they're going in a desert, so no worries there.

    17. Re:Wat? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you're talking volume of nuclear waste, it's best to measure it in four dimensions.

    18. Re:Wat? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      What? Did you intend to make sense there?

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    19. Re:Wat? by spauldo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I haven't run the numbers, but I'd imagine that solar thermal does pretty well in regards to waste and ecological damage.

      Like most other energy plants, it's mostly concrete and steel. The HTF is some kind of synthetic oil that gets reused. If they reclaim the water from the steam turbine, the plant will use very little resources once it's finished. So right there, it's already beating coal, oil, and gas.

      Mirrors would need repolished, but considering that could probably be done onsite, it would be using clean energy. Motors would have to be rebuilt occasionally. Electronics would have to be replaced from time to time. Any energy plant would require maintenance of some sort anyway, so it's not really much different than wind in that regard.

      It shades areas of the desert, but not completely. I'd be willing to bet it has less effect on desert life in that area than a hydro plant would have.

      It doesn't require rare earth metals like a photovoltaic setup would. There's no mining involved other than the steel and concrete (which any power plant would have plenty of anyway - wind probably more steel and less concrete). Glass isn't bad, environmentally speaking - heat, sand, and some common minerals. So there really shouldn't be much in the way of toxic waste, unless they're using a particularly nasty paint (those can vary widely in eco-friendliness).

      I'd say this is about as eco-friendly as you can get for a power plant. Feel free to point out anything I missed, I just woke up.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    20. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any cubic foot of that is capable of killing all life on the planet several times over. People fail to grasp just how toxic high-level waste is, and reprocessing is not an option as transporting it is extremely risky unless you're OK with potentially rendering a major metropolitan area uninhabitable for the next few thousand years.

    21. Re:Wat? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      A good sandstorm might scour the shine off those fancy mirrors.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    22. Re:Wat? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants

      No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research. The total output of this solar plant at completion is 580MW. The largest planned nuclear reactor will output around 1600MW. At Palo Verde here in Arizona, the largest energy generating station in the country, the 3 reactors each output about 1450MW. At 1600MW, the statement that "one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of solar power plants" is only true if the solar power plant outputs 16MW, which is 2.7% of the capacity of the Moroccan project.

      Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago). There you go, you can replace hundreds of those with a single nuclear reactor. I'd love to find a picture of a solar power plant that outputs 16MW, but the Wikipedia list only goes as low as 50MW for solar, sorry. Here is the Topaz solar power plant, capable of 550MW, constructed 2011 to 2014. In order to replace 100 of those with nuclear, you'll need to build 35 1600MW reactors. Don't forget to account for all of the nuclear fuel you'll need to mine and refine or purchase, in addition to all of the waste you're going to generate.

      By the way, if you want to talk construction costs, like I already said it took 3 years to build the Topaz solar farm and cost $2.4 billion. Construction at Palo Verde started in 1976, and the first 2 reactors came online in 1986, the third in 1988. Construction cost was $5.9 billion (in 1980s dollars, feel free to adjust for inflation). Those numbers are just to avoid any bullshit claims along the lines of solar power being hundreds of times more expensive than nuclear, in case you want to try and pull something else out of your ass.

      and one unit of nuclear energy requires thousands of times less mining than one unit of fossil or solar (for the panels) energy.

      Panels? What fucking panels? The Moroccan project uses mirrors, pipes, heat transfer oil, sand, and water. Where are the panels?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    23. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the rest of the world reprocesses waste. Yes, the French are far ahead of the US in at least that.

    24. Re:Wat? by peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_+! · · Score: 0

      Why not five? Six? Two?

      If we have to use a fourth dimension, can it be "reason"?

      Let's look at the reasonable uses of the nuclear "waste" here: 96% of the "waste" is uranium that when sent through reprocessing for fuel for present LWRs can use up to 30% of this amount. When fast reactors become more mainstream (only large operational plant is in Russia right now; the U.S. pulled all funding in the 1990's out of shortsightedness) that will allow full re-use of the 96% uranium as well as the 1% that is plutonium (and even a couple other transuranic isotopes).

      Now, with that remaining 2-4%, you have a very long-lived, very radioactive source term that would be great for.... anything that needs a long-lived, hot source. Think of the Curiosity Mars rover; it gets it's power from an RTG that is based on a specific long-lived and radioactively hot plutonium isotope. Why should we limit ourselves to producing RTG's based on this one long-lived, hot isotope? Why not use the residual "waste" for applications such as that, or others?

