Posted on 03/01/2008 3:28:56 AM PST by PeaceBeWithYou
A lens is an optical device that focuses the light rays from the sun. The lens does not focus thermal energy, as from convection heating.
Capturing of solar energy is supposed to be the cause of global warming (trapped by CO2). Here they are directly and efficiently capturing it - in turn to be released as heat energy (trapped by CO2) - doesn’t this mean they will be adding to global warming? (/sarc)
They just keep throwing up houses out there in the desert. How long before the river runs dry before it runs through the canyon?
This is not solar cell technology - it is concentration of sun’s radiation to heat water to steam to drive the turbines, much like using a lens to focus sun’s energy to a point - try it - you can easily light paper (at the focal point) on fire with a 2 or 3 inch magnifying lens.
P.S. U.S capacity was somewhere around 1,000,000MW circa 2006.
Concur, the correct answer would be about 20,000 plants (within an order of magnitude).
We’ve been operating a 1MW plant sitting on about 5 to 6 acres in SoCA, and it works fairly well. You can track the output with the daily solar angle fairly well. Off at night on in the morning.
One weakness in these projects is that they tend to be quickly finances, insufficiently designed for any maintenance aspect, are installed virtually maintenance free, then simply left to deteriorate. Whomever is going to be left to foot the maintenance and demolition charges should have review input on the initial design.
Typically, such solar projects are better sized for households at about $30-$40k a pop for say a 4kW generating capacity (about 750W per square of roofing).
One weakness in installing on the roof, is that they have to be removed when the structure is reroofed or when there is a roof leak.
They work fairly well on sunshades, such as carports where occasional roof leaks are inconsequential.
IMHO, a better investment would be to build carports over large parking areas such as shopping malls, or airport parking, and install the photovoltaics on them.
Solar heating is generally more efficient and saves more money by absorbing solar heat into a water filled copper coil, painted black with reflectors behind it, in a thin sheet shell. Simply looped and can get water up to 140 deg F fairly quickly. When tied to an insulated water tank, the hot water can be kept warm for several hours and reinforced with a secondary heat source for late night winter requirements.
Steam presents other problems in corrosion which tend to favor medium temperature hot water instead of steam as a heat medium for utility use in a campus or district wide setting.
In this project, 1 sqmi at 640 acres, or 2 sq miles of solar PVs seems a bit poorly though out especially at $15,000 per acre. Desert land is only worth about $26 -$40 /acre undeveloped. It moves up to $2k-5k per acre only after two lane asphalt roads, sidewalks and fire mains are installed around areas supporting 50 occupants each, so when subdividing a 1 section (1sqmi) area into residential lots, the value goes up with the water main and traffic circulation routes installed.
At $14,000/acre, it must be irrigated and robust arable farmland.
Using sunlight to boil water? This is definitely cutting-edge.
So will the mirrors on this stoopid project be blinding the eyes of pilots of passing aircraft and knocking them out of the sky??
... The collaborative public-private partnerships established herein will work to reduce the nominal levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of CSP power plants from 13-17 ¢/kWh in 2007 to a target of 7-10¢/kWh by 2015 and 5-7¢/kWh by 2020. DOE estimates that satisfaction of these cost targets could lead to installation of 16,000 to 35,000 MW of new generating capacity by 2030. This would result in a savings of 36-80 million tons of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere each year relative to coal plants of similar capacity.
See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/news/progress_alerts/progress_alert.asp?aid=237
This is concentrating solar power. Photovoltaics are more expensive but costs are coming down there as well. Solar is still subsidy dependent; wind is getting close to viability; corn ethanol is over the hump. Things are getting interesting.
That’s more acres than will be impacted by the entirety of drilling for Oil in ANWR.
And ANWR is more barren. Not that this place isn’t barren.
you jumped the shark. first thing is to divide kWh by 24!
OK, that’s a $15,000 per customer capital outlay. There will be operating costs as well, but no fuel costs, so there’s a good chance that over the 30-year operating life they can easily amortize the $15,000 at less than the fuel costs associated with a standard plant.
Looking another way, they are talking about generating 280 megawatts. Over a 30-year period, their 1 billion capital investment comes out to 1.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. I didn’t adjust for future-value of money, so let’s double that to 2.6 cents per kilowatt-hour. that is significantly less than the energy costs of a typical oil-burning plant.
The questions I had weren’t answered. When they say “280 megawatt”, is that the average per year they expect to generate hourly, or is that their peak? If peak, then the total output is much less since they won’t generate electricity at night. They probably have storage capability so my guess is the 280 is their peak AVERAGE not the peak at noon on the hottest day of the summer.
Mirrors don’t really break down that often, unless they have some freak hailstorm of monumental proportions and can’t turn the mirrors to protect them.
Your math is rusty! Very rusty :)
$14k/acre is about what FL grove land is going for. The author may have this figure wrong,
That might also be the price to buy contiguous land adjacent to a utility corridor to simplify transmission line costs.
You raise a good point. But these type of plants accumulate heat (some residual) - don’t know the exact figure and not sure what the 280 MW is peak or average.
You are correct. Something about this deal smells. $14,700 an acre is outrageous for undeveloped desert land. I just heard of land going for $3,000 an acre, and it was only a few years ago that you could buy it at $100 an acre.
I will have to keep this on hand when I am thinking of selling property.
Doubtful. 3000 acres is not much land.
Is an acre of desert really worth $14,700?
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.