Why solar energy will never fulfill our national energy needs!

The problem is that most of the eco-nutcases look to "Green Power" and think immediately of Wind and Solar power. And as of yet, these produce neither the amount of power needed, nor at a cost that is economically reasonable.

Wind and solar simply produce trickles of power, and cost a lot of money. And they are highly dependent on sources that are dependent on things like weather.

Instead, they should look at the original green energy source, and one that has been in use for over a century.

Hydro power.

Hydroelectric plants use no fossil fuels. They operate 24-7, reguardless of weather conditions. In fact, Ocean Energy (tidal generators, wave generators, osmotic generators, and thermal energy conversion generators) are all being shown to have an enormous energy potential, and can be placed almost anywhere.

And most of these use the efficient kinetic energy systems that have been proven to work for over a century, without the need for elaborate technologies of the systems most people talk about.

And for those that still want to talk about smaller scale electric generation, they should avoid solar and look to Stirling engines. These have been around for almost 200 years, and on a small scale can be highly efficient. Disenco and other companies are making small scale home units, which can produce 3 KW of electricity, and also create the heating needs for an average home.

And there are experimenters that are playing with Stirling engines that do not use any fossil fuels at all. These have been combined with hot springs, cold springs, solar heat, and a great many other heat sources.

When I think of "Green Energy", I seriously look at older technology as being the real use, not the modern ones that are highly expensive, but more "sexy".

 

WRONG

You're doing the old "solar = photovoltaics" diversion again. When will you schills give it a rest?..lol..

SOLAR THERMAL SUPERHEATED-STEAM is what I'm talking about when I bring up "solar thermal".

NUCLEAR AND CARBON PLANTS USE THE SAME STEAM-GENERATION THAT SOLAR THERMAL DOES!!!! so when you're talking about "how solar thermal won't work", what you're actually saying is, "nuclear and coal won't work"...

And of course that is patently absurd!

 

Nice picture.

Now here is the problem. And yes, we know that your idea works. It has been done in California for decades. This is nothing new, revolutionary, or exciting.

After all, SEGS-I went operational in 1984, useing a system very similar to what you are describing. However, it is located in the Mojave Desert (which is one of the higest temperature and highest number of sun days in the world), covers over 82 kilometers square, and only generates 14 megawatts.

This just is not very efficient.

To see a similar production in use today, look at what was done at Nellis Air Force Base, in Nevada (another hot and sunny place).

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9829328-54.html

140 acres of the base will be turned over into a thermal solar generation plant. And when done, it will only supply around 25% of the base power needs.

To make it easy, let me use these figures to do a rough calculation. Maybe this will make it easier to see.

To power the greater Los Angeles Meto area, you will need such solar collectors that will cover over 546 square miles. At the cost of over $20 trillion dollars, you will get a solar plant the size of Phoenix, Arizona. And it will only power Los Angeles.

And have a 25 year lifespan, and another $50 billion a year operating cost.

Not very efficient.

Especially when you look at the cost of the Nellis Plant, compared to what it will generate. The article from CNet states that it will save "$1 million a year in energy costs". And it has a lifespan like most solar plants before a major overhaul is done on the entire system: 25 years. So before any major costs (theoretically) need to be spent other then routine maintenance, it will save the Government $25 million.

But what is the cost of this system?

$100 million. That's right. As part of the President's cost saving program, we are spending $4 to save $1.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32172

 

Which shows to me that you have done absolutely no research at all, and have absolutely no idea what I am talking about at all.

SEGS, is Solar Energy Generating Systems. It is a collection of solar power plants built in the Mojave Desert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEGS

Every single one of these generates power by useing mirrors to reflect the solar rays to a thermal heat exchanger, which is then used to generate electricity.

These are NOT photovoltaic.

Now kindly look up the information about SEGS. Look at how it works. Look at the areas covered and the amount of power generated.

Then kindly tell me how I am wrong.

If you can't even do any kind of research on your own, and rely on others to correct your faulty (or non existant) research, then there is nothing further to be said from my side.

 

Notice how we never see how it's efficiency is affected by cloudy days and how much night time heat loss there would be in northern states.

 

And the trouble with most conservatives who use cliches rather than science is that they can't google worth a (*)(*)(*)(*)

Hydro - bloody expensive, requires the right environment, has MORE land requirement needs than solar - cannot be scaled down to rooftop or portable lols

Wave Generation - being trialed in England and unfortuately we had a beauty of a water desalination plant that was powered by wave generation - bloody thing sank because of a really bad storm

Tidal - up until now about the same issues as hydro - unless you were standing next to the Bay of Fundy it just did not give us the reliable power.

