New Techonolgy: Solar Thermal. This isn't Your Grandma's Solar Energy!

Germany isn't the United States. They don't have the solar resources we do but solar thermal even works when there's snow on the ground. When there's a will there's a way. And there is a Will to be rid of nuclear. Believe you me..

 

200 pages of posts on the subject and you still have not learned that solar is not a 24 and 7 seven power supply, it's hopeless

 

You still haven't learned that reducing the carbon and radiation-footprints means augmenting those or replacing them with other ways to boil water or other fluids with much less heat requirments..

And we do have ways of storing that heat at night to use for energy generation, during the lowest-use times. Did you forget that night uses the least energy of all?

 

you still have not been able to name a single storage facility that can store 50MW of electricity for more than 7.5 hours.

 

Jackdog, try to envision this in your mind. Envision as much onsite storage as a plant can manage to run REFRIGERANT boilers at night, during low use times with least-demand on the machines. They even have plans to use deep excavation in rock caverns, or shallower in hot spots. Maybe they could even live next door to their cousins geothermal: which you keep neglecting to mention DO produce power 24/7.

Then imagine these plants being built next door to already existing or newly erected carbon backup units. There's your 24/7 power. Why is "hybrid-power" such a dirty word to you? That's a rhetorical question. Hybrid-power answers all your questions and concerns...and more. It works. And it will deliver the power we need 24/7 while reducing the carbon and radiation footprints worldwide.

That's why you don't like to talk about hybrid systems. And why you keep trying to divert the topic to "why just solar themal won't work". You're right. Build them next to natural gas or carbon steam generators. And decommission nuclear 100% [due to its 0% tolerance for human error].

 

There, I think that's what you call a compromise. Fair enough?

 

Actualy this is an informative thread with allot of good information. Good posters and very well staked out positions, I like reading some of the posts, I can learn from them.

 

Along with this "compromise" is a three-fold increase in the cost of electricity. How many people that are paying $100-$200 per month for electricity today can afford to pay $300-$600 per month for the same electrical usage tomorrow?

 

Nice scare tactic: and a lie.

You know as well as I do that We the Taxpayers already subsidize nuclear power at 100% or over. So we are paying TWICE for nuclear power. In taxes and at the meters.

Those are facts. And who profits? The subsidized "power plant owners". They don't have to take into account overhead. Must be nice eh? That's the taxpayer's burden to worry about. And that doesn't even begin to include the discussion of what to do about the waste plutonium that sits around at direct threat to life for 24,000 years..

Meanwhile you assert that burning less carbon will be more expensive when augmented/replaced during peak hour use by solar thermal steam turbines? Are you high on crack? Really? The Kimberlina solar thermal demonstration plant in Bakersfield, CA was erected in 7 months from minimal materials. Take a close look at the facility again, in case you missed the video before..lol..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lWzZGEmbE"]AREVA's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant - YouTube[/ame]

So a larger MW plant might take a year to a year and a half to erect. Fine. Do it. Put one next to every carbon plant we have in the US. See how "expensive" it is in 10 years from now..lol... What a complete shameless spinner you are..

Free sun is "more expensive than nuclear or carbon"...lol...LOL!!

Speaking of saving all that money with solar thermal steam turbines doing their part to reduce carbon and radiation footprints in the US. How about what all that cheaper energy will do for our national standing and trade deficits? It has been shown that the cheaper a nation can produce energy, the more they can compete on the world market. Wow, so solar thermal translates DIRECTLY into more wealth for America. Are you listening Wallstreet?

 

Not that I have any huge studies or exact numbers to back this up (outside of industry) most people can decrease their electricity use by 50% with little impact to their quality of life. So if we take your $300-$600, that would end up being $150-$300..... considering they were paying $100-$200 not a horrid mark up compared with say gas, or lately food.

 

It seems like a lot of people simply will say anything to convince us that we should avoid getting off of our unsustainable fossil fuel addictions.

SMDH

 

Please show us how we can reduce our electricity use by 50% without impacting quality of life. I can see 10-25%, but not 50%. I want to read your suggestions.

 

It'd take specific detailed examples to support such a claim.

However, it's more important to point out that the idea of electricity somehow requiring money to have, is ridiculous. It would however require some equipment and some basic knowledge of electricity to make it yourself.

 

And it is not economically practical in all 50 states. But solar energy should be used where it is economically available. The more the better.
.
.

