Titanic

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml

Florida recently added 3 solar powered electric power stations to its grid. Each produces about 100 Megawatts of electricity and operate on natural gas at night. Theyre small enough and simple enough to scatter about. This sort of scheme might be perfect for 3rd world developing nations where pollution, etc. isnt already entrenched, and islands where sunshine is plentiful. It solves a lot of problems.

But I dont believe we'll do it because too many government-institutional investors are storing money in oil.

 

[R. Richard]

I have no information about the Florida solar plants. However, solar power is normally quite a bit more expensive than other forms of power. The cost of the solar power generating equipment is still quite high, although falling. The cost of operation is also high. [The sunlight is free. The cost of keeping the solar panels clean aint free.]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Plenty of places have cheap labor to clean with.

 

[colddiesel]

Plenty of places have cheap labor to clean with.

It's not just cleaning. I was a t a location in Broome WA a couple of months ago which is 1200 miles from the nearest city(pollution). However the solar panels were losing efficiency because of damage by birds bats insects etc. Maintenance costs are fairly significant

 

[SeaCat]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml

Florida recently added 3 solar powered electric power stations to its grid. Each produces about 100 Megawatts of electricity and operate on natural gas at night. Theyre small enough and simple enough to scatter about. This sort of scheme might be perfect for 3rd world developing nations where pollution, etc. isnt already entrenched, and islands where sunshine is plentiful. It solves a lot of problems.

But I dont believe we'll do it because too many government-institutional investors are storing money in oil.

James,

I hadn't heard about this. What are they using to creat the electricity? Photovoltaic?

There are other methods for creating electricity using solar energy out there other than Photovoltaic, although I haven't heard of them being used in large scale. (Most of them use reflected/focused sunlight to creat steam in a closed system which spins turbines.)

I am always interested in solar systems if for not other reason than reflection and refraction are fascinating.

Cat

 

[keeblercrumb]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml

Florida recently added 3 solar powered electric power stations to its grid. Each produces about 100 Megawatts of electricity and operate on natural gas at night. Theyre small enough and simple enough to scatter about. This sort of scheme might be perfect for 3rd world developing nations where pollution, etc. isnt already entrenched, and islands where sunshine is plentiful. It solves a lot of problems.

But I dont believe we'll do it because too many government-institutional investors are storing money in oil.

Good for you, JB, seriously, good for you. It is such a refreshing change from "Jane, you ignorant slut" crap we have been throwing at each other recently on energy, etc..

I hope we all can continue to work at imaginative ways to solve the current energy crisis. To do so in a way that all makes moot the Global Warming question is even better.

Thanks,

-KC

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's not just cleaning. I was a t a location in Broome WA a couple of months ago which is 1200 miles from the nearest city(pollution). However the solar panels were losing efficiency because of damage by birds bats insects etc. Maintenance costs are fairly significant

There is no place in WA that is 1,200 miles from Seattle or Tacoma or Portland or Spokane.

 

[sr71plt]

I've lived in Cyprus, where solar heat is put to good use. (Virtually all of the residential water is heated with solar systems). And Cyprus is pretty much like Florida in reliability of sunshine. Unfortunately, very little of the rest of the United States is anything like either Cyprus or Florida in sunshine coverage. We had solar panels to augment our other systems when we lived in Northern Virginia, having been impressed with their use in Cyprus. They didn't pan out as much help--they certainly wouldn't have worked as our only power source for anything. When we sold the house, the next set of owners took the system out.

It sounds like a good thing for Floridians and other similar environments to put to maximum use, though. I keep telling my sister in Phoenix to give it a try (She laughs at me and tells me the water comes out of the tap boiling already.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've lived in Cyprus, where solar heat is put to good use. (Virtually all of the residential water is heated with solar systems). And Cyprus is pretty much like Florida in reliability of sunshine. Unfortunately, very little of the rest of the United States is anything like either Cyprus or Florida in sunshine coverage. We had solar panels to augment our other systems when we lived in Northern Virginia, having been impressed with their use in Cyprus. They didn't pan out as much help--they certainly wouldn't have worked as our only power source for anything. When we sold the house, the next set of owners took the system out.

It sounds like a good thing for Floridians and other similar environments to put to maximum use, though. I keep telling my sister in Phoenix to give it a try (She laughs at me and tells me the water comes out of the tap boiling already.)

Actually, there are some very sunny areas of the US, in AZ and NM and TX and CA and some other states.

 

[sr71plt]

Actually, there are some very sunny areas of the US, in AZ and NM and TX and CA and some other states.