Now thanks to the concept of underwater kites we may have an answer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme.../02/underwater-kite-turbine-green-electricity

Seems like the UK and Australia are the ones putting in the hard research on a lot of this while the Americans sit back and complain that "it is all a political conspiracy to make Al Gore more money"

 

Hmmmmmmm - Germany, you know European country in the more northern parts of Europe, not known for sunny weather or large convenient deserts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany

The only ones fixated on an "all or nothing" idea are the conservatives who cannot seem to accept that research is powering ahead in this field and will over take what is now being used. Just as we have had improvements in computers so will we see improvements in power generation and storage

Already many of the problems with photovoltaics are being overcome with Moten Sodium solar thermal coupled with Vanadium Redox Batteries but there is also on the near horizon Lithium air batteries, but solar itself is constantly being improved - not to mention the latest idea where they are talking about making insulation act like a heat pack so your buildings become hugely more efficient at storing day time heat energy

 

The Mojave plant was built in 1984 as you stated and is the equivalent of a 1984 computer compared with what is being used today.

The Nellis airforce base seems..............odd - firstly because it is photovoltaic not solar thermal and you really should be getting more power generation than that over that spread of land

 

An argument against Tidal, Hydrogen, and wave isn't a very good argument for solar energy. That fact is that Solar will never meet the World's energy demands, and has many unintended consequences that environmentalists will not calculate in any of their projections. The best course for the United States is space exploration...all research done in the name of solar energy will be stolen by China and made cheaper.

 

Not exactly arguing AGAINST them - just the notion that the reason why we are not using them is because of "The En-viro-mentalists"

And don't underestimate yourselves - I was reading about the new lithium air batteries being researched there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium–air_battery as well as the novel concept of "negawatts"

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/narrowing-in-on-negawatts/1

and new ways of insulating people and buildings

http://www.newscientist.com/article...gs-and-clothes-could-melt-to-save-energy.html

(what I loved about the last article is that one of the groups of people they are trying the concept out on are remote herders in Western China!)

 

And how is this drastically different from your system?

The drawing above shows how the SEGS system does it. Notice, I have never mentioned BrightSource. That is a new company, with a new project. I am talking about an operation that has been working for decades. And uses a system very much like what you are talking about.

Try shutting up and whining about others not understand you, and not understanding your idea, and look at the information we are giving you. The more and more you ignore what the rest of us are informing you about, the more and more you look like yet another ignorant troll, who only wants to listen to himself talk.

 

Cite your figures for claiming that superheated steam created by focusing the sun for free, given that all power plants come with construction and maintenance costs, is somehow "not worth it" vs superheated steam from expensive coal, gas or uranium burners?

I can't wait to hear this..lol...

 

And you have something to support your contention it has never been upgraded to new technologies as they came along?

 

You know, I have provided a lot of different links to systems that are up and running. With plenty of sources, how much they cost, and their lifespan.

Give us your references. Show with 3rd sources how yours is going to work, and better then the others.

Troll.

 

Calling names is no way to have a debate.

I have but one source to cite: logic and common sense.

Anyone with logic and common sense can see that if you have three ways of bringing water or other fluids to superheated steam temperatures, and all three are expensive to build [let's just say for argument's sake, even though solar thermal will be the cheapest of the three hands down, especially considering operations], and all three need maintenance, occasional replacement parts and so on...if one of those three uses NO EXTRACTED FUEL, then the logical mind can execute the following equation:

0 [fuel extraction/refining/burning costs] over [x] years = the equation 0x when calculating operation costs over time....and this is important here... to differentiate, all other things being equal, which source of power to heat fluid to steam is cheapest. 0x = $0 That's how much fuel costs a solar thermal plant over time.

Now then. Uranium & coal/natural gas mining, refining, labor, transportation, scrubbing, and often unbelievably toxic waste management [there is no, again "zero" toxic waste associated with solar thermal operation] are not free. Not even close. Not by a long shot.

Ergo, solar thermal energy is the cheapest way of manufacturing superheated steam to run the same type of turbine generators that nuclear, coal or natural gas do.

So, cite the same source: logic and common sense. And then make your argument Mushroom. Let's see how you do. But calling names is no substitute for a gentile debate.

