Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Storing Solar Power Efficiently

Thermal-power plants that store heat for cloudy days could solve some of the problems with solar power.

By Peter Fairley

Thursday, September 27, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Solar proponents love to boast that just a few hundred square kilometers' worth of photovoltaic solar panels installed in Southwestern deserts could power the United States. Their schemes come with a caveat, of course: without backup power plants or expensive investments in giant batteries, flywheels, or other energy-storage systems, this solar-power supply would fluctuate wildly with each passing cloud (not to mention with the sun's daily rise and fall and seasonal ebbs and flows). Solar-power startup Ausra, based in Palo Alto, thinks it has the solution: solar-thermal-power plants that turn sunlight into steam and efficiently store heat for cloudy days.

Soaking up rays: Computer-controlled motors keep Ausra's solar concentrator mirrors focused on pipes filled with water, producing steam to drive power-generating turbines. The high-pressure steam from this one-megawatt array in New South Wales, Australia, displaces coal at the primarily coal-fired Liddell Power Station visible in the background (below).
Credit: Ausra
Multimedia
•  See how Ausra's energy-storage system works.

"Fossil-fuel proponents often say that solar can't do the job, that solar can't run at night, solar can't run the economy," says David Mills, Ausra's founder and chairman. "That's true if you don't have storage." He says that solar-thermal plants are the solution because storing heat is much easier than storing electricity. Mills estimates that, thanks to that advantage, solar-thermal plants capable of storing 16 hours' worth of heat could provide more than 90 percent of current U.S. power demand at prices competitive with coal and natural gas. "There's almost no limit to how much you can put into the grid," he says.

Major utilities are buying the idea. In July, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) signed a 25-year deal with Ausra competitor Solel Solar Systems of Beit Shemesh, Israel, to buy power from a 553-megawatt solar-thermal plant that Solel is developing in California's Mojave Desert. The plant will supply 400,000 homes in northern and central California when it is completed in 2011. Florida Power & Light, meanwhile, hired Solel to upgrade the 1980s-era solar-thermal plants it operates in the Mojave.

Ausra, meanwhile, is negotiating with PG&E to supply power from a 175-megawatt plant that it plans to build in California, for which it secured $40 million in venture financing this month.

Story continues below

What distinguishes Ausra's design is its relative simplicity. In conventional solar-thermal plants such as Solel's, a long trough of parabolic mirrors focuses sunlight on a tube filled with a heat-transfer fluid, often some sort of oil or brine. The fluid, in turn, produces steam to drive a turbine and produce electricity. Ausra's solar collectors employ mass-produced and thus cheaper flat mirrors, and they focus light onto tubes filled with water, thus directly producing steam. Ausra's collectors produce less power, but that power costs less to produce.

One megawatt's worth of Ausra's solar collectors has been producing steam in New South Wales, Australia, since 2004; the steam is fed into the turbines of a primarily coal-fired power plant. The final piece of the system--a proprietary heat-energy-storage system--should be ready by 2009.

Comments

  • solution
    The author does not seem to know what a 'solution' is. What background is required to write for this rag?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    walt
    09/27/2007
    Posts:28
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    • Re: solution
      What do you object to in the clause: "Solar-power startup Ausra, based in Palo Alto, thinks it has the solution..."
      Rate this comment: 12345

      jpontin
      09/27/2007
      Posts:25
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: solution
        I believe he was referring to "salt solutions" which probably is a technical mistake.  A salt solution would be a salt dissolved in a liquid.  These systems use salts which are heated to melt them rather than being dissolved in a liquid.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        rhapsodyingl...
        12/30/2007
        Posts:59
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
    • Re: solution
      An intelligent reply would ignore semantics, grammar and incidental rhetoric to focus on the merit of the content. While certainly not the Holy Grail of energy solutions, this storage solution should be welcomed as one of many. When combined with other solutions such as PV and wind power. they will free this country from oil based energy dependence.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      tcawley
      09/27/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
    • How wude!
      What a troll you are!
      Though I don't agree with everything printed here, I find this "rag" generally useful, informative, and interesting.
      If you think you can do better, start your own technology emag.  Put up or shut up.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      dmm
      09/27/2007
      Posts:192
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • [no subject]
    Rate this comment: 12345

    zhangtao
    09/27/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • [no subject]
      How thought-provoking!  But what about the following:
      Rate this comment: 12345

      dmm
      09/27/2007
      Posts:192
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Interesting use of Fresnel Lenses
    Focusing heat to a collector is no differnent than frying ants with a magnifying glass. I believe the folks in New Mexico have similar designs, but don't store the heat per se.

