Why solar energy will never fulfill our national energy needs!

Actually, I am fully in support of "green" energy myself.

What I am against is the new flavour of "Green Energy". The ones with no proven track records, which are horribly expensive to build and maintain, and do not have any kind of a proven lifespan or track record.

There are ways I would love to see some of these done. I would love to see Solar Shingles for homes and businesses come down to where they are affordable as a replacement for more people. In fact, I would love to see them become mandatory somday in the future, when the cost drops to where they compete with conventional shingles.

I would love to see small wind generators lower in cost, until they reach the point that anybody with 5 acres of land could afford to buy one.

But if you notice, these are all supplamental energy sources, none are described as being the main electric source. And there are a great many reasons why.

Yes, solar is "free". However, the technology is very expensive. And depending on where you are, you will never get more then 50% of the time where you can generate useable amounts of power.

Wind is great, but what if the wind is to light, or to heavy? Most people do not know, but during strong winds, wind turbines are shut down to prevent damage.

And wind is very labor intensive. I used to regularly drive past the wind farms outside of Palm Springs, Tahachapi, and Livermore. And I would say at any time, 50% or more of the turbines were shut down for maintenance. Not a very efficient system, and very costly.

And yea, I personally love Nuclear Power. Great track record, lots of power generated, no polution. I place it #2 behind Hydro as the best green answer to electric production.

 

No, it is because we are trying to have a debate with what seems to be children.

You propose this "revolutionary" system, which is not that amazing, it has been done for decades. We show you similar systems, how little they produce and how much land they need, and you totally ignore it. Even when asked point blank to comment on how it is different from yours you go on about PV systems (which the SEGS is not).

FAIL

You act like the salts used is simple NaCl, and safe for the environment. But it is not safe, it is highly dangerous. And when confronted with these facts, you ignore it.

FAIL

You insist that your system is cheap, but you have absolutely no evidence to prove that whatsoever. You have no scientific or engineering background, even though there are experts that have been doing this for decades and are still trying to get them to break even.

FAIL

Do you want to know the cheapest way to get superheated steam? It is virtually free, and has been in use for decades.



Welcome to Geyser Valley, California. The world's largest Geothermal Electricity facility, currently pumping out around 960 megawatts of power. It has been in operation since 1960.

In fact, it is even more green then green. Because it is also part of the city of Santa Clara's water reclamation system. After the waste water for the city has been treated, it is then used to create steam. And since steam is pure water, any impurities are left behind in the process. So it both makes electricity and purifies waste water.

Can't get much cleaner then that.

And of course, you are so blinded on the mistaken concept that you need to raise the temperature of water until it is explosive steam, that you ignore any other power system. Like one that in one facility that produces over 2 gigawatts, and uses no steam at all.

 

One of the basic things many miss in this discussion is understanding that the costs of alternative energy might be higher than the status quo. And why should this be a problem?

What is the point in considering alternative energy in the first place?

If we had half a brain, we would learn how to become a sustainable society. This means living within our means to produce whatever it is we need. Regarding electric energy, if we wish to stop coal-fired energy production, or to avoid risky nuclear power, what's left? What's left is producing energy from the oceans, rivers, wind, geothermal, and the Sun.

So what if it costs more in the beginning? When you run out of oil, or can't tolerate more CO2, or fear nuclear, or truly understand global climate change effects, so what if we pay more since in the grand scheme of things the idea is to SAVE THE PLANET! Stop producing CO2 and conserve natural resources...

 

In bold above...I think you'll find the city is Santa Rosa, CA

 

My bad, one minor mistake, the name of the city the waste water comes from. Thanks for the correction.

 

Your sudden "environmental concern" is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!

Heavy metals and acid rain from coal plants? Prof P says "NO PROBLEMO"!

Radioactive waste and danger from nuclear plants? Prof P says "NO PROBLEMO"!

Deaths, pollution, wars and subsidy of foreign espots in the goal for MORE oil? Prof P says "NO PROBLEMO"!

Some solid rocks made of cooled molten salt that when dissolved by rain over the next 10,000 years MAY put the equivalent amount of nitrates in water that we get from a HAM SANDWICH? Prof P says "RUN AWAY RUN AWAY! TOO DANGEROUS!!"

"TOO DANGEROUS" to oil and coal company profits, that is......