      So my point is, with the fourth dimension you suggested of reason, it seems like nuclear waste will actually be quite useful in the near term.

    25. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one that thinks the combination of precision mirrors/optics and Saharan sand storms might not be a good combination?

      Yes.
      They don't need the precision optics you want for telescopes and cameras. Their sunlight is not for forming images, just for heating up some pipe. If mirror efficiency drops form 96% to 94% - no big deal. And of course they have cheap workers there, who can dust off the mirror banks every night.

    26. Re:Wat? by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      > It doesn't require rare earth metals like a photovoltaic setup would.

      PV panels don't need rare earths. They are made of silicon (for the cells), plus trace elements like Phosphorus to provide the right semiconductor properties. The frame is aluminum and glass, with typically polyvinylacetate (plastic) backing sheet. You need wires to connect the cells to each other, and then the panels to each other. The mounting for the panels is typically steel or aluminum, with some concrete to anchor it to the ground.

      Tracking mounts are becoming more popular, those follow the Sun to get more output from the panels. That adds a motor to a group of panels so they can move, but it doesn't have to be a fancy rare earth magnet. The tracking motion is as fast as the Sun moves, so it's a pretty small motor.

      You may be thinking of wind turbines, which *do* sometimes use rare-earth magnets in their generators. The generator handles 1.5 to 3 MW these days for commercial wind turbines, and it has to be installed on top of a ~120 meter tall post. So reducing weight is important.

    27. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      given that one nuclear reactor can substitute for hundreds of coal or solar power plants

      No, that's not "given", you idiot. You can't just make shit up and then claim it's "given". Do even some basic research.

      If some basic research is performed, how can he make shit up? Some of the pro-nuc crowd are much worse idiots than the anti-nuc crowd.

      Here is a solar power plant capable of only 11.4MW (that was state of the art in 2006, the largest solar plant 9 years ago).

      Much of the objection to so called alternative energy sources are made using old data. I don't think the proponents of Nuc power realize the disservice they do to the industry. All of those things that make a nuc plant, a nuc plant, make for issues. The incredible energy density, the radiation's effects on materials, all kinds of stuff that makes nuc plants take a long time to build, and really expensive to build.

      In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny. And that really takes the bloom off the rose.

      As well, the technology in a solar plant like this is not such that little problems become real big problems in short order. Fukushima for example would have been no huge deal if the cooling water could have been restored. Power goes out, the mirrors lock up, and the mirrors reflections eventually move off the heating vessel, the biggest issues will be rerouting airplanes in that event No doubt there's emergency power for that anyway.

      Scalability is quick and really easy by comparison.

      A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor. Morocco is not one of them.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    28. Re:Wat? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      It was apparently a bad day for posting on /., as my memory is apparently failing me. I was probably thinking about batteries, but who knows.

      I knew there were environmental issues with PV, but I misremembered what they were. Apparently, they're related to the manufacturing process. According to Wikipedia:

      The manufacturing processes of solar cell involve the emissions of several toxic, flammable and explosive chemicals. Lately, in the field of photovoltaic research, there has been a continual rise in research and development efforts focused on reducing mass during cell manufacture. Such efforts have resulted in reducing the thickness of solar cells and thus the next generation solar cells are becoming thinner and eventually risks of exposure are reduced nevertheless, all chemicals must be carefully handled to ensure minimal human and environmental contact. The large scale deployment of such renewable energy technologies could result in potential negative environmental implications. These potential problems can pose serious challenges in promulgating such technologies to a broad segment of consumers.

      Glass doesn't have that problem, although I can't really say for the mirror backing.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    29. Re:Wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nuke fanboy: But,but,but. . . . what 'bout Nucklear?! *tears running down face*
      If only we can harness the nuke fanboyism that is powering my schadenfreude. . . .

    30. Re:Wat? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      A sunny desert, lots of empty real estate, seems like a pretty natural place to put a solar power generating station. There are places where I would heartily recommend a nuc reactor.

      And then there's Arizona, where we have the only major nuclear plant in the world not next to a body of water, and we're finally getting some good solar projects going on in the empty desert between Phoenix and Yuma, as well as all around Phoenix. It's good to see solar taking hold here, and I've never had a problem with the nuke plant (they have agreements with the nearby cities to take treated wastewater to use as coolant). The only issue with the plant is that it's upwind from the Phoenix area, so that would be a problem in the event of a major accident. But, considering that the company I work for makes training materials for the people who work at the plant, I like to say that I have a certain amount of confidence that it's run well. Earthquakes aren't an issue around Phoenix, at least not for the past 25 years or so, major tornadoes are very rare, etc.

