Mail Online: Making light work of it: The world's first solar power station that generates electricity at NIGHT

[Larry]

Kind of related to some recent posts that were off-topic in whatever thread they were in:

Link.

It looks like a giant art project. But this symmetrical, circular pattern of mirrored panels is the world's first solar power station that generates electricity at night.

The Gemasolar Power Plant near Seville in southern Spain consists of an incredible 2,650 panels spread across 185 hectares of rural land.

The mirrors - known as heliostats - focus 95 per cent of the sun's radiation onto a giant receiver at the centre of the plant.

Heat of up to 900C is used to warm molten salt tanks, which create steam to power the £260million station's turbines.

But, unlike all other solar power stations, the heat stored in these tanks can be released for up to 15 hours overnight, or during periods without sunlight.

The regular sunshine in southern Spain means the facility can therefore operate through most nights, guaranteeing electrical production for a minimum of 270 days per year, up to three times more than other renewable energies.

Glad to see it. Angry that it isn't us doing it.

[mardi gras skin]

Glad to see it. Angry that it isn't us doing it.

I don't think they have rare turtles to worry about in Spain.

[Predicto]

I don't think they have rare turtles to worry about in Spain.

All snickers aside, we are doing a bunch of these projects in California AND not exterminating the endangered tortoises and bighorn sheep. There is a middle ground, you know.

http://www.scpr.org/news/2010/10/25/feds-approve-largest-ever-solar-project-calif/

[Larry]

All snickers aside, we are doing a bunch of these projects in California AND not exterminating the endangered tortoises and bighorn sheep.

All snickers aside, Tailgate would be a lot duller.

[mardi gras skin]

Turtles aside, I think this stuff is totally awesome. Like, Close Encounters awesome.

Did they say if it would be economically viable? How does its cost per unit compare to, say, nuclear energy or coal?

[Burgold]

Very cool. We need to be exploiting these cleaner resources. Have to figure out the storage and all the other side issues, but this is a cool thing. Hopefully, this will inspire our own guys and we can have a alternate energy style space race.

[Predicto]

Turtles aside, I think this stuff is totally awesome. Like, Close Encounters awesome.

Did they say if it would be economically viable? How does its cost per unit compare to, say, nuclear energy or coal?

The initial cost is very high. There is a lot of infrastructure. However, once you get it going, the per watt cost is minimal. You have to clean and maintain the mirrors, but the fuel is free and arrives every morning like clockwork. Over decades it becomes extremely economical.

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 05:06 PM ----------

Very cool. We need to be exploiting these cleaner resources. Have to figure out the storage and all the other side issues, but this is a cool thing. Hopefully, this will inspire our own guys and we can have a alternate energy style space race.

Storage is tough, but one thing you can do is reduce traditional high polluting sources of power when the solar is flowing, and only fire them up when you need to.

[twa]

Over decades it becomes extremely economical.

(Snicker)

How many decades to recoup the true costs?....I'm glad to see it being utilized,but reality intrudes

[mardi gras skin]

The initial cost is very high. There is a lot of infrastructure. However, once you get it going, the per watt cost is minimal. You have to clean and maintain the mirrors, but the fuel is free and arrives every morning like clockwork. Over decades it becomes extremely economical.

Well yeah, but that's true of the solar panels home depot wants to put on my roof too. I'm sure someone has done a cost analysis per energy produced on this tech including all infrastructure and maintenance costs.

[Burgold]

Fewer than we think, esp. as tech improves and as the solar power gained offsets other expenses. Heck, it costs a couple thousand to install collectors on a house (depends on the house and how many, of course), but right now, most of us are spending 100's of dollars per month on our utility bill. If we could cut that in half... it would take less than five years to be making a profit.

[Predicto]

Well yeah, but that's true of the solar panels home depot wants to put on my roof too. I'm sure someone has done a cost analysis per energy produced on this tech including all infrastructure and maintenance costs.

I'm sure they have, or the for-profit power companies that are building these plants wouldn't touch the projects with a ten foot pole, even with tax incentives.

"Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a project under construction in Southern California, will be lower than photovoltaic power and about the same as natural gas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

[mjah]

Having priced out the actual cost of installing a useful amount of solar panels on my house, I can attest to the fact that it costs way more than a couple thousand. The only thing that really makes the payback period reasonable for a homeowner is the generous combination of state and Federal incentives that are available, plus the local power companies' directive to purchase your surplus capacity at market value. Only then does the payback period drop into the 10-20 year range, depending on factors like your SREC credits' value and incentives which vary widely by state. I've seen some installers claim a 7-year payback period, but I have yet to see that really work out in any real numbers.

However.

That's on a one-house scale. I wouldn't try to install a single-house coal fired power plant in my backyard either, but obviously they make sense when economies of scale come into play. (Never mind the environmental impact... for now.)

[twa]

About the same as natural gas if you figure at peak pricing and subsidies......lotta work to be done on costs my friend

They are being built because of mandated purchase of the electricity generated,subsidies and govt guaranteed loans.....the power companies can't lose.(they can of course go broke )

[Henry]

Very cool. We need to be exploiting these cleaner resources. Have to figure out the storage and all the other side issues, but this is a cool thing. Hopefully, this will inspire our own guys and we can have a alternate energy style space race.

