Solar Power

[Roxanne Appleby]

And now that I have raised everyone's conciousness, might I suggest a letter-writing campaign to encourage the development? It's gotta be better than stripmining Wyoming.

check out the full article - 'geothermal power'. There are still a ton of questions. It's speculative at this point, but the potential is exciting.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

check out the full article - 'geothermal power'. There are still a ton of questions. It's speculative at this point, but the potential is exciting.

Either you are a mistress of understatment or I react more strongly to such things. Exciting? Obsessive!

 

[Weird Harold]

And now that I have raised everyone's conciousness, might I suggest a letter-writing campaign to encourage the development? It's gotta be better than stripmining Wyoming.

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Nevada ranks second in geothermal resources among the lower 48 states.

California is talking and proposing and permitting, and.... and...

Nevada is using Geothermal and has been for at least a decade in the Fernly/Fallon/Yerington/Reno area. None of the plants are huge -- 20-some MW is the biggest, 0.67MW is the smallest -- but small towns and midling sized cities in Northern Nevada are almost enitrely independent of fossil hydrocarbons for their electrical power supply thanks to geothermal.

 

[incubus666]

A little math

The 2 new solar plants will generate 800 MWH The population of CA was 36 million in 2005. so 800^6/36^6= 22 watts per person. This will not even run even run your toaster. The average electric usage per capita in CA in 2005 was 7MWH. 7^6/365=19KWH per day per person.
When they talk about 800 Megawatts they don't bother to tell you what the reference is. Per hour, per day, or per year. Who in the hell knows. They also don't bother to tell the CA utilities payers what the rate is. Only something less then 70 cents per Kwh.
Government in action. Pass a law that they don't know the costs to their constituents or what the results are. The rule of unintended consequences .All in the name of being green.
Mike S.

 

[Guest]

Your link is out of date -- and I suspect out of date when it was created because it doesn't list either Nellis Solar at 14 MW the largest active PV installation in the US (as properly credited inthe Original Post) or Nevada Solar One a nominal 400 acre, 64MW solar concentration "liquid sodium" technology installaion that provides 64MW 24 hours a day with a Peak Load capacity of 75MW.

Each is the largest active US solar power plant in it's class and Nevada Solar One is the third largest active solar concentration plant in the world. and both have been in operation for over a year. (Nevada Solar One is probably providing a portion of the power used to compose this post at 8:20 PM)

You're laboring under a few misapprehensions. The linked page, published in April, is not about the largest active solar thermal plants--just the ones with the largest projected capacity. Nevada Solar One, while active, doesn't have the output to make the Top 13.

Nellis isn't listed because it's PV and the linked page is about solar thermal. Nellis is listed on [URL="http://ecoworldly.com/2008/03/05/worlds-7-biggest-solar-energy-plants/"]this page[/URL], and the link appears in the second paragraph of the "Top 13 Solar Thermal" page.

 

[Guest]

According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Nevada ranks second in geothermal resources among the lower 48 states.

California is talking and proposing and permitting, and.... and...

Nevada is using Geothermal and has been for at least a decade in the Fernly/Fallon/Yerington/Reno area. None of the plants are huge -- 20-some MW is the biggest, 0.67MW is the smallest -- but small towns and midling sized cities in Northern Nevada are almost enitrely independent of fossil hydrocarbons for their electrical power supply thanks to geothermal.

Nevada is to be congratulated; frankly, I envy them the geothermal reservoirs that make their success possible. For the record, it should be noted that California is also currently using geothermal to generate power:

"Because of its location on the Pacific's "ring of fire" and because of tectonic plate conjunctions, California contains the largest amount of geothermal generating capacity in the United States.

In 2007, geothermal energy in our state produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of elctricity. Combined with another 440 GWh of imported geothermal electricity, then geothermal energy produced 4.5 percent of the state's total system power. A total of 43 operating geothermal power plants with an installed capacity of nearly 1,800 megawatts are in California, about two-thirds of the total United States' geothermal generation."


On the linked page you provided, I found this: "An assessment of Nevada's resources by the Geothermal Task Force of the Western Governors Association Clean and Diversified Energy Initiative showed the commercial geothermal potential for Nevada ranged from 1,488 megawatts to 2,895 megawatts."

In 2006, Nevada's total electricity consumption was 34.6 billion kWh, according to Southwest Energy. And demand continues to rise. So, as I've noted before, non-fossil fuel power generation technology needs to continue development on all fronts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yet the government discourages passive technologies.