      Nuclear definitely has a place in the energy grid, but anyone paying attention the past decade or so can clearly see that the future is in renewables, especially solar. The planet gets hit with far more energy than people need, it's just a matter of putting the capacity in and continuing to advance the technologies around it to bring efficiency and reliability up and cost down. The writing is obviously on the wall though. Even so, I'd still love to see development of community nuclear reactors that can power a small or medium town for 30 years or so, that would be a game-changing technology for most of Africa while solar infrastructure and a continental electrical grid can be installed. There's no reason to think that only 1 energy technology is the way forward. If you go out to our nuclear plant, you're about a mile away from a medium-sized natural gas plant, and surrounding them are 2 large solar fields. The nuclear plant carries most of the burden, but there's no reason to rely on that when we have so much sunlight just heating the ground all day.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    31. Re:Wat? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      No, you're not. Morocco is probably better off buying a few nuke plants.

    32. Re:Wat? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      That fourth dimension is ~300 years, not tens of thousands.

    33. Re:Wat? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny."

      China is more than willing to sell anyone a civil nuclear plant, complete with the security systems and staff required to run it.

    34. Re:Wat? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "The only issue with the plant is that it's upwind from the Phoenix area,"

      If "we" got water away from the fuel, being upwind of anything wouldn't matter. Nuclear plants don't "explode" in the A-bomb sense, they vent radioactive steam and/or hydrogen if they get too hot, or in worst case you get a pipe/boiler burst.

      These things happen no matter how safe you make the system, so commonsense should dictate that radioactives can't get dissolved into the water in the first place (molten sodium is particularly stupid. You should use a coolant at the bottom of the chemical energy curve not one which is going to burn furiously if there's a leak)

    35. Re:Wat? by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "I'd imagine that solar thermal does pretty well in regards to waste and ecological damage."

      Deserts and other environments which are ideal for solar-thermal are extremely fragile ecosystems. Just the fact of having the stuff there and people wandering around them is extremely damaging.

    36. Re:Wat? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      "In addition, any second or third world country undertaking a nuc energy project is going to come under intense scrutiny."

      China is more than willing to sell anyone a civil nuclear plant, complete with the security systems and staff required to run it.

      Umm, the scrutiny won't be coming from them, but countries who don't want them processing the spent fuel for you know, explodey stuff.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    37. Re:Wat? by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Every environment is "extremely fragile."

      Deserts have the advantage that they tend to be large and there's no shortage of them. Habitat loss is minimal. A solar thermal plant might be large, but it takes up only a tiny percentage of the desert it's in.

      I understand your sentiment, but you should probably save it for ecologies that actually need the protection.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    38. Re:Wat? by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Yes, but Morrocan government under Hassan II entirely destroyed the country's educative system in the 80', after the massive investments in education of the 50's and 60's produced a high number of educated leftists...
      Math levels are quite good for the selected few, but a big engineering project can't rely only on maths.

  3. energy-generating turbines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if we have those, we should skip all the rest and just focus (ha ha) on these turbines?

    Oh, you mean energy converting turbines?

  4. a nice start, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    just for context, 580 MW is the power output of a single medium-sized natural gas power plant. I'm a big fan of solar, and the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step and all that, but they've got a long way to go to make a dent in regional energy needs.

    also, $9B for 580 MW comes out to ~$15/W, which is a pretty steep capex (but with hopefully minimal opex due to not needing fuel). Compare to non-thermal PV solar, with installed capex cost of say $2/W and no/fewer moving parts (so les opex, although not capable of storing/delivering energy after dark unless coupled to a battery system of some sort).

    1. Re:a nice start, but... by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      AC a "medium-sized natural gas power plant." needs gas. Most nations like to export their own "natural gas" like products for value added hard currency rather than just burning it up locally.
      Nations are finally waking up to the decades of petrodollar loans and exchange rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      Long term domestic math on projects might reflect past issues with huge loans, crushing hard currency interest payments and needed support for a "medium-sized natural gas power plant".

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:a nice start, but... by thePig · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that they wouldn't have thought about it, but wouldn't it have been better in that case to make it 50:50 PV:Solar Thermal or so?
      The PV provides the electricity for the day time use, while Solar Thermal just stores the energy in molten salt. In the night, electricity is taken from the molten salt.
      Isn't the price difference per watt is so high that it makes sense to have PV along with it?

