|
Friday, February 29, 2008 Solar without the PanelsUtilities are using the sun's heat to boil water for steam turbines. By Peter Fairley
Investors and utilities intent on building solar power plants are increasingly turning to solar thermal power, a comparatively low-tech alternative to photovoltaic panels that convert sunlight directly into electricity. This month, in the latest in a string of recent deals, Spanish solar-plant developer Abengoa Solar and Phoenix-based utility Arizona Public Service announced a 280-megawatt solar thermal project in Arizona. By contrast, the world's largest installations of photovoltaics generate only 20 megawatts of power. In a solar thermal plant, mirrors concentrate sunlight onto some type of fluid that is used, in turn, to boil water for a steam turbine. Over the past year, developers of solar thermal technology such as Abengoa, Ausra, and Solel Solar Systems have picked up tens of millions of dollars in financing and power contracts from major utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric and Florida Power and Light. By 2013, projects in development in just the United States and Spain promise to add just under 6,000 megawatts of solar thermal power generation to the barely 100 megawatts installed worldwide last year, says Cambridge, MA, consultancy Emerging Energy Research. The appeal of solar thermal power is twofold. It is relatively low cost at a large scale: an economic analysis released last month by Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California's Energy Institute, notes that solar thermal power will become cost competitive with other forms of power generation decades before photovoltaics will, even if greenhouse-gas emissions are not taxed aggressively. Solar thermal developers also say that their power is more valuable than that provided by wind, currently the fastest-growing form of renewable energy. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind power costs about 8 cents per kilowatt, while solar thermal power costs 13 to 17 cents. But power from wind farms fluctuates with every gust and lull; solar thermal plants, on the other hand, capture solar energy as heat, which is much easier to store than electricity. Utilities can dispatch this stored solar energy when they need it--whether or not the sun happens to be shining. "That's going to be worth a lot of money," says Terry Murphy, president and chief executive officer of SolarReserve, a Santa Monica, CA, developer of solar thermal technology. "People are coming to realize that power shifting and 'dispatchability' are key to the utility's requirements to try to balance their system." In fact, the capacity to store energy is critical to the economics of the solar thermal plant. Without storage, a solar thermal plant would need a turbine large enough to handle peak steam production, when the sun is brightest, but which would otherwise be underutilized. Stored heat means that a plant can use a smaller, cheaper steam turbine that can be kept running steadily for more hours of the day. While adding storage would substantially increase the cost of the energy produced by a photovoltaic array or wind farm, it actually reduces the cost per kilowatt of the energy produced by solar thermal plants. The amount of storage included in a plant--expressed as the number of hours that it can keep the turbine running full tilt--will vary according to capital costs and the needs of a given utility. "There is an optimal point that could be three hours of storage or six hours of storage, where the cents per kilowatt- hour is the lowest," says Fred Morse, senior advisor for U.S. operations with Abengoa Solar. Morse says that the company's 280-megawatt plant in Arizona, set to begin operation by 2011, will have six hours of storage, while other recent projects promise seven to eight. |


Comments
devassocx on 02/29/2008 at 1:48 AM
22
the water is always hot...24/7.
I would think the cost would be less also.
DJTal on 02/29/2008 at 3:37 AM
116
There doesn't seem to be anything particularly new in the article , but it's good to see that companies are getting on with making use of well proven technologies . Which is the point really , we already have technological knowhow to stop global warming , so crack on ! It always going to be possible to create new technology and to save energy , but the problem of too much carbon in the atmosphere has to be dealt with quick sharp .
Also , why not use the shade created underneath the solar reflectors to grow vegetation in the desert and remove more CO2 from the atmosphere and further reduce the ground temperature , which would make the power plant carbon negative .
rhansing on 02/29/2008 at 11:57 AM
11
i see no reason why all houses can use this method, and it's very cheap.
Gaetano Marano on 02/29/2008 at 12:04 PM
55
I still think that Wind Turbines could be very much CHEAPER and ENERGY-DENSE than solar, if stacked in 300-500 m. tall "Wind Energy Skyscrapers" Power Plants:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/028energy.html
it works like the dual-layer DVD and BluRay Disc or (best) like the future multi-layers optical and magnetic Discs, while, the (hot water or photovoltaic) solar panels are like an OLD, single-layer CD-ROM... :)
.
Gulgamesh on 02/29/2008 at 2:02 PM
1
Solar thermal is a logical next step in the evolution of power plants. It makes electricity with a proven steam turbine technology, it just generates steam differently. It is consistent, flexible and expandable.