    Question to Ausra - can a collector system be designed to operate in colder climates, but instead of heating up a solution to drive a steam engine, can the heat be collected - stored - and used to heat a house via convection heating? How hot do the fluids get off these fresnel systems?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mkogrady
    09/27/2007
    Posts:202
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Interesting use of Fresnel Lenses
      Solar Thermal is only economical on a grid-level power plant basis.  Distributed electricity generation is better done by Solar PV.  There are efforts underway to use Solar Thermal on a much smaller scale, but it's generally for heating and cooling large buildings and complexes.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davea0511
      09/27/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Interesting use of Fresnel Lenses
        Here's one company attempting to make a residential scale solar thermal product:
        http://www.sunmachine.com/english/sm_solar.htm
        Rate this comment: 12345

        eak
        09/29/2007
        Posts:8
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: Interesting use of Fresnel Lenses
          That looks to be more of a pellet stove on steroids.  Interesting concept: combining the sun's heat with a combustionable material for greater heat to drive a stirling engine.  That's got to be a first.  Certainly is not renewable nor clean.

          Even that one I am sure is geared toward a large complex or building.

          When quiet 2kWh stirlings hit the $2000 barrier I believe then you'll start seeing solar thermal taking over the single family dwelling industry.  I'd hate to be in PV at that point.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          davea0511
          09/29/2007
          Posts:17
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: Interesting use of Fresnel Lenses
            No, it's not a first.  This much larger version is being deployed in the Mojave right now:
            http://www.stirlingenergy.com/
            I believe Southern California Edison has ordered 500-850MW, and San Diego Gas and Electric has ordered 300-900MW of the above.  They have limited heat storage though.  The claim is $1.40/Watt.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            eak
            09/30/2007
            Posts:8
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
  • makes huge sense
    While batteries or super caps are easier to place, they've got to be vastly more expensive as a storage option than a pool of salt, in addition to the charging/discharging losses. I've seen the articles about wind generators installing banks of lithium batteries. I must say I have my doubts, how can that be affordable. Solar plants already take up lots of land area so this seems perfect. California already has a significant commitment to solar power in the Mojave, and capacity should double easily within the next few years.

    Innovations like this would make it quite possible for CA and much of the Southwest and certainly Australia to generate virtually all of its power day and night from solar. All from mirrors, pipes, salt, and steam generation. Beautifully simple, almost low-tech, really.

    Getting a little more complex, the heat can also be used to drive Stirling heat engines rather than steam generators. A lot of potential.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ArtInvent
    09/27/2007
    Posts:28
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: makes huge sense
      Well, it sounds low tech - but it's really the high-tech equipment design that makes it so cheap and attractive.

      This is the perfect example of why it's important to invest development in promising technologies - the only way they've been able to bring down the costs is through the existing Mojave desert system which they've used as a test bed for the last 30 years.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davea0511
      09/27/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: makes huge sense
        The most high-tech thing I can think of in their system is the steam turbine.  The rest of the components David Mills has elsewhere said is like "farm machinery".
        Rate this comment: 12345

        eak
        09/29/2007
        Posts:8
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: makes huge sense
          No.  A steam turbine is a steam turbine.  High tech, yes, but commonly in use, yes also.

          The unique technology (ie expensive) here is the unusually robust dewar tubes with the integrated back reflector, and the suber heat absorbant black stainless steel pipe, plus the anti-reflective coating, as well as the mirrors.  These aren't regular mirrors. In many cases these are cast ceramic parabolic mirrors.  Even the cheaper aluminum ones have special coatings to prevent oxidation, shed water, and maximize reflectivity.  The single most expensive consumable however are the dewar tubes, as when they break the whole plant has to be shut down for a replacement.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          davea0511
          09/29/2007
          Posts:17
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: makes huge sense
            By the way, there is a group working on cheap solar thermal at Caltech (e.g. Nathan Lewis).  He is in Chemistry, and is looking for materials (e.g. paint) with which to lower the cost of things like reflectors.  Here is a recent article of his:
            http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/EandS/articles/LXX2/powering.pdf
            Anything that decreases the $/kW is good...
            Rate this comment: 12345

            eak
            09/30/2007
            Posts:8
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
          • Re: makes huge sense
            The trough plants in the Mojave also use evacuated tubes. They have shown 99% plant availability. Better than coal. Better than natural gas. Better than nuclear fission.

            Using incredibly advanced deductive logic, we can assert that using evacuated tubes is not a big liability for plant availability.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            Siphon
            10/09/2007
            Posts:144
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
    • Re: makes huge sense
      Regarding your comment on energy storage for Wind Farms, the industry is not serious about electrochem batteries, at least for the time being. Cost and reliability are the main issues.  Compressed air energy storage (CAES) has had some recent interest here, and some historical success.  A peaker plant in Alabama has been using CAES since the early 90's. Recently, an Iowa farm cooperative has decided to pursue a Wind-CAES project based on successful trials with natural salt cavity formation in Iowa, and even more recently General Compression, a start-up in MA is pursuing a turbine/farm technology that facilitates Wind-CAES.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      doteman
      10/02/2007
      Posts:6
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: makes huge sense
        Natural gas is used for CAES turboexpanders. That's usually fossil methane. Which creates residual CO2 emissions.