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    3. Re:a nice start, but... by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Are you suggesting that they should remove some reflector mirrors and replace them with PV panels? Mixing technologies within a single site is poor economics in general, but with solar thermal it is particularly bad.

      In general, mixing different technologies doubles the cost, makes maintenance harder, and removes the economy of scale. For example, they would need two different types of power infrastructure on one site. But in particular with solar thermal: more mirrors means more heat is focused onto the target, increasing power *and* temperature. Higher temperature = more efficiency. This same thing would happen with nuclear or coal or gas. Build one big coal plant, or one big gas plant. Building a 1/2 size gas plant and a 1/2 size coal plant on the same area would produce less power for a greater cost.

      Nothing stops them from building a PV plant if that mix of fuel sources is better for them, but not at the same site.

    4. Re:a nice start, but... by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Clarification:

      Reading again, you meant changing one of the 4 sites to PV. Sorry. That approach wouldn't impact the efficiency of one of the solar thermal towers. But it would still pose the engineering cost problems.

      I do wonder what the limitation is that makes it better to build 4 solar thermal plants rather than one big one. Maybe it can't handle that much heat? Maybe maintenance so they can shut one down and the others still function? Maybe aiming the mirrors over a larger distance is hard? Hmm...

  5. Interesting test case. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

    It is in an environment which will be naturally tough on the system. While capex is crazy high it will be interesting to see how it stacks up cost wise over a 50 year life span. It may be the as we get better at building these sytems and production infrastructure scales that this type of plant could deliver a decent cost per watt.

    1. Re:Interesting test case. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      It -> If

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    2. Re:Interesting test case. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It by "natural", you mean bombs and grenades, yeah, it can get kinda rough.

      It is being built in Morocco, not Syria.

    3. Re:Interesting test case. by fustakrakich · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, the place is a real paradise... Maybe I've been watching too many Humphrey Bogart movies...

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:Interesting test case. by JoeMerchant · · Score: 2

      I'm thinking that innovations in electrostatic dust control developed here may have applications for Lunar colonies...

    5. Re:Interesting test case. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Huh? Morocco is pretty safe. Sure its got issues but they are relatively minor and I doubt you would see infrastructure like this being damaged by bombs. I'd suggest if it was built in the US there would be a higher risk of rednecks shooting the mirrors for shits and giggles.

    6. Re:Interesting test case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 98.9% Muslim, and they do have a terrorism problem, as you would expect. A friend of mine was killed by a terrorist bomb in that country in 2001 in Marrakesh.

    7. Re:Interesting test case. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm guessing you meant 2011 instead of 2001. There have been bombings in 2003, 2007 and 2011. So yes they do have a terrorism problem but it is less that what has occurred in the US or the UK for example.

      As for your friend, my condolences.

    8. Re:Interesting test case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see how the percentage of the population that identifies as Muslim matters, unless you consider that a safety item. The US is 0.9% Islamic as of 2010, and earlier this month, we lost 10 people to a shooter in Oregon. I'd like to say that isn't uncommon, but at this point, we probably should call that a case of the Mondays.

    9. Re:Interesting test case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're correct. It was 2011. I made a typo, but damn I feel old. When I first read 2001 it felt right. It was actually ten years later.

    10. Re:Interesting test case. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "It is in an environment which will be naturally tough on the system"

      That's an understatment and a half.

      I'd give it a decade or less before the thermal cycling (deserts get _cold_ at night, even equatorial ones) results in astronomical maintenance costs and kills the project. Going from 300+C daytime to more or less zero every day is going to be hell on the mirrors and focal points and that's before weather factors are factored in.

    11. Re:Interesting test case. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Actually the daily temperature range in Ouarzazate isn't that great The coldest the air temp gets is 5c in January and the max air temp is 35c in July. In any given month the differential doesn't get above about 15C. I don't think the there should be temperature issues outside the norm that this type of installation would see anywhere in the world.

      The site also has really really low rainfall - 40mm in a month is a huge month. So there should be limited issues from water and hence water marking on the mirrors.

      The main issue will be microfine dust and how they handle that in the bearings.

    12. Re:Interesting test case. by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      0C or 5C or even 35C is a minor variation compared to the 300+C at the mirror focal point. It's that area which will be subjected to the greatest thermal cycling stresses and will break down fastest if allowed to cool overnight.