Look! Salt from the sea coming to kill us ALL!




Salt sitting RIGHT ON THE GROUND! RUN AWAY!



MORE SALT! AIEEEE!



A salt mine, spreading DEATH for 5 million years!!

 

I can show you if you'll tell me how many kWh you use per month.

 

Wow, you really pounded the crap out of that straw man, Davey! The salts used in the solar-thermal plants are NOT the same as those you (dishonestly) posted the pictures of. They are water-soluble and TOXIC. In a fresnel plant, they are extremely hot, they need to be under extremely high pressure, and they are, of course, highly corrosive. A pressurized system containing about a million gallons of incredibly-corrosive, toxic chemicals at high temperatures...yeah, I think I'll pass on that one.

 

Considering you past positions, your LACK of "environmental concern" is EVEN MORE ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS!

I never said that. However, your advocating trading one evil for another even bigger one. 900,000 gallons of water soluble highly caustic carcinogens under high heat and pressure ready to go straight into the ground water supply? That's better.....really?

900,000 gallons of water soluble highly caustic carcinogens under high heat and pressure ready to go straight into the ground water supply? That's better.....really?

900,000 gallons of water soluble highly caustic carcinogens under high heat and pressure ready to go straight into the ground water supply? That's better.....really?

Your problem is the heat storage Molten Salts aren't solids they are water soluble liquids and will quickly assimilate their carcinogens into the ground water Dave. Please tell us how this is better?

You mean too dangerous to the drinking water supply.

C'mon Dave, that's just silly. The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate.

The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate.

The molten salt is a mixture of 60 percent sodium nitrate and 40 percent potassium nitrate.

 

We are not talking about NaCl, Sodium Chloride. We are talking about Chemical Salts.

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

This is a very different beast then the salt you are thinking of. And if you had read and understood what was written, you would understand the difference.

Sodium Nitrate, Disodium Phosphate, Sodium Bisulfate, these are also "salts", and highly dangerous.

Even Sodium Bicarbonate (Baking Soda) is a salt.

 

You are very correct, Mushroom.

Many (most?) of the liberals and progressives in this group have absolutely no earthly idea how the "green" technology they "love" so much even works!

Sad. ... Very sad!

 

I can only defer to Ronald Reagan.......

 

In this aspect I am rather lucky.

When my family moved to Idaho in 1975, my mother got a job with Idaho Power. And during trips, I was able to visit a great many hydroelectric dams through the state. CJ Strike, Swan Falls, Hells Canyon, Barber Dam, the original American Falls Dam, and others. And these tours were not the type the general public gets, even being able to walk through the turbins when they are shut down for maintenance, and other areas generally "off limits".

I also got to tour EBR-1 and the Jim Birdger Power Station, the EBR-1 tour before it was open to the public (I remember having to wear a radiac badge for the tour). Later when she went to work for the Morrison-Knudsen Corporation, she was assigned to work for the experimental Oil Shale facility in Rifle, Colorado. I got to see that facility also in the late 1970's.

So I more or less grew up touring and visiting electric production facilities. As an adult I got to tour the SEGS III-VII a few years after it went operational (one of my neighbors worked there, and I was curious how it worked).

And my first job in 1993 after leaving the military was at the Jensen Water Filtration Plant north of Los Angeles. Most people have no idea that in the facility there is a small generator that captures some of the power of the water falling down the hill into the water plant.



And most people also do not know of the relationship between LA power and the nearby Pyramid Lake - Castaic Lake dams. During peak power useage, water is allowed to flow from Pyramid Lake down to Castaic Lake to generate power. Then in the evening during non-peak hours, water is pumped from Castaic Lake back up into Pyramid Lake, so the cycle is repeated. This allows the generation of 4.5 megawatts of power, with little water lost, and with no use of fossil fuels at all.

It should also be obvious to anybody that reads my comments that I do like many aspects of "Green Power", especially the various aspects and variations of hydroelectric power. As seen with the Pyramid-Castaic system, this can be very a very efficient way to generate power. And all through the California Aquaduct, there are small power stations set up to recover electricity from the force of the water flowing through the pipes.

I also like the idea of Solar Shingles and Roof panels as supplamentary soueces of power, but not as a primary source. More installations of these would help reduce the need of more conventional primary sources of electricity, but would never totally eliminate them.

