Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Friday, February 29, 2008

Solar without the Panels

Utilities are using the sun's heat to boil water for steam turbines.

By Peter Fairley

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
Grid-feeding trough: In a solar-thermal trough plant, hundreds of mirror arrays like this one track the sun from east to west, concentrating sunlight onto the receiver pipe suspended above them and heating the oil within to nearly 400 °C. The captured heat can be used to produce steam and generate electricity, or it can heat large tanks filled with molten salt to store solar energy for a rainy day.
Credit: Abengoa Solar
Multimedia
•  Learn how a parabolic-trough solar thermal power plant works.

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.

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • what about Geothermal?
    devassocx on 02/29/2008 at 1:48 AM
    Posts:
    20
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    I think geo has a much smaller footprint and
    the water is always hot...24/7.

    I would think the cost would be less also.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: what about it indeed ?
      DJTal on 02/29/2008 at 3:37 AM
      Posts:
      109
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Since geothermal energy can be released in a controlled way maybe it could be combined with solar to provide a more constant supply .

      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 .
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • solar heating
    rhansing on 02/29/2008 at 11:57 AM
    Posts:
    11
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    in the early 1980's, i had a friend in central calif who used a hundred foot coiled hose on his roof to supply his water heater. it worked.

    i see no reason why all houses can use this method, and it's very cheap.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • >>> I still think that Wind Turbines could be very much CHEAPER and ENERGY-DENSE than solar (if stacked) >>>
    Gaetano Marano on 02/29/2008 at 12:04 PM
    Posts:
    55
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    .

    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... :)

    .
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: >>> I still think that Wind Turbines could be very much CHEAPER and ENERGY-DENSE than solar (if stacked) >>>
      Gulgamesh on 02/29/2008 at 2:02 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      I am not sure you have thought through the engineering restrictions, the amount of material, the cost to erect, or the maintenance implication of your "DVD"esk 500 meter, multi layer tower system. And it still does not solve the "gust" or "no wind" factor.  From a consistent supply of power point of view, the sun shines more days a year than there is optimal wind (not too much, not too little) for a wind turbine. Every solar thermal system I am familiar with takes into account the varying amount of solar energy available over the course of a year to try and keep the power output to a consistent level. And we have not even gotten to energy storage.

      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: >>> I still think that Wind Turbines could be very much CHEAPER and ENERGY-DENSE than solar (if stacked) >>>
        Gaetano Marano on 02/29/2008 at 4:52 PM
        Posts:
        55
        Avg Rating:
        2/5
        .

        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)

        .
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Unnecessary  .
          DJTal on 03/01/2008 at 5:14 AM
          Posts:
          109
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          It's very doubtful whether anybody would want a massive tower built in their area . Since there are plenty of tall buildings and roof tops and space on the ground it doesn't seem necessary to build a tower specificaly for this purpose , like you suggest .
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • the towers give more and cheaper energy in less space
            Gaetano Marano on 03/03/2008 at 5:13 AM
            Posts:
            55
            Avg Rating:
            2/5
            .

            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.

            .
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Re: the towers give more and cheaper energy in less space
              DJTal on 03/03/2008 at 9:11 AM
              Posts:
              109
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              There's no reason why the land should be devastated by wind turbines and solar panels . They can both be used in ways that benefit the wider environment . Solar panels can provide shade for plants and animals in desert environments and wind turbines can provide shelter by absorbing the wind energy like a hedge .

              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 .
              Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: >>> I still think that Wind Turbines could be very much CHEAPER and ENERGY-DENSE than solar (if stacked) >>>
      MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:32 AM
      Posts:
      61
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Check out the WARP design by a company called ENECO. They think along your lines.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Solar Distillation
    mkogrady on 02/29/2008 at 2:26 PM
    Posts:
    72
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    These parabolic mirrors may be extremely useful if utilized to distill the ethanol from a fermented liquid source. Although designed to focus solar energy towards a single focal point to boil a liquid and drive a steam generator. If a smaller system generating more gentle heat could be setup to distill ethanol, then perhaps this passive process may make ethanol more cost effective to produce. Alcohol boils areound 130F I believe.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Solar Distillation
      MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:42 AM
      Posts:
      61
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      It wouldn't matter what the source of energy was to distill ethanol, it would still require the same amount of energy. If anything, renewable energy would add to ethanol's costs. We already know it costs more than conventional electricity, whether you own the power plant or purchase its electricity.

      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • 1.21 GW!
    thomedj on 02/29/2008 at 4:21 PM
    Posts:
    3
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    A 280 MW plant that has a 5 hour storage capability keeps 1.4 GWH of electricity; this can then power a certain DeLorean's flux capacitor for over an hour!
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: 1.21 GW!
      spaq.yetti@gmail.com on 03/03/2008 at 6:40 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      1/5
      Well if we're going to go that route we might as well just skip the solar power and work on creating that blender that uses garbage as power :)
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Waste Heat
    ebonfyre on 02/29/2008 at 5:08 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    They mention concerns about water shortages affecting the cooling systems to condense the steam back into water which just amazes me considering the array of options available to use that waste heat to create even more power.  Everyone is so focused on steam turbines they are ignoring some of the solid state thermionic, organic rankine, cavitation, or even simple stirling engine solutions out there that could completely eliminate the need for external cooling if applied correctly.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Why not use thermoscoustic?
    gnomic on 02/29/2008 at 8:18 PM
    Posts:
    2
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    Why not use thermoacoustic cooling? The waste heat chould drive a ceramic element to generate an ultrasonic compression wave. Sure, its not that efficient, but its solid state and its free.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • less than 10 cents
    killian on 03/01/2008 at 5:11 AM
    Posts:
    54
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    The article says "solar thermal power costs 13 to 17 cents".  However, a different solar thermal technology, Stirling dishes, at 1GW plant size is supposedly less than 10 cents per kWh:
    http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: less than 10 cents
      theblight on 03/03/2008 at 12:48 PM
      Posts:
      4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      Problem is, again, no storage of energy for when the sun sets or even gets cloudy for 20 minutes.