      Dirty mirrrors/water marking are absolutely minor concerns - the first is usually taken care of with in desert environments with an integral automated brush which sweeps the mirror daily (these have been used on solar farms for 20+ years) and the second would affect less than 1% of the mirror surface.

      Bearings are already produced which can exclude the kind of dust in question (unless someone cuts corners) and again, this stuff has been around on desert solar farms for a long time.

      It's worth noting that the Nevada solar thermal plant has a gas-fired system alongside to keep it warm overnight - and the efficiency of _that_ system is substantially lower than was originally claimed, resulting in the plant being on the verge of uneconomic to operate even with subsidies - effectively the entire system uses only about 10-20% less gas than simply running an equivalent capacity gas-fired power station 24*7 and a gas plant would have been a lot cheaper to construct, plus constructable near demand/existing piplines.

      If Morocco chooses the same route to keep the molten salt from freezing they will probably encounter the same issue. The other big issue to deal with is saharan sandstorms and shifting dunes. Unlike dune mitigation techniques used in open desert (ie, to keep roads open) The wind shadows caused by towers and mirrors on a solar farm are perfect places for sand to start building up.If it costs too much in energy to get rid of it then the plant will be uneconomic.

  6. HTF instead of HTS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is interesting that this implementation will use a "heat transfer solution" (HTF) instead of the much more common "heat transfer fluid" (HTS).

  7. Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

    This project sounds very much like PORK

    Instead of the tried and true solar panels they opted for a more costly project which uses complicated sounding stuffs like 'heat transfer solution' which has to 'snakes along the trough' and then ended up mixing with water - which in itself a rare commodity in the Moroccan desert - which then 'turns into steam' to power the turbine

    Haven't they heard of battery and/or ultra capacitors which can easily store up energy and release it when needed?

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by AHuxley · · Score: 4, Informative

      Re 'tried and true solar panels" work during the day. The idea is to try and work around that night time traditional big battery storage issue with a 'heat tank containing molten sands that can store heat energy for three hours, allowing the plant to power homes into the night."
      The main issues seems to be to try and get away from the "We import 94% of our energy as fossil fuels from abroad and that has big consequences for our state budget".
      The cost of another fossil fuel project, the related imports and hard currency exchange should be interesting to see over the project.
      The cost of batteries might have to still be reduced to become viable for big grid storage in different parts of the world. Another option is "demand response" and discounted tariffs to try and ensure people use energy during the day vs traditional demand peaks.
      ie reshape midday power prices.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Socguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not exactly sure if you're being ironic or not so I'll proceed by assuming you're serious.

      A battery or ultra-capacitor is simply a device that stores energy. A heat tank is also a device that stores energy. They're basically both batteries. The real question is which method is the most efficient. Likely, as they are using the sun to generate heat, it's more efficient to store that energy as heat before they need it.

    3. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be lacking in basic information.

    4. Re: Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Fwipp · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, Taco's gone off the deep end.

    5. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It's a huge plus to be able to store the energy as heat and generate electricity when you actually need it as opposed to when the sun shines.
      for one thing it means you get a lot more money per kwh. Also there are indications that for really large scale and long term solutions the thermal solar power plants are the way to go http://phoenixprojectfoundatio... .

    6. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the way you just casually assume that you know more and that they haven't heard of stuff. It captures the Slashdot vibe perfectly. Any question has to be couched as 'they're so stupid and I'm so smart'. Unfuckingreal.

    7. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Morocco is a Muslim country. No pork!

    8. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Sharia law forbids interest too, so they should get loans for free.

    9. Re:Sounds very much like ***PORK*** ! by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea about the scale of batteries and "ultra capacitors" they would need for this? Not to mention the components to regulate charging, discharging, etc. No, of course you don't, because you think things like "heat transfer solution" and "turns into steam" are "complicated sounding stuffs."

      Let me try to explain it in terms you'll understand better.

      Mirrors shine light on metal pipe.
      Metal pipe contains special oil.
      Light makes oil hot.
      Hot oil dumps into tank.
      Oil heats water and makes it boil.
      Steam from boiling turns turbine.

      If you want to talk about "tried and true" solutions, find a large-scale power generation source that has been used more than a steam turbine. Even nuclear plants, for all of their high technology, still use steam turbines to generate the actual power.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  8. Yae! Fools! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow!

    Fools run amok!
    ha ha

  9. get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The mirror technology it uses is less widespread and more expensive than the photovoltaic panels that are now familiar on roofs the world over, but it will have the advantage of being able to continue producing power even after the sun goes down."