Gaetano Marano on 02/29/2008 at 4:52 PM
55
it's only a concept, now, that, of course, needs study to become real, but I believe it's better than solar
in the most winded places of the world, the wind is strong and present nearly all days and for great part of each day (and NIGHT)
also, the wind over 300 m. are stronger and more constant
the infrastructures have a cost, but surely LESS than build a tower for EACH turbine
this kind of solar power needs a costly steam turbine AND an electric generator (while the wind turbines need ONLY the latter) store the electric energy is very easy (especially if something like the EEStor devices will be available) while the hot water can't be stored for the night
however, I don't want to be right "on paper" but just to see a alt.energy company study and develop my idea (or find enough funds to study it by myself)
.
DJTal on 03/01/2008 at 5:14 AM
116
Gaetano Marano on 03/03/2008 at 5:13 AM
55
all solar and wind power plants needs very large surfaces that are devastated
my wind skyscrapers allow to save over 95% of earth surface from devastation, giving the same amount of energy and at lower price
then, if (e.g.) a country must devastate a 300x300 km. total surface to produce all the energy it need using the standard, single tower, wind turbines, with my WESPPs the total surface may fall to less than 70x70 km.
.
DJTal on 03/03/2008 at 9:11 AM
116
If you build a wind turbine skyscraper too much money would be spent on the support structure , and the supporting structure itself would resist the flow of air reducing the efficiency .
In any case it doesn't matter how efficient or large the turbine is , the wind will always be the most intermittent of all the renewables . Better to spend the money on reliable energy sources .
MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:32 AM
67
mkogrady on 02/29/2008 at 2:26 PM
93
MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:42 AM
67
It's also important to consider the alternative uses of renewable energy. Many people ignore this as though renewable energy were a throwaway. Energy is energy, by my analysis. But many calculations of EROEI or net energy treat renewable energy consumption as ignorable. That's a little too convenient.
thomedj on 02/29/2008 at 4:21 PM
3
spaq.yetti@gmail.com on 03/03/2008 at 6:40 PM
1
GeoMan on 07/28/2008 at 9:05 PM
2
ebonfyre on 02/29/2008 at 5:08 PM
5
GeoMan on 07/28/2008 at 9:16 PM
2
gnomic on 02/29/2008 at 8:18 PM
4
killian on 03/01/2008 at 5:11 AM
54
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
theblight on 03/03/2008 at 12:48 PM
4
I trust the utilities that are investing in these competing systems to do a pretty careful evaluation of the economics before they spend the millions.
killian on 04/22/2008 at 2:00 PM
54
MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:51 AM
67
DJTal on 03/01/2008 at 5:32 AM
116
carlii on 03/01/2008 at 3:12 PM
25
theblight on 03/03/2008 at 12:43 PM
4
Imagining we can generate the amounts of energy we use today from biomass is not practical, simply try to work the numbers. Even a 5th grader would be able to figure that out. Between 1800 and 1920, in the US, with far fewer people, and far fewer needs for energy, we managed to cut down all of our forests, in large part to burn them. Plants do not grow quickly enough to provide anything like energy we need, so it is going to require technologies that do not compete with farming to replace our dependence on oil. Lastly, we really need to add all the biomass we can back to the soil... we have let synthetic fertilizers replace organic matter as the course of crop nutrition, but as the price of fertilizer goes up, we will be needing as much biomass as possible, every last shovel full, to rebuild the health of the world's soils. Carbonizing the biomass does not improve it's ability to feed the microflora of the soil either... it does not elevate soil nutrition.
DJTal on 03/04/2008 at 3:12 AM
116
ebonfyre on 03/04/2008 at 10:11 AM
5
Innovative solar, wind, and hydro projects will be the key to surviving our addiction to energy. The solar stirling project referenced earlier is my favorite, though inflatable solar concentrator balloons and Franz Zotlöterer's vortex water turbine are close seconds.
MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:21 AM
67
However, we might grow biomass. Giant Miscanthus grows densely to 13 feet and leaves a woody stem after its leaves fall. It has 70% of the energy by mass as coal and can be co-fired with coal to produce electricity. It uses less water and chemicals than corn (what doesn't?). Eventually, we may have a decent baseload power capacity from it.
Bo1700 on 07/22/2008 at 2:46 AM
1
technbus on 03/13/2008 at 3:50 AM
1
To be convincing, this is best settled on the solar energy conversion factor. If anyone or the author of this article has that info, I would be interested to know the relevant data.
Thanks.
jmaximus9 on 03/27/2008 at 11:59 AM
34