 

[trysail]

In Praise Of "A Little Math"

The 2 new solar plants will generate 800 MWH The population of CA was 36 million in 2005. so 800^6/36^6= 22 watts per person. This will not even run even run your toaster. The average electric usage per capita in CA in 2005 was 7MWH. 7^6/365=19KWH per day per person.
When they talk about 800 Megawatts they don't bother to tell you what the reference is. Per hour, per day, or per year. Who in the hell knows. They also don't bother to tell the CA utilities payers what the rate is. Only something less then 70 cents per Kwh.
Government in action. Pass a law that they don't know the costs to their constituents or what the results are. The rule of unintended consequences .All in the name of being green.
Mike S.

Mike S.,
It is difficult to tell you how unbelievably refreshing it is to see a Lit poster attempt "a little math."

The population in general is so utterly innumerate that it repeatedly falls prey to the schemes of Pied Pipers, Wall Street, dreamers, charlatans, the gee-wizardry of Silicon Valley, "something-for-nothing politicos" and other frauds. California's sorry financial condition (as well as that of the U.S.) reflects that fact.

I will, however, ask that you clarify your math a bit. I suspect you meant:

( 800*10^6 ) / ( 36*10^6) = ~22 Watt-hours/person ​

As you pointed out, even that figure is not well defined (giving the promotors some benefit of doubt, it probably represents maximum design capacity output during daylight hours on a cloudless day). In other words, the output is highly overstated and the cost is incalculable.

Similarly, 2005 California per capita energy consumption:

( 7*10^6 ) / 365 ) / 24 = ~800 Watt-hours/person ​

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The 2 new solar plants will generate 800 MWH The population of CA was 36 million in 2005. so 800^6/36^6= 22 watts per person. This will not even run even run your toaster. The average electric usage per capita in CA in 2005 was 7MWH. 7^6/365=19KWH per day per person.
When they talk about 800 Megawatts they don't bother to tell you what the reference is. Per hour, per day, or per year. Who in the hell knows. They also don't bother to tell the CA utilities payers what the rate is. Only something less then 70 cents per Kwh.
Government in action. Pass a law that they don't know the costs to their constituents or what the results are. The rule of unintended consequences .All in the name of being green.
Mike S.

The total per capita energy consumption of the US is c. 250 KWH per person per day. That includes cars, factories, light bulbs, heating, cooling, etc. In Britain it's about half that.
source: http://www.withouthotair.com/

 

[xssve]

I'm skeptical of large scale PV, it's best application is for domestic supplementation - domestic use is a huge factor and drives energy costs up for industrial applications.

The problem here is not really production, it's distribution: i.e., the grid itself is sadly outdated, even building new nukes will do no good, since it's the grid that's overloaded in places like CA - Brown outs in recent years have been the result of having to cut back on input during peak hours to avoid blowing the whole grid.

So, the idea with micropower, including domestic PV, is that the source of production is close to the point of use, so it doesn't burden the grid - i.e, it doesn't have to travel as far over the grid, and this increases your efficiency factor by double, since half the electrical power we currently generate is lost in heat and line loss before it ever reaches the point of use.

The second factor in terms of efficiency is that there is currently very little in terms of economy of scale at work in PV, increased demand would result in a rapid drop in prices and increases in efficiency - Moore's law - PV production technology is essentially the same as that for IC processors, except that tolerances are not as high, i.e., quality control is not as critical.

The Clinton/Gore Million rooftops program was designed to prime the pump for economies of scale in PV production with a one time Keynesian stimulus, i.e., installing PV on all government buildings.

The Seimens PV plant for example only operates three months out of the year, because demand is not high enough to keep in operation year round - this results in substantial increases in production costs as the plant has to be re-opened every year, run for a few months and then mothballed again.

Read The Energy Web here, it's a fairly short article outlining the concerns of the energy industry, and the inevitability of the distributed grid.

The cost of upgrading the entire grid, which essentially means replacing it entirely is astronomical. PV can supplement domestic use during peak hours, which are typically in the morning and afternoon, and increase capacity without overloading the grid - you can phase it in, you really only need to start with enough capacity to run your air conditioner which you only do when the sun is shining anyway, and this will drive down costs of large scale fossil based capacity needed for industrial applications.

Increased demand will kick in economies of scale in PV production, and incentivize capital risks in developing new technologies.

 

[R. Richard]

One thing that has come up several times in this thread is that all of the alternate energy sources, except geothermal, require backup when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Well, hydro electric doesn't really require backup, but to gain efficiency, they like to pump the river back uphill during the night, which is an ecological disaster.

If the US is to have a realiable power grid, there still has to be some 24 hour power generation capability. The ideal source for said 24 hour power generation capability is nuclear. True, there have been some highly publicized leaks from nuclear power plants. The most serious was Three Mile Island where about the amount od radiation from a chest x-ray escaped. The US Navy has run nuclear powered war ships for decades with basically no problems.