I think the only reason I seem to be attacked is that I do not embrace the unproven "New Age" forms of "Green Power". I see them as wastefull, poluting (in the production of the system itself), and expensive. Not a very good alternative in my belief.

 

Well, solar panels opportunities are shining down for homeowners as the state continues to be one of the best places in the country for homeowners to invest in clean and efficient solar power.

solar panels new jersey

 

Yet with all those "likes", why the beef with solar thermal steam?

There does seem to be a palpable "beef" with solar focusing, one that transcends facts and logic and has entered into the realm of dogmatic religion..

It almost has the flavor of a group of little girls where a pretty new girl has just joined school and the dominant ones begin to nitpick her relentlessly "so the boys won't even be tempted to consider holding hands with her". It has that feel about it, the opposition here at this forum..

 

We live a sustainable life and I don't care about the costs of alternative energy. The reason they are called 'alternative' is because they are the alternative energy sources to oil and coal and nuclear. It's a simple choice; do you want to pursue oil and coal and nuclear...or do you wish to pursue alternative energy sources? This should not be a debate about KWh costs!

It would be great if we were smart enough to evolve alternative energies as our primary sources of energy and let oil and coal and nuclear supplement our needs...

 

Oh! My Laughing Gods - this is hilarious!!

Next you lot will be claiming that because solar uses DHMO (Dihydrogen Monoxide) that that too is "too dangerous to the environment"

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

And I have to agree that DHMO is one of the most dangerous chemicals on earth!! Just check out the website


























Waits for penny to drop...........

 

I think this should both be a debate about the ethics of continuing deadly and poisonous superheated steam production [nuclear and carbon] vs focused solar thermal steam production AND a debate about the costs per MW. Because solar thermal wins on both accounts.

After all, you can't beat free steam-turbine energy that has no waste products can you?

 

And why don't you look at the facilities just like you describe that are already in operation?

Why won't you discuss the area needed, with the amount of energy produced?

Why are you so obsessed with "super heated steam"? Why don't you look at the multitude of other proven green technologies already in use, instead of obsessing with a system that is largely a figment of your imagination?

You do nothing but criticize-insult-ignore. Why can't you actually discuss the issue, instead of just throwing darts and running away?

 

YEs Ronnie was really well respected here..............

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3lkXYbYs90"]Rubbery Figures - Ronald Regan re Anzac Day - YouTube[/ame]

 

Oh, I see...now it's "the area needed" that's the problem with solar thermal steam..

Are you talking about the cumbersome and redundant Brightsource "gigantic inefficient parabolic shape" [early ones with north-facing mirrors no less to throw off true cost per MW calculations] design or the streamlined linear ones the Chinese are pumping out as fast as they can build them [and surpass us in cheap energy production]?

When this issue is cleared up, your team will no doubt come up with another "why concentrated solar thermal steam won't work" doomsday scenario.

And seriously, how much area is needed for a few really kick butt solar thermal steam plants?

Answer: less than the hundreds of square miles poisoned forever by Chernobyl and Fukushima.

 

Want some of us to take you seriously?

Give us a sound estimate of the amount of power that would be produced, and the amount of area that would be needed.

So far, you give us nothing but talk, and still absolutely no evidence that your solution would work. Give us the proof.

You are only acting more trollish with every post.

And I am confused, why do we need "super heated steam" to produce power?

 

Perhaps you missed the discussion of the nearly a million gallons of toxic, water-soluble, highly-corrosive salts under very high heat and pressure!

 

This is a major safety concern indeed, Jarlaxle

Thanks for sharing this information!

 

bwa ha HAHAHAHA!!

My word but you lot are entertaining - if you do not have facts, simply make them up out of whole cloth.

My telling you that the newer Solar Thermal units used molten salt became a frantic scramble to find a downside - viola - someone found that the salt was toxic (and coal ash, nuclear waste and mercury are not??) and somehow that has been morphed into "Solar plants will spill toxic salts into the environment"

Duh!

The molten salt is a one off - it gets re-used not burnt up!!

None of you even bothered to do the most elementary searches beyond copying each other's mistakes

The salts—a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate, otherwise used as fertilizers—

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night

Hmmmmmmm - "otherise used as fertiliser"

Still have to admit that they use that tricky DHMO stuff, why nothing is as toxic as Dihydrogen Monoxide!!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night