    Its not the mirror "technology". Its a design shift - heating up Salt and using a phase change to one' s advantage instead of knocking electrons off Silicon. Why would you write something so unclear and misleading?

    1. Re:get your facts straight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm growing increasing skeptical of solar thermal because crazy as it sounds, storing power via a reversible heat pump seems like a better solution given the cost differential between solar thermal and photo voltaic systems. Before one dismisses it, if solar thermal costs $15/W and PV is $3/W then you can buy 5 times as much power from PV. And if you store it in a thermal battery that is 50% efficient, you lose half the energy. But since you can buy 5 watts of pv for the same price as one watt of solar thermal derived electricity then half of that is still 2.5 watts!

    2. Re:get your facts straight by spauldo · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      The manufacturing processes of solar cell involve the emissions of several toxic, flammable and explosive chemicals. Lately, in the field of photovoltaic research, there has been a continual rise in research and development efforts focused on reducing mass during cell manufacture. Such efforts have resulted in reducing the thickness of solar cells and thus the next generation solar cells are becoming thinner and eventually risks of exposure are reduced nevertheless, all chemicals must be carefully handled to ensure minimal human and environmental contact. The large scale deployment of such renewable energy technologies could result in potential negative environmental implications.

      PV panels wear out and have to be replaced periodically. Mirrors do too (you can only repolish them so much), but they're just glass with a thin metallic backing, and unlike PV panels, they could be produced locally. Depending on your heat source, glass is about as eco-friendly as you get materials-wise.

      There's no reason why they couldn't use battery storage with this. The thermal battery is just a byproduct of the way solar thermal works - you have the stored heat whether you want it or not, so why not keep the turbine running all night?

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  10. Where again? by Type44Q · · Score: 2

    Morocco, located along the northwestern African coast

    I'm guessing that anyone who has to be told where Morocco is will also need to be told where the northwestern African coast is. :p

    1. Re: Where again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lete guess ... South-east Africa?

    2. Re:Where again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Americans never cease to impress me with their general ignorance of history and geography. It's just amazing that it has to be stated where Morocco is.

    3. Re:Where again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an unlabeled map of the US.
      Please point out Wyoming off the top of your head.

    4. Re:Where again? by tomhath · · Score: 2
      The problem was explained quite clearly by Miss Suuth Carolina a few years ago. By the way, can you find Bolivia on a map?

      I personally believe that U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh, people out there in our nation don't have maps and, uh, I believe that our education like such as in South Africa and, uh, the Iraq, everywhere like such as, and, I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., uh, or, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future [for our children].

    5. Re:Where again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an unlabeled map of the US.
      Please point out Wyoming off the top of your head.

      And once you've done that, please name and point out the capital of Wyoming as well.

    6. Re:Where again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Morocco: country
      Wyoming: not country

      Morocco population: 30M+
      Wyoming population: 500k+

    7. Re:Where again? by Imbrondir · · Score: 1

      Flamebait responding to flamebait. Who wants to respond to this?

      Well me apparantly, since I don`t get this comparison that frequently comes up. The geographic knowledge of internal states of a nation is more detailed knowledge than geographic knowledge of reasonably sized nations. Not just a size thing either. Wyoming is big, but Sakha is 12x bigger, and most people still don`t know its location.

  11. The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They're basically both batteries

    Not really. Heat can be useful on it's own. For example a co-generation plant in Australia uses low levels of heat to warm water for an aquaculture project.
    Storing as heat gives you plenty of options of what to do with it, as well as potentially providing large scale storage for far more capacity than could be gained for the same cost with batteries or capacitors even if it is far more lossy than either.

    Another example is offshore windmills producing compressed air stored in underwater balloons (or in salt mines on land). The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity.

    You probably know all this, but equating all of the above to batteries just dumbs the entire discussion down to "why not use batteries", which is not something for this time when batteries still suck (just a lot less than they used to).

    1. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Adiabatic (compressed air) energy storage/generation is so inefficient that most energy engineers laugh when it is suggested.

      Storing heat comes with great inefficiencies as well. Even this cutting edge plant only hopes to be able to store a few hours worth of energy, and that is probably not full plant output.

      Energy costs money to generate to start with, we need efficient use solutions, not inefficient storage solutions.

    2. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by dbIII · · Score: 2

      we need efficient use solutions

      You missed the entire point.
      It's not much use being efficient if the expense is astronomical at the scale you want to operate at - hence hydro pump storage dams instead of a few million large lithium batteries.

