About this much:
Posted on 09/30/2009 5:08:02 AM PDT by reaganaut1
AMARGOSA VALLEY, Nev. — In a rural corner of Nevada reeling from the recession, a bit of salvation seemed to arrive last year. A German developer, Solar Millennium, announced plans to build two large solar farms here that would harness the sun to generate electricity, creating hundreds of jobs.
But then things got messy. The company revealed that its preferred method of cooling the power plants would consume 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of this desert valley’s available water.
Now Solar Millennium finds itself in the midst of a new-age version of a Western water war. The public is divided, pitting some people who hope to make money selling water rights to the company against others concerned about the project’s impact on the community and the environment.
“I’m worried about my well and the wells of my neighbors,” George Tucker, a retired chemical engineer, said on a blazing afternoon.
Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation’s energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.
“When push comes to shove, water could become the real throttle on renewable energy,” said Michael E. Webber, an assistant professor at the University of Texas in Austin who studies the relationship between energy and water.
Conflicts over water could shape the future of many energy technologies. The most water-efficient renewable technologies are not necessarily the most economical, but water shortages could give them a competitive edge.
In California, solar developers have already been forced to switch to less water-intensive technologies when local officials have refused to turn on the tap.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
That’s what a Great Lakes czar is for.
The “Solar One” project in California uses a closed-loop system with phase-change molten salts to store energy.
It’s exotic and expensive at the moment, but costs could maybe come down with economy-of-scale replication.
More:
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Solar_Project#Solar_One
For your eyes also!
More efficient photovoltaic collectors are a good way to go. The fact that the solar energy is converted directly to electricity removes the need for water. However current technology reflects 70 to 80% of the light that strikes the surface.
I know that 80% efficient photovoltaic cells have been produced in the lab but industrial scale production seems to be a ways off. With that kind of efficiency, a few square feet on a roof would be more than enough to power an average home.
That said, solar isn’t always the best way to go. Some solar would be OK as a back up here in Michigan but hydro is probably best for us. Unfortunately we’re removing dams rather than using them.
bump
This just gets more hilarious by the minute.
Too rich.
the wikipedia article is confusing. apparently the solar Two project was shut down and yet the article praises its ability to deliver power.
I wonder how much water is wasted by all those fountains blowing and going 24/7 in Las Vegas???
Not gonna happen anytime soon. Solar thermal is 30% efficient. Most mass-produced solar cells are aroung 10%, with a very few types reaching 20%. Also, PV still needs storage. Solar thermal can incorporate the needed storage MUCH more easily.
Not a lot since the water is recirculated through the fountain's pond. There is some evaporative loss though.
Seems like a lot of water being wasted, I wonder how much wayer a Nuke plant uses in the same time period.
I think it was only a test project to prove the technology would work at all, since it was so new at the time; they proved that, so now it’s on to the next project?
Solar Tres (Spain) is apparently the commercialization of that concept.
Given the very arid conditions around Las Vegas, I would suspect the evaporative losses to be quite large. I'm aware that the water is recirculated, but water is also recirculated in a steam plant (which is what a nuke plant is) cooling tower. The only losses in such a tower ARE evaporative. The difference between the fountains and the cooling tower is that the water is warmer in the cooling tower.
About the same. Once the high-pressure steam leaves the reactor, what you have downstream is a standard steam turbine (or more than one). A solar thermal plant and a nuke plant are identical as far as their needs for cooling.
Momentum on Climate Pact Is Elusive (NY Times acknowledges no recent global warming!)
About this much:
Solar Millennium, announced plans to build two large solar farms here that would harness the sun to generate electricity, creating hundreds of jobs. But then things got messy. The company revealed that its preferred method of cooling the power plants would consume 1.3 billion gallons of water a year, about 20 percent of this desert valley's available water... Here is an inconvenient truth about renewable energy: It can sometimes demand a huge amount of water. Many of the proposed solutions to the nation's energy problems, from certain types of solar farms to biofuel refineries to cleaner coal plants, could consume billions of gallons of water every year.
;’)
The Bum Rap on Biofuels
American Thinker | 5-13-08 | Herbert Meyer
Posted on 05/14/2008 3:59:06 AM PDT by Renfield
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2015711/posts
Campaign to vilify ethanol revealed
ethanol producer Magazine | May 16, 2008 | By Kris Bevill
Posted on 05/17/2008 9:22:13 AM PDT by Kevin J waldroup
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2017389/posts
Not thrilled with ethanol other than as an additive (for now) but biodisel looks good.
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.