        Biomass can be methanized with very high efficiency. Has anyone thought about using biomethane instead of fossil methane  for the turboexpanders?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Siphon
        10/09/2007
        Posts:144
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Interesting, but...
    Thanks for the interesting article.  But this all sounds very similar to things that were being written about in Popular Science in the 1970s.  What has changed since then?  Only the price of oil, or is there new tech that I am not noticing?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dmm
    09/27/2007
    Posts:192
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Interesting, but...
      New technology is why it's suddenly much cheaper and viable.  We've had 30 years to learn from similar systems in the Mojave.  Three things that really drive down costs:
      1) Dewar tubes that contain the working fluid are much more robust and reliable.
      2) Heat Storage technology has improved dramatically.
      3) Using water for the working fluid and generating the steam directly.  Until now they used salts or oil, then used the salts and oil in a heat x-fer to generate water steam inside the plant.  They've bypassed that step in this system.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davea0511
      09/27/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Boyes is full of baloney
    Boyes says energy from windmills and solar PV is easier, but there's no reason in the world why they couldn't build a larger turbine and generate all the electricity real-time and then store excess electricity the same way windmills and PV does.  Solar thermal simply allows you to have an additional, and much cheaper, means of storage.  Besides, energy needs never spike on a national scale, so distributing the nightime energy from stored heat is just as easy and effective as doing so from a battery or flywheel full of energy.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    davea0511
    09/27/2007
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • why heat storage makes it cheaper
    The author seemed confused as to why heat storage makes the whole system cheaper.  The answer is simple:

    You convert half of the steam to energy in the daytime  That makes your energy conversion plant requirements half of what would be required if all the heat was immediately converted to electricity.  That results in much lower costs.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    davea0511
    09/27/2007
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: why heat storage makes it cheaper
      Maybe cheaper, but less efficient. You need some way to convert the energy from heat to mechanical energy. You'll get substantial second-law conversion loss, however you do that conversion. I guess that's the attraction of molten salts; high temperature, higher efficiencies.

      None of these "heat storage" devices is anywhere near as efficient as storing potential energy through gravity, something like pushing water uphill to a reservoir.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      ChuckInReno
      10/01/2007
      Posts:19
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: why heat storage makes it cheaper
        What Ausra is working on, is simply storing the heat transfer fluid - that is, H2O - in an underground cavern. No need for heat exchangers, which lowers capital costs and system efficiency as well. Supposedly they can use passive direct boiling which could also lower pumping losses. Combining this with an inexpensive 240 MW nuclear turbine, where the water is flashed directly into steam, could be a particularly cost effective combination of technologies. If they pull it off that is.

        Until they've got this cavern storage worked out, they will likely use a proven thermal storage method such as Caloria oil storage.

        You are incorrect about the efficiency of pumped hydro. This is 80 ish percent efficiency at best, a bit lower than thermal energy storage.

        Of further relevance is the fact that hydro-electric requires much more land per unit of energy produced than all of the array field, turbine, and thermal energy storage systems. Especially if (or, more likely, when as it's not rocket science) Ausra's underground cavern storage plan is commercialised.

        Then there's flow batteries. Unfortunately, these use large amounts of rare materials, resulting in high cost and ruining scalability. And flow batteries aren't quite as efficient as direct hot H2O storage. If flow batteries could be designed using common inexpensive materials, and operate at high efficiency, then things might change. Otherwise, it's niche.

        Flywheels are very promising, and even more efficient than thermal storage (not that it gets that much better from 97 percent though), but also require more development to enter mainstream energy storage markets.

        Thermal energy storage, on the other hand, is already commercially proven to be very cost-effective and efficient as well. Of all the other storage technologies, only pumped hydro can make this claim. And, considering that pumped hydro is geographically limited, thermal energy storage is the only scalable inexpensive energy storage method we have right now.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        Siphon
        10/09/2007
        Posts:144
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
  • Nice trick
    It must be quite a trick to keep the pipes fed with just the right amount of water to heat-up, and not allow it to boil away to the point where the pipes run dry and maybe crack at the seams.  Probably couldn't have been done 20 years ago because it would need the advances in materials and computers  that we have today.  
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jrc55
    09/27/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • cost is what makes this important
    What is important to understand is that any power generation technology lives or dies based on its cost effectiveness.  The cheap always pushes out the good.  Sometimes that means using low tech solutions instead of high tech ones.  For example, they give up some efficiency in their solar concentrators to save cost.  What is important about Ausra is their claims of near coal power prices when their designs are deployed on a massive scale.  Thermal storage is part of that: as another comment pointed out, being able to store energy from the day and generate at night means you need half as many steam turbine for the same annual GWh, and that reduces $/GWh.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    eak
    09/29/2007
    Posts:8
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
    i get tired of hearing how wonderful all these solar power collectors are ..... vegetation has been using the sun's energy for billions of years , very efficiently , quietly , attractivly , in a perpetual state of motion , in a way which removes CO2 from the atmosphere and converts the energy into a form which can be STORED for millions of years . Lets hear it for plants . We would do far better to invest all this money in building up biomass production per acre and building up the amount of carbon stored in the soil .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    09/30/2007
    Posts:130
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
      See Carbon-Negative Biofuels from Low-Input High-Diversity Grassland Biomass by
      David Tilman:
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/314/5805/1598