 

[R. Richard]

The cost of upgrading the entire grid, which essentially means replacing it entirely is astronomical. PV can supplement domestic use during peak hours, which are typically in the morning and afternoon, and increase capacity without overloading the grid - you can phase it in, you really only need to start with enough capacity to run your air conditioner which you only do when the sun is shining anyway, and this will drive down costs of large scale fossil based capacity needed for industrial applications.

Increased demand will kick in economies of scale in PV production, and incentivize capital risks in developing new technologies.

You address air conditioning. If you truly want to go greeen, you also have to address heat. In the western US, you get sun power during the summer and more overcast in the winter. In the East, you tend to get a lot of overcast during the coldest months.

 

[trysail]

It's easy to see why the companies aren't talking about the price tag. To get the same output as four natural gas-fired turbines, it will take 12.5 square miles of installed panels. That's the equivalent of over 6,000 football fields!The total cost will be multiple billion dollars by any calculation (all borne by California ratepayers, of course).

 

[xssve]

See also, Cradle to Cradle, the new manufacturing design manifesto.

And all the hand wringing over the costs of cutting carbon emissions are subject to the same counter arguments as Malthusian economics: the emergence of new technologies to resolve problems with current ones tends to generate economic growth rather than killing it - Detroit thrived after fuel economy increases were mandated, and their current malaise is attributable to backsliding back into uneconomical design.

 

[Weird Harold]

You're laboring under a few misapprehensions. The linked page, published in April, is not about the largest active solar thermal plants--just the ones with the largest projected capacity. Nevada Solar One, while active, doesn't have the output to make the Top 13.

You're correct, I misread this section as indicating a jump form 300MW down to 11 MW and skipping over Nvada Solar One.

Location: Mojave Desert, USA.

Megawatts: 310 MW.

Solar Company & Electric Utility: Florida Power & Light and Southern California Edison.

Status: Operating.

More: ...

Location: Seville, Spain.

Megawatts: 11 MW currently, planned increase to 300 MW.

 

[Weird Harold]

In 2006, Nevada's total electricity consumption was 34.6 billion kWh, according to Southwest Energy. And demand continues to rise. So, as I've noted before, non-fossil fuel power generation technology needs to continue development on all fronts.

Did that reference break it down to show that most of that 34.6 billion KWH was consumed by the City of Las Vegas and most of that on a seven mile section of one street?

My point was that Northern Nevada is using the geotermal resources it has to make entire small towns energy independent.

Southern Nevada is falling behind and the Las Vegas metro area is growing faster and larger than the areas resources can really support -- we've actually had to build supplemental power plants because we've outgrown our share of Hoover Dam's output.

California's Geothermal plants are impressive, but they're much smaller in proportion to the demand (and estimated maximum capacity) than Northern Nevada's.

Both California and Nevada are dismal when compared to Iceland, though.

 

[Weird Harold]

One thing that has come up several times in this thread is that all of the alternate energy sources, except geothermal, require backup when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. Well, hydro electric doesn't really require backup, but to gain efficiency, they like to pump the river back uphill during the night, which is an ecological disaster.

If the US is to have a realiable power grid, there still has to be some 24 hour power generation capability. The ideal source for said 24 hour power generation capability is nuclear. True, there have been some highly publicized leaks from nuclear power plants. The most serious was Three Mile Island where about the amount od radiation from a chest x-ray escaped. The US Navy has run nuclear powered war ships for decades with basically no problems.

Not all Solar designs are crippled by overcast -- although sustained overcast severely reduces their capacity -- and most include some energy storage feature.

A liguid sodium solar concnetration facility can generate continuous power for 72 hours on one good sunshiny day's stored heat energy.

Pumping water back uphill is only one way of storing alternative energy against "slack tide" and it doesn't necessarily have to be pumped into an open reservoir. I've seem one design for a 10KW "farm" system that combines wind and solar with a closed loop water tower/reservoir system to generate a minimum of 10KW 24/7/365 -- peak capacity was somewhere around 40KW if the wind, solar and hydro all generated peak power at the same time.

That farm system wouldn't scale up much bigger than 20KW/installation because of the size of the water tower gets prohibitve fairly quickly.

I've seen a similar proposal using weights instead of water -- like the weights in a grandfather clock -- which probably could be scaled up to small commercial applications.

Trysial did a fair comparison of the relative cost for Nuclear above. Once a Nuclear plant is built, it's incredibly reliable and once the huge cost is amortized, it's fairly inexpensive power -- BUT while the huge cost of permitting and construction is being amortized,[/i] the cost/KWH is about 30% higher than any other sustainable generation alternative.