    3. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "Another example is offshore windmills producing compressed air"

      Compressed air systems are about the most inefficient form of energy storage I can think of. When you compress gas it heats up and the heat is normally tossed overboard (waste). When you decompress it, energy has to be added to keep it from being too cold (more waste).

      The end result is an end-to-end efficiency of a few percent. If the energy is free then that's tolerable, but it's far more more efficient to store the energy as heat or chemically.

      However way you do it, energy storage/release systems end up with an end-to-end (as in electrical energy) efficiency of 25-30% at best, which means that in order to have enough continuous capacity you need to substantially overbuild your generation capacity to gather more in during peaks (ie, even hgigher costs)

      Mechanical energy storage systems such as compressed air also have to deal with the issue of component stress. If you're storing a few megajoules of energy in a pressure tank's walls you really don't want it developing microfractures due to constant compression/decompression cycles - and it's worth noting that as the size of an air tank increases the engineering complexity goes up exponentially (ie, it might work well in a lab, but can't scale up to commercially viable sizes)

    4. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      At large-scale stationary sizes, flow batteries and molten sodium batteries are far more cost effective than lithium. Even lead acid is perfectly feasible and the advantange of that model is that it's almost entirely recyclable at the end fo the device's lifespan (it's about $ per Wh, not about Wh per unit volume or unit mass. Making the battery vault double the size is normally cheaper than using more expensive batteries.)

    5. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Compressed air systems are about the most inefficient form of energy storage I can think of

      Do I have to say it a third time? Point missed entirely. Abandoned salt mines (in use) and plastic bags underwater (proposed) come very cheap so throwing away vast amounts of energy no longer matters so much. It's just one of many examples (like the far more practical pump storage) where cheaper storage costs are more important than having some incredibly expansive banks of shortlived batteries.

      Mechanical energy storage systems such as compressed air also have to deal with the issue of component stress. If you're storing a few megajoules of energy in a pressure tank's walls

      Once again - salt mines and plastic bags underwater. Rock and water pressure do the job. That's why they have been suggested and not enormous steel storage tanks.

      I thought the line "The storage cost is potentially dirt cheap which outweighs the very lossy conversion to electricity" would actually be read before people started posting replies. The point is that it is a tradeoff - maybe I should have only mentioned pump storage to avoid people who tilt at windmills, but the windmill one is such an extreme (very lossy but with enough very cheap storage that no longer matters as much) that I thought it would illustrate the issue better.

    6. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Yes, go ahead and save 2% instead of 2000% over lithium. Are people here just being triggered by key words or are they reading?

    7. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Heat can be useful on it's own.

      In Ouarzazate?

    8. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      It's about using the best cost solution for the _entire_system_, not about lithium vs lead acid

      For solar thermal stations, the issue us storing the heat unti its ready to use,

      For Solar PV, it's electrical energy.

      Pumped hydro is 1: Not particularly efficient (but capable of massive surge currents) and 2: Highly dependent on having suitable geology. There are only a few sites capable of being used for this purpose and their overall capacity is a couple of hours peaking at absolute most. It's cheaper than batteries where it's available, but it's not particularly available.

      Compressed air is absurdly inefficient even if the storage is "free"

      _ALL_ of these storage/regeneration systems have poor efficiency and substantial maintenance costs that have to be factored in. Even if the storage systems are "free" (salt mines etc), having to double/treble/more the number of generators needed to maintain your _average_ output is not, nor is maintaining them and you have to now factor in the added complexity of control gear to decide where power is routed on a second-to-second basis as well as the cost and maintenance associated with the regeneration equipment.

      I still haven't seen any arguments that trump nuclear power other than the "nooooclear baaaad" mantra. This isn't Animal Farm and the stats speak for themselves. It's funny how every single possible cost of a nuke plant is counted against it whilst those promoting the economics of XYZ other method mange to forget various associated costs including human lives.

      eg: Even if you don't count externalised costs of emissions and oceanic mercury polllution from coal along with the direct human costs, the cleanup costs of coal plant tailing ponds dwarfs that of cleaning up nuclear plant (EU nuke plants charge costs towards cleanup as part of ongoing operation so even if the operator goes bust, there's a cleanup fund available without having to dip into governmental budgets) - and there are _thousands_ of those sites across the USA.