      Yes, this is good stuff.  However, photosynthesis is usually 1-7% efficient, and conversion of biomass to electricity or liquid fuel reduces that further.  In comparison, solar thermal is 30% efficient, one needs a lot less land to power the U.S.  There is likely a place for LIHD biomass, but I think most of our energy will come more directly from the sun than taking it through plants.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      eak
      09/30/2007
      Posts:8
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
        Photosynthesis may have a fairly low efficiency however , direct sunlight isn't the only renewable energy which plants make use of . Fact of the matter is , all of the renewable energies play a role in creating life on earth , geothermal , wind , wave , tidal , nuclear radiation . Mother nature got there before us , and she can use all of these energies and others that that we aren't normally aware of . If you add on the cost of reducing CO2 levels to the cost of this new solar tech or any other which doesn't have the ability to reduce CO2 levels the cost of the energy increases . Unless this new technology is a means of taking carbon out of the atmosphere and turning it back into solid material which can be stored long term in the soil , it will not answer the biggest problem we face . There is also the issue of energy reserve . Biofuel is the best means that we have of building large reserves of energy which we WILL need to maintain economic stability , in order to cope with fluctuations in supply and demand or to cope with some future unforseen emergency situation . What are the priorities for us ?.... : the need to reduce CO2 levels , the need for sustainable renewable energy , the need for a reliable source of energy , the need for energy reserve .... bioenergy meets all of these demands and many more in a wider context of worldwide development .
        Rate this comment: 12345

        DJTal
        10/01/2007
        Posts:130
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
          Interesting point about bio taking the CO2 out of the atmosphere. But as soon as you burn it as a fuel you're releasing it, or some of it, back out. So the net effect is neutral or nearly so.

          Solar, hydro and wind may not take CO2 out of the atmosphere but none will put any back. So again a neutral effect.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          pjnery
          10/01/2007
          Posts:1
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
            Not quite right pjnery , the net effect can be negative . If the biomass is gasified to produce synthesis gas and charcoal , then the charcoal can be used as a soil improver , which would have the effect of increasing biomass production . Biofuel is the only type of energy which can be carbon negative , which must be an essential part of the fight against global warming . If carbon neutral is important , how much more important must carbon negative be ? There is a big effort underway around the world to investigate the use of charcoal ( see the International Biochar Initiative website ). Agricultural land is one of the best ways we have of storing carbon long term , but not the only way . Any overall energy system that doesn't take into ACCOUNT the need or cost of CO2 reduction is fooling its customers as to the true cost of electricty and fuel .
            Rate this comment: 12345

            DJTal
            10/02/2007
            Posts:130
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
              No, you're not thinking ahead. Any land suitable for agriculture will be required in the future for FOOD production. Already we've seen an effect on corn prices and land usage from the demand created by the biofuels industry, which is still only in its infancy.

              I don't think biofuels are a very good idea.
              Rate this comment: 12345

              zeddy
              10/02/2007
              Posts:5
              Avg Rating:
              5/5
              • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
                biofuel is already a primary source of energy for a large proportion of the world's population , and since there are plenty of sources of biomass which will not affect peoples food supply it would be WRONG to dismiss biofuel . might i suggest that you try looking a bit more deeply and with a bit more foresight into this issue zeddy . the effect of increasing soil carbon means that more food OR biofuel can be produced depending on our needs , it's not neccessary to choose between the two . biofuel and food production are both good motivations for inreasing biomass production .
                Rate this comment: 12345

                DJTal
                10/07/2007
                Posts:130
                Avg Rating:
                3/5
                • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
                  Bio-energy is useful as a dispatchable power source to complement other renewables. As in, falling back to bio-energy when other renewables don't suffice. So it can certainly play it's part, an important part, in the energy mix. In fact, it may be paramount to secure a renewable dominated grid. Besides dealing with short term variations, it may also be an excellent form of seasonal energy storage. For example, to compensate for extreme climatic events. In the right context, bio-energy is very useful if not essential.

                  However, it may not be a good idea to base a very large part (e.g 90%) of an economy on biomass. That photosynthetic inefficiency can really give some serious problems, especially with respect to a likely future growth in energy demand, and no doubt also in food.

                  When people are forced to make the choice between food or electricity, they'll go for food. Trust me. And then there will be very serious energy problems.
                  Rate this comment: 12345

                  Siphon
                  10/09/2007
                  Posts:144
                  Avg Rating:
                  3/5
            • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
              But... wouldn't letting the vegetation grow and NOT burning it for fuel have an even *greater* carbon-negative impact? While using other, carbon-neutral means of energy production?
              Rate this comment: 12345

              Monsterboy
              10/17/2007
              Posts:89
              Avg Rating:
              4/5
        • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
          If you are going to assert that photosynthesis is superior to solar thermal, you need to provide some data to support that; simply saying "direct sunlight isn't the only renewable energy which plants make use of" doesn't tell me much.  Care to quantify the other effects?

          You also say "Biofuel is the best means that we have of building large reserves of energy, but are you familiar with V2G, the technology that allows the batteries in plug-in vehicles provide energy storage for the grid?  Also, remember that Ausra bases their analysis of energy storage on 365 days of actual grid data.  What large reserve do you are you suggesting is required beyond what historical data suggests?