 

Silly. We have grid systems. You produce massive solar steam where we have ample sun, and this can be in many places. Hot temperatures aren't required, just sunshine. And you send it along the grid. Any sunny day anywhere will take the burden off carbon. Thermal solar steam plants are so relatively cheap to construct and take so little time to do so that we could quickly switch over to this new hybrid system.

Again, countries that produce cheap or free energy [like solar steam turbines] will rule the world. China is already erecting these hybrids. So, you know, do the math..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkucHl4GgN8"]Concentrating Solar Power Plants 1 MW- 5 MW (Fresnel technology) - YouTube[/ame]

 

Both nuclear power and solar power have both been subsidized by government. Coal and oil also received subsidies of different types. I oppose government funding for any of them.

The fact remains that at the meter the cost of solar electrical generation is estimated to be three times to cost of basically any other type of conventional electrical power generation. What's on the meter is what the People have to pay regardless of government subsidies and it isn't a "scare tactic" to cite the fact that solar power would increase the meter cost to the consumer by about three times what they're paying now. It is merely presenting a fact.

 

Knock it off right now. You look at the title of this thread. Look at it.

This isn't about photovoltaics. So stop saying it is.

This is about SOLAR CONCENTRATORS USING THE SUN'S RAYS ON A FOCAL POINT/LIQUID TO GENERATE SUPERHEATED STEAM TO RUN TURBINES.

I swear, I'm about to report you to the moderators for trolling.

Here it is again. LOOK AT THE VIDEO.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkucHl4GgN8"]Concentrating Solar Power Plants 1 MW- 5 MW (Fresnel technology) - YouTube[/ame]

This energy is cheap to construct, takes little time to do so, and turns over a profit probably in the shortest time of all steam driven turbine technologies. Hands down.

Please stop dispensing disinformation by trolling.

7 months. All it took was 7 months to construct this demonstration plant. Look at the equipment. Compare it to carbon or nuclear plants. Even the permitting is so easy it's a joke. There are next to no safety issues compared to nuclear or carbon.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3lWzZGEmbE"]AREVA's Kimberlina Solar Thermal Power Plant - YouTube[/ame]

 

What exactly is peoples' beef with solar energy anyways? That it's not entirely consistent at any location?

I'm sorry, but if you have a week where 3-4 days it's sunny and 3-4 days it's not very sunny, and you get some energy due to the 3-4 days that it is sunny, that's better than never putting any solar panels up and getting exactly ZERO energy ever from it.

 

We aren't talking about solar panels here. And in fact it doesn't make a lot of sense to do that with solar panels because they are quite expensive. You'd never see your investment back on them.

However SOLAR THERMAL STEAM TURBINES are VERY DIFFERENT FROM SOLAR PANELS.

They use focused sun rays to boil water or other fluids to high-pressure steam to run turbines. VASTLY different than solar panels. And much cheaper to set up. With a much quicker return on the investment.

But you're right in the very basics of what you said: why object to solar steam generators if they run 5 days out of 7? Think of the millions of tons of carbon fuels we would save each year if 5/7ths of our maximum energy demand was covered by the sun shining on fresnel/parabolic concentrators?

THAT is world economic domination right there folks.

Build a solar steam plant right next door to every carbon plant. Hook their grids together and only run the carbon plant in the very few times you need to.

Sit back...and watch America's portfolio grow..

 

My point remains, though.

And, what about home electric generators made of nothing more than conducting wires and simple machines?

 

That sounds stupid actually. Not because people haven't created their own energy at home, but because it attempts to denigrate solar thermal steam technology as a centralized and potent contender to replace nuclear steam and augment carbon steam as "something akin to tinkering in your backyard".

It sounds too "solar-panelly", to "this won't worky". Which it factually is not.

It creates steam at 300C and sometimes in excess of this. In fact, if the pipes carrying the fluid are too close to the fresnel concentrators, they might be in danger of cutting through the steel. Such is the power and heat of the focused sun.

Not to be trifled with in the backyard. Nothing like that at all.

 

What does this have to do with my points? Were you responding to me? If so..respond to me! lol

 

Talking photovoltaics, the price of them is not quite yet worth the amount of energy they can harness. Photovoltaics are environmentally harmful to produce.

 

What's not costly nor environmentally harmful to produce would be simple generators, made of nothing but copper wire and simple machines and maybe some magnets (which would be more costly but could produce electricity faster).

 

You know little or nothing about conventional plants. They can't just be turned on and off with the turn of a switch.

Distributed solar (primarily home solar panels) will be important in the future when it gets cheap enough. Centralized solar (like you are recommending) probably won't be important.