Posted on 11/06/2007 5:42:09 AM PST by rellimpank
"The New Age of Energy" trumpets the cover story in U.S. News and World Report this week. Illustrating the revolution is a photo of what looks like a carpenter's level stuck in the ground after just arriving from outer space.
In fact, it's a real facility -- the PS10 Solar Tower just erected in Spain. Writes U.S. News editor Marianne Lavelle in a breathless report:
Solar energy may be poised to make the leap from the rooftop down to the floor of the desert -- where some advocates say it needs to be if it's going to take its rightful place as a member of Big Energy....Instead of using semiconducting material to convert energy to sunlight -- those familiar black photovoltaic panels -- [the new technology] will use nothing more complicated than mirrors, lots of them, to concentrate some of the highest-intensity sunlight in the world. The arrays will heat water to drive turbines just as in an old-fashioned power plant.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
The Green Weenies can rail and experiment all they want. There is no substitute for nuclear power to generate electical power. NONE - based on cost per kilowatt hour. Once Washington can again become responsible, and mandate and license the building of nuclear plants, we can have a chance of moving away from dirty coal, and the horrid dependence on Arab oil for which there is NO EXCUSE.
This country remains without a functional, comprehensive, and responsible energy policy that provides for its needs and demand. Washington has AGAIN failed to pave the way. Failure seems to be the normal mode of operation, in favor of short-term, personal politics in the Beltway.
Solar Tower is nothing new. There was one decades ago in Spain, and the US, mainly for experiment purpose. Is it useful? In terms of output, yes. At least it’s better than solar panels and wind turbines, with solar towers generating large amount of energy. If it’s worth less dependency on oil from Middle East, and with a reasonable cost performance, it’s worth having one. It’s all about cost performance, and less dependency from Middle East oil. Forget the green stuff.
When comparing Total cost, including capital investment and fixed O&M in addition to fuel, Coal, even with CO2 sequestering, is cheaper.
Cost and Performance Characteristics of New Central Station Electricity Generating Technologies
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/assumption/pdf/electricity.pdf#page=3
Pick a typically Nuke Plant size and run the numbers. I am not against nuclear power. The US should use more of it, combined with more mining allowed of our uranium and reprocessing of the fuel. That would help in the cost as well as reduce the volume of nuclear waste that has to be disposed.
There has been a solar power tower out in Kalifornia for years. Near Barstow (34.87N,116.83W).
Does not work on cloudy days or at night.
“The Green Weenies can rail and experiment all they want. There is no substitute for nuclear power to generate electical power”
You are so right. I fought the Greenies here in Nevada over Yucca Mountain. I used to visit Solar One out at Barstow, the economics just don’t work even for huge collector systems. All a waste of money.
AGW™ ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.