          You also offer no suggestion that biofuels can be competitive on cost with solar thermal.  The enormous efficiency difference between electricity and biofuels, both in production and use, seem to indicate that the cost advantage will like with solar thermal.  The factor of 4 in land area required for the same energy is a big component.  If the target is transportation, there is another factor of 2-4 in power a vehicle from electricity over a biofuel.  Combined, that is a factor of 8-16 to overcome.  What data do you have to suggest otherwise?

          Rate this comment: 12345

          killian
          10/09/2007
          Posts:70
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          • Re: This is not a solution ....Vegetation is a solution
            Photosynthesis is usually not more than 1% efficient. Most plants should be lucky to get 0.1%. Higher percentages are only possible with things like algae, which may be game changers if they become a large scale commercial reality. However, it doesn't look like this is going to happen any year soon. Maybe later.

            Solar thermal electric plants are at least 10 times more land efficient than the best biomass crops, and they use unfertile arid land which doesn't compete with food crops in the first place. Then there is the fact that you have to convert the biomass to electricity to compare to solar thermal electric plants.

            Suffice it to say, solar thermal plants beat biomass anytime in terms of solar-to-electric efficiency. Even the best genetically engineered algae in the distant future cannot yield 10% solar to electric efficiency, and this CLFR design can already do this now, at prices most people can afford.

            But do not dismiss biomass as inferiour. It makes sense in the right context.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            Siphon
            10/10/2007
            Posts:144
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
  • distributed generation
    The grid-based model of electricity distribution is what people are used to, and it does seem like the steam-based technology is going to bring down the price, so this is great news. But another approach is distributed generation, which also seems to be catching on. A project I'm starting hopes to study a cost-sharing business method which avoids some but not all of the storage issues. take a look:

    http://www.solarnetwork.net/
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jwgorman
    10/01/2007
    Posts:15
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • 32 new nuclear reactors
    See nrc.gov for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's list of 32 reactors for which they expect applications for construction and operating licenses in 2007, 2008, and 2009.  NRG Energy has already submitted an application for two reactors totalling 2700 Mw electrical.

    Solar will have to compete with this.  See
    www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jmccsstanfor...
    10/07/2007
    Posts:3
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: 32 new nuclear reactors
      Compete? If CLFR also gets that 80 percent subsidy that the nukes will get, it would be considerably cheaper than nuclear.

      In fact, it would be considerably cheaper than coal.

      But not really of course. Because it's taxpayers' money. Fiscal deception at it's best. Or socialism. Take your pick.

      If you want more nuclear power, go live in France.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      10/09/2007
      Posts:144
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Carbon Negative Energy is essential .
    Sorry killian for daring to suggest that the issue of removing carbon from the atmosphere is an essential part of dealing with global warming . As far as i'm aware solar thermal power can't do that . Exactly what sort of area of land do you expect to cover with solar reflectors ?, the idea that you will cover hundreds or even thousands of square miles if you intend to generate a significant amount of energy is pure fantasy . Do you realise the area of agricultural and forestry land avilable for storing carbon and for producing fuel ? Your certainly not going to build solar power stations on that sort of land . AS far your question about how much energy can be stored as biofuel , far more than you can store in batteries . The sort of energy storage i'm talking about is the sort that could keep a country going through a world energy crisis , like for months or even years on end . How exactly do you expect to increase the output of energy from a solar power station ? Thats all for now , i've lost track of what people have been saying .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    10/10/2007
    Posts:130
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Carbon Negative Energy is essential .
      Think I already answered this in my other comments above.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      10/10/2007
      Posts:144
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: Carbon Negative Energy is essential .
        I wasn't really replying to you Siphon , you seem quite friendly and thoughtful compared to the aggressive killian . What's importantant for our energy system .... sustainability , reliability , renewabilty , cleanliness , safe ...perhaps you can think of some more ?
        Rate this comment: 12345

        DJTal
        10/10/2007
        Posts:130
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: Carbon Negative Energy is essential .
          Sure. It can be explained by the following simple, but elegant, equation:

          LS = f (O1 + O2 + ... + On)* C

          Where LS is the likelyhood value to succesfully solve our energy, environmental and climate problems as a function of the options included in the solution. The precise value of these options depends on the option, and is yet to be determined.

          Some options, however, can sometimes complement each other very well, leveraging their strengths while losing most of their weaknesses. Which is what the C stands for, a compounded value of how well a specific set of options can work together.

          Examples of options include wind, wave, tidal, hydro, geothermal, fusion, fission, bio-energy, direct solar, ocean-thermal and fossil with CCS.

          These all have different values, and some do not complement each other very well. So a careful analysis and selection of options, in all their aspects but also their interaction, is important.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Siphon
          10/10/2007
          Posts:144
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
    • Re: Carbon Negative Energy is essential .
      Biofuels only remove CO2 from the atmosphere temporarily.  As soon you burn the ethanol or biodiesel, the CO2 is back.  Solar thermal doesn't remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but using the energy doesn't put any back either.