      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.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: less than 10 cents
        killian on 04/22/2008 at 2:00 PM
        Posts:
        54
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Remember that electricity demand is often twice as high during the day as at night.  Electricity generation that correlates with the peak in demand is very valuable.  Utilities currently fire up "peaking" power plants to handle this load, and the economics is quite a bit different from non-peaking power.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: less than 10 cents
          MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:51 AM
          Posts:
          61
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          Exactly. Also, utility-scale storage a la flow batteries can allow these projects to produce 24/7 electricity with no increase in overall costs. A study showed that a relatively small fraction of output would need to be stored to achieve this, because solar comes close to matching demand year round. This goes equally for CSP, though heat would be stored rather than electricity.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • Flash Carbonization.
    DJTal on 03/01/2008 at 5:32 AM
    Posts:
    109
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Why not use all of these unreliable sources of energy to process biomass into reliable fuels , which can be turned off and on when we need them . Such as CHARCOAL , which is a much safer , more stable , energy rich form of biofuel than Hydrogen , and is also a fuel that we can use to build up the largest reserves of renewable energy . Prof. Michael J. Antal of Hawaii University has created a pressurised carbonization technology which converts a higher percentage of biomass into charcoal , called Flash Carbonization .
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Price Performance
    carlii on 03/01/2008 at 3:12 PM
    Posts:
    17
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    The price performance needs to drop further, since the cost to the consumer over the wires includes energy loss along the transportation lines. Someone here may have the precise numbers, perhaps something like 3 cents/ KWh.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • carbonizationof biomass
    theblight on 03/03/2008 at 12:43 PM
    Posts:
    4
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    There is not an excess of biomass on this planet!  Every time you suggest we take biomass and convert it to energy, I wonder where that biomass is coming from... globally we are stripping the world of plant life already, and shrinking the available land for farming, food production... as petroleum becomes more scarce, we are increasingly going to need plants for food, clothing, medicines, construction materials... no way will there be mountains of "waste biomass" to convert to charcoal.  Production of even small amounts of charcoal in the tropics is already a major player in pushing deforestation.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Carbonization of biomass.
      DJTal on 03/04/2008 at 3:12 AM
      Posts:
      109
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      I do disagree with you of course . There is plenty of biomass available from various sources , just look at how much we throw into landfill . As far as charcoal production in third world countries goes , the charcoal is being produced extremely inefficiently in traditional kilns , so better technology can help . You also say that charcoal is of no 'nutritional' value , which is missing the point . Charcoal when used as a soil improver is intented to remain locked up in the soil for thousands of years , and whilst there it improves moisture retention and drainage , it neutralises the pH , as an insulating material it protects the soil against extremes of temperature and it prevents the leaching of nutrients from the soil . See info about Terra Preta (Black Earth) and biochar if you're unconvinced about this .
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Carbonization of biomass.
        ebonfyre on 03/04/2008 at 10:11 AM
        Posts:
        4
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        I completely agree about the benefits of adding charcoal to soil, it is a very helpful additive. However that is the best large-scale use for it, not as an energy source. There absolutely is not enough waste biomass for that to be considered anything but a supplemental energy source. Pushing beyond using waste biomass and harvesting specifically for energy conversion will cause far more problems than it is worth, I enjoy our forests greatly and do not want them endangered.

        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.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Carbonization of biomass.
          MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:21 AM
          Posts:
          61
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          I agree with your concerns about gathering waste biomass. There is definitely an impact. Also, no one can seriously overlook the huge costs involved in collecting debris from fields and forests.

          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.
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • Concentrate solar energy
    technbus on 03/13/2008 at 3:50 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I like the CSE for thermal use.  CSE can also drive PV and generate electricity directly.  I think the system to generate power by steam is simple and well established, and would be straight forward.  Besides, the long-term stability of the semi used in the PV by a concentrated solar beam is not proven.

    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.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Thermal Solar Good idea, but not for everywhere.
    jmaximus9 on 03/27/2008 at 11:59 AM
    Posts:
    32
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Thermal solar is a great idea but I fail to see how well it would work in a state like Michigan that is cloudy more than it is sunny.   Wind power is a better bet for this region.  There really is no one best solution for every situation, it all depends on geography, weather, and economic conditions.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Thermal Solar Good idea, but not for everywhere.
      MakeSense on 05/17/2008 at 9:30 AM
      Posts:
      61
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      That is so true. Photovoltaics might be the best solar option beyond the desert Southwest. And wherever the winds blows strongly, let there be turbines.

      CSP could provide all the electricity needed west of the Mississippi, especially if transmission grid improvements can be made to collect it and distribute it efficiently.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • These are tools
    ShawnT on 04/19/2008 at 8:33 AM
    Posts:
    1