Recent Comment
Share
.jpg)
In 2013 the world will see the real future of solar technology. That's when the world's largest dispatchable power plant, the 290 MW Starwood 1 will start producing power day and night, on cloudy or sunny days.
Starwood 1 will showcase two critical future technologies. The first is power storage. Without storage, you will only have power when the sun is shining. And while that can work to a point, it will never power the whole world. We'll still need something to take care of the base-load, and that something, as of right now, is coal.
Different ideas have been cooked up for storing the power created by solar power plants – batteries, ultracapacitors, hydrogen generation, flywheels – but all of these are far from being affordable enough for large scale power needs. The alternative is to store power as heat before it's converted to thermal energy.
Fortunately, there is a fairly good and relatively inexpensive solution to thermal storage, one which Starwood 1 implements. Starwood 1’s concentrating troughs feed heated liquid in large insulated molten salt tanks at 734 degrees Fahrenheit. When needed, these tanks will release steam, driving turbines at night or during cloudy weather.
The second big technology featured in Starwood 1 is concentrated solar power (CSP). CSP has seen commercial deployments since the 1980s, but has failed to dominate the industry. However, expect that to change as the maximum theoretical efficiencies of concentrated power designs are much higher than those of standard photovoltaics. CSP can be used to enhance thermal (as is done here) or to enhance photovoltaic technologies.
When completed Starwood 1 will cover 1900 acres of desert land. Unlike wind turbines there’s a low risk of bird strikes, and the construction team is working to minimize the impact on ground-based local wildlife. Flash from the plant (burst of bright light when viewed from certain angles) is a concern, but given the remote location, this shouldn’t prove a problem.
Locate approximately 75 miles west of Phoenix, the plant will produce enough power for 73,000 customers. The construction will also create 7700 jobs. The construction won’t be cheap – the plant will cost $2.7B USD, but it should pay for itself and then some. If it can live up to its promise, which seems likely, expect more CSP plants and thermal storage installations to pop up across sunny remote areas of the U.S. southwest in the near future.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by engr, June 08, 2009
Solar thermal systems have maximum theoretic thermodynamic efficiencies around 20% and actual performance at nearly half of that. Given only 25 to 50% of the efficiency, and considering the interest rates on the high capitol cost (these billions are borrowed), how is it remotely possible that this is an economically feasible idea?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hank, June 08, 2009
Efficiency is only one factor in economics. 39% efficienty photovoltaics have such a long ROI because these extremeley-efficient photovoltaics are extremely expensive as well. These more "low-tech" solutions, like concentrated solar thermal might be less efficient, but they are way way way cheaper, because they're basically just sheets of metal and pipes.
-
- +0
-
-
written by shek, June 08, 2009
Also, how is "flash" from the plant an issue? All of the reflectors are focusing to a point only a meter or two from the reflector. Any light that gets passed the heating tube or photovoltaic should be highly divergent.
-
- +0
-
-
written by jimmy, June 09, 2009
what is the solar pannel called
what is it made of
how much time does it take to make one
how much energy will it produce
are they demountable
-
- -2
-
-
written by hyperspaced, June 09, 2009
Someone explain??
We need a breakthrough to bring efficiencies up and costs down.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, June 09, 2009
-
- +1
-
-
written by Jay Tee, June 09, 2009
"Unlike wind turbines there’s a low risk of bird strikes." The actual number of bird strikes from windturbines turns out to be trivial. It's a non-issue, and here we have renewable energy people talking as though it is a problem.
-
- +2
-
-
written by Carl Hage, June 09, 2009
I just read an NREL report on water conservation in solar thermal plants. Using dry cooling would increase generated electricity costs 2-10%. The difference in cost between troughs and towers varies by study and location. The main problem is a decrease in efficiency above 100 degree F air temperature, but a hybrid or heller cycle system are possible solutions. In areas like New Mexico instead of the Mojave desert, the air temperatures are lower and decrease in efficiency from air cooling is not as bad.
-
- +1
-
-
written by The Author, June 10, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, June 10, 2009
Don't get me wrong. I am an enthuiastic supporter of renewable energy, but I do not believe it can support decades more of business as usual economic growth in the OECD countries. What happens when the next oil price shock chokes off the economic recovery and we wake up to the realization that no path exists which will allow us to return to economic 'health' has it has been defined for the last two centuries? What if the only sensible way forward is the French conception of décroissance (de-growth) in which the OECD countries need to concentrate on producing a reasonable quality of life while minimizing their consumption of resources rather than concentrating on moving as much stuff as possible off the shelves of our stores?
Our current economic and political system is based on the insane proposition that the faster we consume resources the richer and more secure we become. Changing this paradigm to an ecologically sane one is going require far more profound social changes than renewable energy subsidies and increased recyling. Technology fairy websites such as this one are doing very little to prepare us for the profound social shocks which are comming.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Fred, July 01, 2009
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
The construction won’t be cheap – the plant will cost $2.7B USD, but it should pay for itself and then some.
Not cheap is an understatement. The capital costs there are roughly 8-10 times that of a coal plant, although once going, it should be cheaper to run since no coal will have to be bought.
The costs sound like they are more than a nuclear plant (of course without the waste).
If it is going to work anywhere (economicaly) it'll work in Phoenix hopefully.