      Biofuels take too much land area to be viable.  The recent PNAS article on switchgrass gave 7100 kg/ha, 0.38 L/kg, giving 2698 L/ha.  Assuming you're powering a fleet of vehicles that get 35 MPG on gasoline, the new CAFE standards, it would take 633,000 mi^2 to produce the ethanol.  How green is that?  The equivalent Stirling Energy Systems dishes in the desert take 3,607 mi^2.  Which do you think is greener, 633,000 mi^2 of stolen habitat, or 3,607 mi^2 of mirrors in the desert?

      As for your queries:
      (1) You write, "Exactly what sort of area of land do you expect to cover with solar reflectors ?" It takes 3,607 mi^2 for powering the 2.7 trillion vehicle miles traveled in 2005 in passenger vehicles.  I see no "pure fantasy" here.  NREL estimates there are 6,091 mi^2 of "premium" and "excellent" CSP potential in the U.S. West.  There is more in lesser rated tiers.
      (2) You write, "Do you realise (sic) the area of agricultural and forestry land avilable (sic) for storing carbon and for producing fuel ?"  Yes, I know the mi^2 for these.  Do you?  What do you plan to eat if you use cropland for fuel production?
      (3) You write, "Your (sic) certainly not going to build solar power stations on that sort of land": no, you're going to build it in high insolation areas, such as found on NREL's survey maps.
      (4) You write, "AS far your question about how much energy can be stored as biofuel , far more than you can store in batteries ."  Have you done the calculation?  The number of passenger cars in 2004 was estimated at 136 million, with 6 million motorcycles, and 92 million non-car 2-axle vehicles (mostly light trucks and SUVs), or 234 million vehicles.  Let's ignore the motorcycles, and say the passenger cars have 40KWh battery packs, giving 19.6 PJ of energy storage.  The SUVs have 55kWh battery packs giving 18.2 PJ.  Total 37.8 PJ.  Used once a day for a year, that's 13.8 EJ.  At 60 GJ/ha for ethanol from switchgrass, you  would need 230 million ha (887,842 mi^2) to produce that much energy per year.

      You should do your own calculations instead of just hand-waving.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      killian
      01/10/2008
      Posts:70
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Photosynthetic Efficiency .
    The efficiency of photosynthesis is a big issue , and it's not . It varies widely depending on how ideal the growing conditions are . The efficiency may be low compared to solar thermal power , but can be dramatically increased by providing plants with better nutrition and soil . However , since vegetation covers such vast area of the earth's surface land and ocean , the scale of photosynthesis more than makes up for the low efficiency . Solar thermal plants may have high efficiency , but the scale of operation is very small . I repeat , you will never be able to cover a large enough area of the earth's surface to compete with the production of biofuel . And , unless these solar power plants are built in the most lifeless deserts they will damage valuable habitats , take a look at the advert for solar towers in Spain at the top of this page . The power plant is surrounded by green grass , it has actually displaced vegetation , how 'GREEN' is that ?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    10/10/2007
    Posts:130
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
      Biofuels are a horribly inefficient way to produce energy, and throwing more land into the mix doesn't do enough to offset that.   You still have to harvest it, which kills your theory of tons of land being available to use.

      If it can be harvested, guess what else can be there... ya... solar or wind power.  Beyond that, your method of increasing power output destroys your theoretical negative carbon offset and pollutes the environments the biofuel is grown... real green huh.

      Research and tech into biofuels, sure... we need to explore it.  But advocating the construction of support infrastructure for a proven bad source of energy is horrible.

      Solar works, wing works, nuclear temporarily works, biofuel does not.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Malenx
      10/10/2007
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
        Improved plant nutrition and deeper more carbon rich soils do not damage the environment , covering the land with wind turbines and solar panels , blocking out the sun light that could be used for plant growth does damage the environment . Using agricultural land to store carbon and increase productivity is one of the best ways we have of reducing CO2 levels . The efficiency of photosynthesis is a bit of a red herring . It's not that important to ouselves , what matters to us is how efficiently we can convert the bioenergy into power ..... i guess you meant WIND WORKS !.... i didn't really understand what you meant by ... if it can be harvested , guess what else can be there etc.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        DJTal
        10/10/2007
        Posts:130
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
          It is true that bringing agrichar back into the ground can (and already does) improve the yield drastically.

          It would be interesting to find out what the ideal ratio of carbon in the ground vs biomass(carbon) harvested would be.

          That is, how much of the biomass should be brought back into the ground (in the form of pyrolized agrichar) to get the highest yields of bio-energy while still remaining at a sustainable level.

          If, hypothetically, it turns out that bringing, say, 25% of the initial energy (which would be roughly half of the agrichar) in the biomass back into the ground improves yield by 100%, then the net effect will be that much more energy can be harvested from one area of land.