Some, yes. I said that. More not, though. It's a regional possibility only. To be really useful, it needs to be a year-round, almost-always something to count on. Northern Virginia is in the South too. Wouldn't even be close for us here in Central Virginia--we have nearly total tree canopy over our lot.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/06/27/cnbarclays127.xml

Florida recently added 3 solar powered electric power stations to its grid. Each produces about 100 Megawatts of electricity and operate on natural gas at night. Theyre small enough and simple enough to scatter about. This sort of scheme might be perfect for 3rd world developing nations where pollution, etc. isnt already entrenched, and islands where sunshine is plentiful. It solves a lot of problems.

But I dont believe we'll do it because too many government-institutional investors are storing money in oil.

A single nuke would produce the same power as dozens of such installation on a tiny fraction of the land they require, and without burning a single cubic foot of gas at night, or when it's cloudy, etc.

 

[Weird Harold]

James,

I hadn't heard about this. What are they using to creat the electricity? Photovoltaic?

As far as I can determine, nothing until 2011. the only reference I can find to a solar power generating plant in Florida is a 300MW fresnel concentrating solar thermal plant scheduled for 2011. That will be Solar Thermal Plant with heat storage for 24 hour operations without needing natural gas backup for the nighttime. (I could NOT find any reference to Florida Power or Solar Power plants in JBJ's link)

There are other methods for creating electricity using solar energy out there other than Photovoltaic, although I haven't heard of them being used in large scale. (Most of them use reflected/focused sunlight to creat steam in a closed system which spins turbines.)

The largest solar power installtions currently in operation inthe US are both here in southern Nevada:

Nevada Solar One: a 400 Acre 64MW liguid sodium Solar Concentration plant.

And Nellis Solar Power Plant: a 140 14MW solar tracking photovolatic array.

There are installations under construction in Florida, New Mexico, California and Arizona that will individually and collectively dwarf both of Southern Nevada's plants when/if they come online between 2010 and 2021.

 

[Weird Harold]

A single nuke would produce the same power as dozens of such installation on a tiny fraction of the land they require, and without burning a single cubic foot of gas at night, or when it's cloudy, etc.

That's very true, Roxy. However, that nuke plant doesn't exist and can't possibly be built and come online before 2018 and probbably not before 2025. Not to mention the cost difference. The 300MW plant I did find that is scheduled to come on line in three years has just started consturction if I read the reports correctly and will cost approx 350 Milllion dollars. A recent report of a study by Florida Power on the xcost of a Nuclear Plant in South Florida estimated the construction cost of a 1,000 MW plant at $30 Billion dollars.

That's a thousand times as much cost to generate just over three times as much power -- doesn't sound like the kind of choice a free market advoacte such as yourself would champion.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ROXANNE

Youre correct. I support nukes. But I'm suggesting solar for places where nukes arent practical or desirable.

CAT

FPL is adding 3 solar heated turbine units to its territory. Cape Kennedy gets one. Martin County gets one. And I cant recall where the 3rd goes. I think FPL converts sunshine to electricity to heat the water for the turbines.

 

[colddiesel]

Is Box Lost

There is no place in WA that is 1,200 miles from Seattle or Tacoma or Portland or Spokane.

Google Broome or better Google Earth it! You'll be a long way from Washington>

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

ST. PETERSBURG TIMES

Florida Power & Light, the state's largest utility, announced Wednesday it plans to build three solar energy plants in Florida, including one that would be the biggest of its kind in the world.

The three plants in South and Central Florida will cost $688-million and represent the first commercial-scale renewable energy to be installed in the state. Combined they will be capable of generating enough electricity for 35,000 homes and businesses, which - while small - marks a big step up for solar technology.

FPL Group chairman and CEO Lewis Hay III made the announcement at a two-day state Climate Change Summit in Miami hosted by Gov. Charlie Crist. "Pending regulatory approval, FPL will build 110 megawatts of solar power right here in the Sunshine State, making Florida No. 2 in the nation for solar energy," Hay said.

Hay credited a new energy bill signed Wednesday by Crist "that put a supportive policy framework in place for solar power."

The governor opened his second climate summit saying now is the time "to define our next step forward" for the "green future of the Sunshine State."

FPL's solar plants are part of a seven-year plan announced by the company last September to install 300 megawatts of solar energy in Florida. "The announcement today is a little over one-third of that in less than one year," said FPL president Armando Olivera.

"We think that is pretty good," he added, saying that sites for all three plants had been selected and permits granted. Contracts for the solar technology are due to be signed in the next few days.

Construction of the plants should begin later this year, and the plants would become operational some time in 2009, he said.

The company is awaiting final approval by the state Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities. "That's the only thing we are missing," he said.