      For solar, everyone is prepared to rave on about PV without counting the environmental costs of manufacture (which have already far outweighed any possible income from generation and the cleanup hasn't even started yet) and Solar Thermal comes with documented ecological costs, whilst not being particularly practical - the Californian plant can't even supply all the houses in its area, let alone the wide swathes of a state that would be needed for Solar Thermal to be a practical solution.

      For Wind: the operating and amortised costs of turbines are such that without subsidies power prices would need to at least quadruple to make them profitable - and that's without even taking into account the factor of a 2-mile exclusion zone around each one (the blades have been known to go at least a mile when they break) and the factor that the big ones have a tendency to catch fire (gearbox problems) or destroy their gearboxes in high winds with monotonous regularity.

      Tidal schemes: The few which have been tried have been quietly shut down again. They're just not practical (Scaling issues kick in. Small ones work fine but bringing them up to sizes needed for industrial scale generation simply doesn't work economically)

      I really _really_ wish that alternative energy sources were actually practical as a full replacement for coal/gas/oil. They're not. They simply don't scale to the sizes required to replace current demands, let alone vastly increased future ones.

    9. Re:The battery analogy is far too dumbed down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compressed air is absurdly inefficient even if the storage is "free"

      Yes, which is why I used it as an example. You seem to be a bit slow to understand why even when it is spelled out for you, but I'll try again - if the storage is very cheap then even absurdly inefficient conversion from that storage becomes viable versus absurdly expensive storage that is less inefficient.
       
       

      I really _really_ wish that alternative energy sources were actually practical as a full replacement for coal/gas/oil. They're not.

      Of course not, just as oil is not the best in absolutely every situation either. However some alternative energy sources are very good in some niches.
       

      Tidal schemes: The few which have been tried have been quietly shut down again

      Le Havre has been going since the 1950s FFS and short term experiments are short term experiments
       
       

      and that's without even taking into account the factor of a 2-mile exclusion zone around each one

      I suggest laying off the "alternative" cigarettes before posting.

  12. HELIOS One? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    Sounds pretty cool! Except... do we really want something like Archimedes left in Moroccan hands? I wouldn't even want the Brotherhood in sole control of it!

  13. I've seen that movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It does not end well for the power plant owner and the warlord.

  14. Buzz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These types of projects in Morocco are characterized by high levels of opacity. A few years ago, the king of Morocco (basically an absolute ruler, with strong hints of theocracy) signed a deal to buy a high-speed train from France. The construction is ongoing, but one is hard pressed to justify such a luxury in a country with 50% illiteracy. Even compared to Arab countries (the ruling elite is self-described Arab, and the imposed religious doctrine is Islam), Morocco trails such rankings. Morocco is last in the world in terms of religious diversity (~99% Muslim and people who wish to convert are prosecuted).

    This is yet-another-toy that the king (and his entourage) are buying with tax-payer money more for bragging rights than for actual utility. Then again, the royal house officially gets 300 million dollars per year from the state (despite their mind-boggling wealth).

  15. The problem is the waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isolating this stuff is a million-year commitment. It is unbelievably toxic. Inhale a plutonium particle of just 16 micrograms, and you will absolutely, positively die.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=PwsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA22&lpg=PA22&dq=how+much+plutonium+is+fatal&source=bl&ots=iApkcgQYg7&sig=TppHakQ6joNpRZEzlEq1j6TfCtc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBWoVChMIj83o0OXiyAIVCGk-Ch0nxgIV#v=onepage&q=how%20much%20plutonium%20is%20fatal&f=false

    1. Re:The problem is the waste by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If there is Plutonium in that waste, someone should tell the NRC, we should be reprocessing it to pull that out as it is damn useful to NASA and the DOD.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    2. Re: The problem is the waste by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You will absolutely, positively die whether or not you inhale any plutonium. The reality is that a 16 micrograms of inhaled particles will greatly increase your chances to die years later due to lung cancer. LD50(30) for inhaled plutonium is estimated to be about 88 milligrams for a 70 kg human, so half of the subjects would be dead in a month with 5000 times the amount you're talking about. It takes roughly a quarter as much to achieve the same effect if you inject a soluble form intravenously. Plutonium is extremely dangerous, but not as toxic as, for example, the botulinum toxin that is used in Botox treatment.

  16. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And nowhere do i see a comment about the preposterousness that 580MW will be enough to power "one millon households". it will be enough for maybe 100000 decent homes, the rest barely even have access to the electric grid.

  17. Capturing the solar and wind power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    available in the Sahara could provide Europe with power and the countries in the Sahara with money and jobs. These countries should also consider home solar.