Florida Power & Light released a study they did before deciding on two Liquid Sodium Solar Concentration plants over a single new Nucler plant that gives precise numbers including cost/KWH to the customer over the lifespans of the two types of installation.

 

[incubus666]

The total per capita energy consumption of the US is c. 250 KWH per person per day. That includes cars, factories, light bulbs, heating, cooling, etc. In Britain it's about half that.
source: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Here is a link to a Washington Post article that that I got my info from, It's in the 5th paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html

Mike S.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Here is a link to a Washington Post article that that I got my info from, It's in the 5th paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html

Mike S.

Uh-huh. And Britain doesn't need air conditioning and they're on 220 current. That is a lot more efficient than 110.

 

[Weird Harold]

The total per capita energy consumption of the US is c. 250 KWH per person per day. That includes cars, factories, light bulbs, heating, cooling, etc

Here is a link to a Washington Post article that that I got my info from, It's in the 5th paragraph.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274.html

Mike S.

Apples and Oranges. Roxxy's number is total energy consumption in KWH equavalents, yours is actual per capita KWHs without worrying about other forms of energy usage.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Those ARE substantial problems. If I'm reading the USGS's contour map (found at: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/structure/crust/index.php )
correctly, there's nowhere on the North American continent where the earth's crust is thinner than 30 KM. That's a LOT of drilling and a WHOLE lot of pipe to keep clean for just ONE geothermal well.

Of course, we can look for magma intrusions from the mantle into the crust that create geothermal reservoirs and would only have to drill a few miles; but those places appear to be relatively limited on this continent.

I know that these few points don't sum up the entirety of the case for or against geothermal's practicality by any means. Personally, I'd love to see it happen. Practically, maybe not in my lifetime, or yours. I'm in favor of non-fossil fuel energy sources developing on all fronts.

Try Yellowstone National Park, you know, the one with the geysers, I believe there is a hot spot in the mantle there seeing as it's probably the larges caldera in the world.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The 2 new solar plants will generate 800 MWH The population of CA was 36 million in 2005. so 800^6/36^6= 22 watts per person.

Back-of-the-envelope calcs:

Assuming:

The sun shines 12 hours a day (on average), so this plant descibed in the OP would generate 11 watt/hours per person per day, and

The US cut its per-capita energy use in half from 250KWH to 125KWH, then:

We would have to cover 852,272 sq. miles with such installations to supply the energy needs of the entire country. The US excluding Alaska is 3,131,000 sq. miles. We'd have to cover 27 percent of the land area.

California would have to cover 102,240 sq. miles. California's size is 163,696 sq mi. They'd have to cover 62 percent of the state.

This also assumes some perfect storage magic.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

It's easy to see why the companies aren't talking about the price tag. To get the same output as four natural gas-fired turbines, it will take 12.5 square miles of installed panels. That's the equivalent of over 6,000 football fields!The total cost will be multiple billion dollars by any calculation (all borne by California ratepayers, of course).

And of course it will never happen. The politicians who are passing such mandates in every state know it won't happen, and the rent-seeking utility companies that are going-along because the bills all bake-in lot of goodies for them know it won't happen.

Why won't it happen? Because it's impossible. They all know it is, which is why every one of these "renewable" mandate laws has an escape clause built in. Generally these give the state utility regulator the power to waive the mandate in any year when it judges that the cost would be, to cite the technical language, so high that it would piss-the-hell off middle class voters. In some cases they include a number, requiring the waiver it the mandate would increase costs by around 5 percent.

So why pass these bills? To fool the people into thinking they're "doing something."

Suu-ckers!

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Try Yellowstone National Park, you know, the one with the geysers, I believe there is a hot spot in the mantle there see as it's probably the larges caldera in the world.

I believe that Yellowstone is the second largest caldera in the world. Lake Toba in Indonesia is the largest. One of the problems with tapping Yellowstone for energy is the fear that doing so would decrease the geyser show. I'm not sure that this is valid. Somehow, it seems to me that drilling into the hot rock from the side would give us an enormous amount of electricty without having to mess with the tourists' show.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I believe that Yellowstone is the second largest caldera in the world. Lake Toba in Indonesia is the largest. One of the problems with tapping Yellowstone for energy is the fear that doing so would decrease the geyser show. I'm not sure that this is valid. Somehow, it seems to me that drilling into the hot rock from the side would give us an enormous amount of electricty without having to mess with the tourists' show.

I too doubt the decrease in activity even if you were to tap directly from above. And as they (scientists) are worried that this super-volcano is overdue for and eruption, I think running millions, if not billions of gallons of cool water into the rock might delay the eruption another 750,000 years.