The news was welcomed by clean energy activists who have long argued that utilities were not doing enough to invest in solar energy, the world's cleanest renewable energy source. In the past, utilities said Florida's skies were too cloudy to make solar power cost-effective as a reliable energy source, unlike the Southwest - where FPL Group already operates a big solar plant in the Mojave Desert.

Wednesday's news "needs to be applauded," said Stephen Smith, director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. "By going to this kind of utility scale of production they are showing that solar does have potential in Florida, and that will drive cost down further."

FPL says it is has another five solar projects in the works in Florida. "The technology is improving almost daily," said Olivera. "It's becoming more cost-effective."

When carbon emissions begin to be penalized financially, as some governments already are doing, that would make emissions-free solar energy even more competitive, he added.

A 25-megawatt facility in De Soto County will be "the world's largest photovoltaic solar panel facility," the company says. A second 10-megawatt solar panel facility will be built at the Kennedy Space Center.

A larger 75-megawatt solar thermal facility will be built at FPL's existing Martin County plant, which runs on natural gas. By adding the new solar thermal technology, which uses intense heat from the sun to power steam turbines, the company hopes to create "the world's first hybrid energy center," allowing it to switch off its fossil-fuel gas-fired plant when there's enough sun.

Each sunrise will be the equivalent "of taking our foot off the gas pedal," Hay said.

FPL's solar plans may help offset the negative image of its much-vaunted Sunshine Energy Program, which charges customers a voluntary $9.75 monthly fee to help develop green energy.

Nearly 39,000 Florida Power & Light customers gave the company $11.4-million over four years to develop green energy, but a report this week by Florida's Public Service Commission shows most of the money went toward administrative and marketing costs.

The program "does not currently serve the interest of the program's participants," the report found.

FAST FACTS

Energy law boosts solar power

Key pro-solar provisions in the energy bill signed by Gov. Charlie Crist at Wednesday's climate change summit:

-The value of solar equipment can't be added to the value of a home for tax assessment purposes.

-Net metering, the utility industry term for the way power companies compensate consumers for solar power they privately contribute to the grid, must be standardized statewide.

-New solar panel manufacturers that create at least 400 new jobs in the state can receive a capital investment tax credit.

Credit: Times Staff Writer

 

[colddiesel]

Nuclear fuel waste

Berkeley Nuclear Power Station in the UK was the first commercial nuclear powerstation to be opened in Britain. Started Building January 1957 . Full commercial operation of 275 MW(Magnox technology) in June 1963. Operated smoothly until 1989 when the government closed it down basically as a learning exercise in closedown procedures(Magnox was also out dated as a technology).

The final closedown is still fraught with difficulty. What is to be done with the waste radioactive material ? To date the Brits have been unable to take the political decision to concentrate the waste material because whilst it drastically reduces the size of the waste enormously but the bit that is left is very nasty stuff indeed. Basically political gutlessness has put off a decision that should have been taken 50 years ago.

However ,so far as I know only France concentrates the waste though I don't know what happens in the USA.

Personally I support the development of Nuclear Power but only if the waste issue protocols are sorted out before any development is started.

At the moment the relevant authority says the reactor buildings at Berkeley will probably have to be maintained for "at least 200 years" I am uncertain as to the technical necessity of that but it is food for thought.

 

[keeblercrumb]

Soviet Era Condom

That's very true, Roxy. However, that nuke plant doesn't exist and can't possibly be built and come online before 2018 and probbably not before 2025. Not to mention the cost difference. The 300MW plant I did find that is scheduled to come on line in three years has just started consturction if I read the reports correctly and will cost approx 350 Milllion dollars. A recent report of a study by Florida Power on the xcost of a Nuclear Plant in South Florida estimated the construction cost of a 1,000 MW plant at $30 Billion dollars.

That's a thousand times as much cost to generate just over three times as much power -- doesn't sound like the kind of choice a free market advocate such as yourself would champion.

Harold you are exactly right... that is the minor hiccup with Nuclear power and one that makes it such a strange energy "choice" for the "right".

Through out it's history, nuclear power has been massively subsidized by the Federal Government, including all of it's research and technological development costs. And for the last 20 years or so, equally massive Federal investments and subsidies have been poured into the handling and storage of nuclear waste.

Even with all that Federal help, the "glory days" of Nukes was only feasible with the highly regulated, but guaranteed return, utility monopolies which were the norm 40-50 years ago.

In trying to understand why this should be, the love affair with nuclear power amongst those who consider themselves, in theory, ardent free market believers, I can only conclude that it only because the "anti-nuclear" lobby has traditionally been environmentalists who despair at the potential for ecological disaster that nuclear power brings with it.

And, of course, the "right", absorbed as it is with making and keeping money, has been ridiculing these "greenies" for so long, it is inconceivable to them that they should share a common interest.