... A Sputnik moment?

[mardi gras skin]

Fewer than we think, esp. as tech improves and as the solar power gained offsets other expenses. Heck, it costs a couple thousand to install collectors on a house (depends on the house and how many, of course), but right now, most of us are spending 100's of dollars per month on our utility bill. If we could cut that in half... it would take less than five years to be making a profit.

You sound like the tenacious sales guy at Home Depot. I crunched the numbers and its not a great investment. Its a TERRIBLE waste of money overall once you factor in all the tax breaks involved.

---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 10:02 PM ----------

the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a project under construction in Southern California, will be lower than photovoltaic power and about the same as natural gas.

That is terrific news. I really believe inexpensive and abundant energy production is going to be a huge factor in a resurgence in our economy. The greener the better, but its going to have to be affordable.

[Bang]

That's pretty cool.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

this sort of solar power seems to be much different than the sort we are used to seeing... It doesn't seem like they are using solar panels (the photovoltaic variety), but instead standard mirrors to focus all the light in an area and heat it.

[mjah]

About the same as natural gas if you figure at peak pricing and subsidies......lotta work to be done on costs my friend

I'm fine with that for what is basically a demonstration project.

Do you have a link to the solar-station cost structure vs. other power generation tech? That would go a long way to indicating whether major cost drivers can be improved over time with scale and/or technology, vs. being essentially immobile.

[Hubbs]

"Nathaniel Bullard, a solar analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, has calculated that the cost of electricity at the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility, a project under construction in Southern California, will be lower than photovoltaic power and about the same as natural gas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power

That's awesome. I very much hope to see solar power make a shift over the next 10-20 years that will redefine our entire economic structure. It's all about bringing costs down to fossil fuel levels.

[twa]

I'm fine with that for what is basically a demonstration project.

Do you have a link to the solar-station cost structure vs. other power generation tech? That would go a long way to indicating whether major cost drivers can be improved over time with scale and/or technology, vs. being essentially immobile.

Scarce data since most solar plants operate under different rules....this major expansion should help clarify true costs though....also depends on how you figure costs

but

http://www.altenergystocks.com/archives/2009/06/what_does_clean_energy_cost_1.html

http://www.global-politics.co.uk/issue4/Skinner/

Energy prices (cents per KWh): Coal 4.8-5.5; Nuclear 11.1-14.5; Gas 3.9-4.4; Hydro 5.1-11.3; Wind 4.0-6.0; Solar 15-30; and Geothermal 4.5-30.7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

look ma...we are making alt energy more affordable lol

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills

[China]

Looking at that chart makes me wonder why we aren't investing more in Geothermal.

Edit: I just noticed the prices per KWh twa posted and the high end of Geothermal must be the reason.

[mjah]

look ma...we are making alt energy more affordable lol

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills

Yes, the conflict between coal-power jobs vs. current levels of "cheap" energy which is "cheap" in part because it externalizes much of its true cost. There are no good answers to this one, except for a planned long-term transition away from coal and recognition that its massive health impact is in fact part of its cost. And of course, recognition that there is no such thing as truly "clean coal," except as measured against incredibly dirty coal. Not sure why you would LOL at any of that as there's really nothing funny about it, but :whoknows: ...

Good links on cost though, thanks. I'm surprised by the upper bound on geothermal and I would love to see what the actual probability distributions of cost are per energy source, according to our current levels of knowledge. A lower and upper bound relate nothing about how likely either is to be realized, nor how likely any value in between is to be realized. Of course it all varies by region and many other factors, but that doesn't mean its overall cost can't be given as an estimated distribution. They already have the range, meaning they've assigned zero or near-zero probability to everything outside of it...

Solar's big liability is capital cost (as expected) and its big limitation is capacity factor, due largely to the sun's annoying habit of hiding behind the planet by night, clouds by day. I expect solar thermal to be used someday to handle midday peak loading. Base generation? Potentially, someday, maybe, ehhhhh no probably not. But cost is a lot less important for peaking plants than for base plants. That said, if geothermal's upper cost strata are low-probability events, then geo probably would beat solar under most circumstances until either panels or mirrors get incredibly cheap. There's no good way to know how the costs come down without building and testing the concept a few times over several years or decades.

By the way, even though I'm arguing that solar can play a role someday, I do find a 25% capacity factor for solar PV to be clearly too high. Not sure how they can justify that; I'd imagine it to be under 20%.

[Larry]

Solar's big liability is capital cost (as expected) and its big limitation is capacity factor, due largely to the sun's annoying habit of hiding behind the planet by night, clouds by day. I expect solar thermal to be used someday to handle midday peak loading.

Have I mentioned space-based solar, lately?

[mjah]

Have I mentioned space-based solar, lately?

Why, what's this -- space-based, you say! How delightfully clever!

Please explain!

[twa]

. Not sure why you would LOL at any of that as there's really nothing funny about it, but :whoknows: ...

.

I have a odd sense of humor (and a bit of a sadist)

You will see the expansion of NG to fill the gaps due to solar/wind limitations,due to the low construction cost and ability to ramp out juice quickly.

I think geothermal is very promising,but costs and greenies are a problem.