          If you experiment with different ratios, you could probably figure out what the optimum would be, under the restriction that it must be sustainable. It will probably vary for different crops though.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Siphon
          10/11/2007
          Posts:144
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
            Thanks for your support Siphon . I'm not sure about all these percentages myself . Farming isn't always an exact science . I only mentioned the use of biochar as an example , there are lots of other ways of soil building . For instance are you aware of a company called 'w2energy'(see website) . It's a start up company with technological backing from Drexel University Plasma Institute . They are proposing converting biomass and fossil fuels into synthesis gas and a humic acid type soil conditioner , using a new type of plasma reator called a GAT . A large proportion of the carbon is fed into the soil to increase biomass production , imagine that .... carbon negative fossil fuels  . The more pure hydrogen they can use as a fuel the more carbon can be fed into the soil . They reckon that they can produce synthetic fuels and electricity at competative prices . How does that idea fit into your plans for our future energy mix Siphon ?
            Rate this comment: 12345

            DJTal
            10/11/2007
            Posts:130
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
              Yes, those numbers were just hypothetical, meant to illustrate. The farmers could of course just figure it all out themselves, but it would be nice if they shared their knowledge with other farmers and also scientists. They could work together, maximizing total production.

              Just posted something like a plan in the nuclear thread yesterday. About direct carbon fuel cells. It's a decent bio-energy strategy. Pragmatic at first, allowing pulverized coal, but switching more and more towards bio-energy later. Becoming ever more carbon-negative.

              Are you familiar with the Engineer-Poet? He has a blog, the ergosphere, where he's advanced the biomass pyrolysis idea into quite a bit of detail. During production of the pyrolysis products, this yields a syngas (CO + H2), which can be used to make... well just about any liquid fuel we want. Or directly oxidized in a solid oxide fuel cell (which are projected to be very cheap in the future) to make more electricity. Which would be better when we all start driving plug-in hybrids, as it's just more energy-efficient. Then with a big part of the transportation sector electrified, we wouldn't need that much liquid fuels anymore.

              The part about including zinc is also very promising.

              Plasma reactors are also interesting, but they do have to make them cheap and scalable. We'll see.

              In the post all the way down, there's my idea of what would be one good combination:

              "Solar thermal with daily storage (load following) + solar PV (additional peaking) + wind (winter peaking)+ bio-energy (dispatchability, backup, filling in the gaps of the others) = a very powerful combination, worth considerably more than the sum of it's parts.

              Adding more, such as geothermal, wave, tidal, small hydro etc. might improve the balance even more."
              Rate this comment: 12345

              Siphon
              10/12/2007
              Posts:144
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              • Re: Photosynthetic Efficiency .
                Who does engineer poet think he is .... Shakespeare ? I agree that carbon fuel cells look very promising . I'm a naturalist , so i'm interested in in the natural usage of all of these renewable energies . Mother nature got there before us and all that ......
                Rate this comment: 12345

                DJTal
                10/12/2007
                Posts:130
                Avg Rating:
                3/5
  • solar, wind, etc
    It does look like good idea.

    Why not use solar as the peak source supplementing wind power from turbines off the coasts?

    Is only one way? One "holy grail" of technology?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ljfurman
    10/10/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: solar, wind, etc
      As you can see in my formula above, it makes sense to go for a number of solutions that complement each other.

      For example: solar thermal with daily storage (load following) + solar PV (additional peaking) + wind (winter peaking)+ bio-energy (dispatchability, backup, filling in the gaps of the others) = a very powerful combination, worth considerably more than the sum of it's parts.

      Adding more, such as geothermal, wave, tidal, small hydro etc. might improve the balance even more.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      Siphon
      10/11/2007
      Posts:144
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      • Re: solar, wind, etc
        You have to face the facts.  There are just some places where none of your suggested technologies work.  In such cases it's either pipe biofuels there (expensive) or sequestered coal processes, or go nuclear.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        davea0511
        12/12/2007
        Posts:17
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: solar, wind, etc
          What, you've never heard about transporting electricity through metal wires?

          You should get out more.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          Siphon
          07/03/2008
          Posts:144
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          • Re: solar, wind, etc
            Running wires will take longer and exceeds the cost of converting a coal plant into sequestered CO2 coal plant in many cases.  Running wires costs a lot more than you think.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            davea0511
            07/14/2008
            Posts:17
            Avg Rating:
            4/5
            • Re: solar, wind, etc
              Transporting electricity by wires is proven and has a wide manufacturing base, contrary to coal carbon sequestration. You do lose energy in transporting energy, but not significantly more than sequestering coal's emissions.

              Running wires costs a lot less than coal sequestration, and that's if coal sequestration can deliver on it's promised cost. Which is unproven and thus a liability.
              Rate this comment: 12345

              Siphon
              08/01/2008
              Posts:144
              Avg Rating:
              3/5
              • Re: solar, wind, etc
                The problem with piping electricity from solely renewable sources to locations where those sources don't exist has no problems with the technology and manufacturing base.  The problem is with the cost of copper and other metals that goes into the infrastructure to get that electricity there.  Copper and other needed metals are very expensive, as are the towers and facilities necessary to carry the electricity that distance.

                And Carbon sequestering is proven and even already in practice.  It will increase coal electricity costs by only about 30%, which still makes it considerably cheaper than adding additional capacity to renewables and then adding and infrastructure to pipe it to the remote location.