Carbon fueled power generation and it's resulting price and environmental impact is primarily the legacy of deregulation(free market). The decline was exacerbated by the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island incidents which eroded the public's confidence in nuclear power and it's tolerance for subsidizing it.

In hindsight, those "greenies" of the past should have made the lack of it's economic feasibility (use of tax money) as the cornerstone of their anti-nuclear campaign, and just quietly rejoiced in the "free" reduction of environmental risk which that appeal would have reaped for them. That they now have been hoisted on their own petard in the form of greenhouse gas proliferation, is an irony repeatedly noted above by those on the right. But there is plenty of irony to go around on this subject by those whose sole ethic is a free market place, as I hope I have demonstrated above.

But me? I think resolving this energy crisis is EXACTLY the kind of thing for which government investment on behalf of us all is necessary and worthwhile. I would include Nuclear power in that and all other forms of alternative energy research, including solar, etc. as noted by JBJ above.

There are times when government subsidies are entirely appropriate and necessary to the continued success of our economy. Notable examples of this in the past include the giving away of "public" land to subsidize the trans-continental railroads and other massive investments in infrastructure (the interstate system, hydro power generation, etc., etc, ), that the market place simply cannot or does not provide.

As a card carrying liberal (where is that fucking card, anyway?), I firmly believe in utilizing market forces whenever and wherever it is possible to provide effective, efficient and sustainable solution to "problems". But I also believe that there are solutions which can ONLY be achieved by the collective power of the government acting on our behalf; that government of the people, by the people and for the people thing, if you will.

Deciding which problems need which "solution" is the business of our politics.

-KC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

KEEBLER

Leave the unicorns and fairies out of your posts and you'll be hailed as a brainiac.

Of course the government should be used when an issue requires the congealed resources of the nation. A people friendly government is how you foil Darwinian anarchists or repair communities destroyed by natural events or terrorism, etc.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Is Box Lost

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
There is no place in WA that is 1,200 miles from Seattle or Tacoma or Portland or Spokane.

Google Broome or better Google Earth it! You'll be a long way from Washington>

Okay, okay. I'm not lost. To me, "WA" is the abbreviation for the state of Washington.

 

[SeaCat]

ROXANNE

Youre correct. I support nukes. But I'm suggesting solar for places where nukes arent practical or desirable.

CAT

FPL is adding 3 solar heated turbine units to its territory. Cape Kennedy gets one. Martin County gets one. And I cant recall where the 3rd goes. I think FPL converts sunshine to electricity to heat the water for the turbines.

James,

Looking at the article you posted after this I understand what they are doing. Thanks.

Cat

Oh and the Martin County facility will use focused sunlight to turn water to steam which will then turn the turbines. Most likely this will be a closed system.

 

[Bodhidharma]

The 300MW plant I did find that is scheduled to come on line in three years has just started consturction if I read the reports correctly and will cost approx 350 Milllion dollars. A recent report of a study by Florida Power on the xcost of a Nuclear Plant in South Florida estimated the construction cost of a 1,000 MW plant at $30 Billion dollars.

That's a thousand times as much cost to generate just over three times as much power --

Thirty billion is not a thousand times more than 350 million.

It is less than a hundred times more.

Also, consider that solar only produces power for a portion of a day, not the full 24 hours.

Still, it would seem to be more cost-effective.

And, no spent fuel rods to dispose of...

 

[keeblercrumb]

Thirty billion is not a thousand times more than 350 million.

It is less than a hundred times more.

Also, consider that solar only produces power for a portion of a day, not the full 24 hours.

Still, it would seem to be more cost-effective.

And, no spent fuel rods to dispose of...

Yeah Harold! It is ONLY a hundred TIMES more expensive!!

Almost a bargain....



(Sorry, Bodi...., could not resist!)

-KC

 

[Bodhidharma]

Yeah Harold! It is ONLY a hundred TIMES more expensive!!

Almost a bargain....



(Sorry, Bodi...., could not resist!)

-KC

That's cool. It's still so much better, no need to exaggerate...

 

[Weird Harold]

Thirty billion is not a thousand times more than 350 million.

It is less than a hundred times more.

Also, consider that solar only produces power for a portion of a day, not the full 24 hours.

Still, it would seem to be more cost-effective.

And, no spent fuel rods to dispose of...

I really should use my calculator for those simple decimal point shifts..

That 300MW Florida project is a solar concentration type of solar plant that heats an intermediate heat storage medium -- liquid salt or sodium in most of them -- so that they generate power 24 hours a day and deal with up to 72 hours of no direct sunlight.

Photovoltaic solar installations do only work on sunny days, but they also tend to be under 50 MW -- most I've found specifics on are under 20MW.