 

How conveniently they forget the eco facts regarding this niche power source.

If it was banned in 1979, what kind of enviro waiver did the the solar power plant get from the EPA? Maybe they missed the memo that Therminol was banned around the world.

 

I'm glad you included this. It fits into the "nullify by all things equal" category of what I was just discussing. We know that coal mines have horrible disasters, pollute streams and groundwater for centuries. We know that nuclear plants produce the most horrific disasters of all, rendering entire regions of the globe uninhabitable forever with just one accident.

I'll take the storage tanks exploding over either of those. At least they can be contained locally and have the least potential of the three steam-producers I mentioned [nuclear, carbon and solar thermal] in widespread and longterm environmental damage. Sure, there will be "mysterious" explosions at solar thermal plants as they begin being built. Just like there were "mysterious" explosions in labs developing alternative energy over the last four decades or so. And just like how patents for alternative energy "mysteriously" were bought up and destroyed by random anonymous people over the last four decades also.

But the benefits of free superheated steam, augmented by the occasional carbon backup by building solar thermal in tandem with carbon plants is well worth putting up with the predictable "explosions" and minor damage as compared with a coal mine exploding and burning out of control for centuries or a nuclear plant melting down and crapping the most toxic substances known to mankind into the ocean forever to poison our tuna and other fisheries, especially apex predator fish that concentrate toxins as they eat.

The occasional exploding molten salt tank? Sure. Take that any day hands down.

 

Continued....

Very soluble in water and known to cause cancer, that's a great combination. If this junk starts leeching into the ground water.............

 

But it is not "free superheated steam". Look at the SEGS plants. They use a system of heating the water almost exactly the same way you do.

And they still use a supplemental natural gas boiler to get the steam to the right temperature.

You have no evidence your system would work. You remind me of a guy we had a year or so back, who proposed this "perfect military fighting vehicle. He would talk about how wonderful his invention was, and show us diagrams he made himself. But he had no confirmation that what he designed would even work, let alone any proof to back up his claims.

I see your diagram and your claims, and it has about as much validity as perpetual motion and water powered cars.

 

Attempted strawmen aside..lol.. Yes, hybrid power. Thanks for saying you acknowledge it now..lol..

Yes, they fire up an auxillary at night. Great! Think about the carbon reduction in our atmostphere over a year's time of ONLY firing carbon up at night, the lowest-use time of all? WOW! Pretty cool eh?

Oh, and Professor Peabody, when you talk about the carcinogenic effects of the stuff in molten salt storage, don't forget to include known carcingens with coal and nuclear boilers. Remember, we are not discussing solar thermal in a vacuum. We are discussing solar thermal as compared to nuclear and carbon steam producers.

I'll await your statistics on carbon and nuclear cancer-causing agents. Otherwise, it looks like you have no concern about environmental hazards really, and are instead just targeting solar thermal for some type of smear campaign. Your passion against solar thermal without fairness is evident.

 

So do you agree your trading one polluting evil for a very expensive, inefficient alternative? How is that any help at all?

I don't know how many gallons of toxic water soluble substance a tank of 30 feet tall and 80 feet in diameter holds, but it's quite a lot and you'd need at least 3 tanks + backups.

 

"Strawman". Translation, I have nothing to answer this with, so I will not give you any facts, and try to divert the argument yet again, while still not giving any evidence to my side of the argument.

Oh, and I have not made any claims on nuclear or any other kind of power that uses fossil fuels. Since I made no claims to these, I am not going to even bother with this nonsense.

And if you look back at my posts, I am a strong supporter of Hyrdoelectric power. Dams on waterways, tidal flats, and the like. This is the cleanest power there is.

 

You are indeed correct, Buffalo Soldier.

The Chinese government will copy our technology, mass produce it and sell it back to us at one half the price.

The money Obama is spending to develop "green energy" power systems using U.S. taxpayer money is a waste of our most valuable respources!

Also, the maintenance costs for many of these "green" energy systems are astronomical!

 

Wrong, and speaking of China, they are implementing solar thermal on a wide scale. They will surpass us in energy production. But not in the ways you're thinking..

Since solar thermal is the least expensive of the three: carbon, nuke and solar thermal...you have just inadvertently called nuclear and carbon steam astronomically-unaffordable.

And I agree!

 

Well gang, why do you focus on the splinter in solar thermal steam's eye when it comes to costs and environmental nightmares while ignoring the forest of logs in the eyes of carbon and nuclear steam generators?