                I have no problem with people trashing the carbon sequestering technology or nuclear plants, but using cost or feasibility arguments belie the facts.  Carbon sequestering and/or nuclear facilities in the long run are very efficient and cheap.  California's Diablo nuclear facility produces electricity at an average of $0.04/kWh which is some of the cheapest electricity in the nation (next to hydroelectric).
                Rate this comment: 12345

                davea0511
                08/29/2008
                Posts:17
                Avg Rating:
                4/5
  • A Design for Mother of all generators .
    Imagine a tidal barrage , with wave power generators on top of that , on top of that is situated solar power array , and the crowning cherry on the top is a row of wind turbines streching across the estuary , geothermal bore holes are drilled along the length of the barrage , on an island in the middle of the barrage is a nuclear power station , at each end of the barrage are fossil/biofuel power stations ........ just an idea .
    Rate this comment: 12345

    DJTal
    10/18/2007
    Posts:130
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    • Re: A Design for Mother of all generators .
      A floating island on the ocean is far from the ideal location for a lot of these technologies.  Besides the power in having a porfolio of technologies is to fit them to the best suited environment, not cram them all into the same environment and then loose energy through distribution losses.

      However combining wind, wave, & underwater-current generators does make sense.  If merely for the sharing of a common power line.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davea0511
      12/12/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Compressed Air Power
    Has anyone else seen this technology?
    http://www.theaircar.com/further_applications.html
    http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

    How about using one weldingtank with vacume and one weldingtank with compressed air (other gas?) with a compressed air generator / compressor in between. This could eliminate moisture problems and improve efficiency. Two sets of tanks would allow  charging one set and discharging of the other at the same time. I think that the tanks will not help each other after they are both 1/2 full
    that would be the time to recharge. you might be able to do some kind of cascade using 3 or more tanks; like when they make liquid oxegen.
    see kinetics, thermodynamics, conservation of energy.

    solar charges / fills the (welding style tank to 300 bar - 4500psi.)

    clean, easy, cheap, uses existing tanks etc. How about one sized for my house needs about 1000 Kwh. per month or so... 

    A good way to define if this is practical is to figure out how many watts of energy it takes to fill a regular sized welding tank to 4,500 psi with air and how many watts you can get back out of the same tank.  eg. its efficiency versus say a lead acid or NimH battery.

    How long will a welding tank hold its pressure?

    Thanks for any and all comments
    knee jerk comments need not apply.....;-)
    please read the links a little while, then think a little while if you wish to have a meaning full Socratic debate of this methodology...
    Rate this comment: 12345

    geoff
    11/19/2007
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
    • Re: Compressed Air Power
      Compressed air similar to what CLFR Solar uses anyway to store energy, except that it uses compressed steam instead of compressed air.  When the compressed steam is released to produce electricity it works similar to how these compressed-air engines work.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davea0511
      12/12/2007
      Posts:17
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Vegetation is a solution
    I added this as a new thread, but it is a reply on a previous thread.  I have read all the comments on solar vs photosynthesis, and want to make a "philosophic" contribution: In a sense both of them can be seen as carbon negative.  Biofuels run the risk of being carbon positive if the process of producing them consumes more energy than can be utilised, especially if taking into account the efficiency of the final engine used (read "engine" in the broad sense.)  But, let us assume this is not the case.  Currently, the electricity we are talking about of replacing is generated from fossil fuels.  By replacing this electricity with solar, no CO2 is released in the production of the substituted energy.  This means that the CO2 budget does not increase because of the electricity generation, and the current vegetation can continue to do what it does - photosynthesis.  In the same way, if the biofuel is produced correctly, not only can it be carbon negative in itself, but it also contributes to removing a carbon producing technology from the CO2 budget.  I therefore agree with both sides - it is more important to look into producing electricity without increasing the CO2 budget, as well as conserving as much vegetation as possible (with vegetation again seen as sensible vegetation - I disagree with removing rain forests to plant sugar cane, although both of them are vegetation).  And this indeed raises the issue of being nature sensitive about putting up any kind of plant, being a solar farm, wind farm or milk factory!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Daniel from ...
    01/09/2008
    Posts:8
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • question
    wouldnt starting a solar energy plant need fossil feul energy initially to start storing solar energy?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    nithin85
    01/13/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • Depleted oil sands
    I hear from the West Texas oil patch (Permian Basin) that various depleted oil sands bring up a mix of salt water and oil at up to 200 degrees C.  Combine this with your thermal steam power and you really get something.  The pipes are already in the ground and ready for the next energy application.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    mlwass
    03/01/2008
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    5/5
  • On second thought ...
    I don't think this will happen for a long long time.  Why?  Because Solar Thermal companies will sell electricity for the highest price.  When is it the highest price?  When it is being created, in the daytime.  In California daytime rates are up as high as $0.30/kWh, and at night only around $0.10/kWh.

    Not that that's a bad thing because it's good that it produces electricity when we most need it.  It should infact all go to meet the greatest demand and let the market forces determine where that is.  Ultimately, when night time electricity is the same or more expensive as daytime then they'll store the thermal energy to be used at night.

    And that may happen within 15 years if EV's really take off.  Everyone charging their EV at home in the evening should definitely impact the grid at night.  It will be interesting to see just how much.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    davea0511
    08/29/2008
    Posts:17
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.