Recent Comment
Share
Fairly new to the scene, and with dreams as big as God's feet, Ausra says they can power the whole frikkin world. Of course, we're going to have to give them a lot of money to do it.
The company's tagline (mission, discription and dream all at once) is "Utility Scale Solar Power. Market Prices. Now." And that's some pretty exciting stuff. All they need is a 9,600 square mile chunk of the Southwest, and they could power 90% of America.
Did I just say "all they need"? Yeah, 9,600 square miles is a lot of land. But if you think about it, it's less than other major projects. It's far less than the amount of land devoted to growing cows or the amount of land buried under American highways. But it'd be a lot more expensive (per square mile) than either of them.
Of course, there are other problems beyond just where to get the land. In fact, that may be the smallest problem, since much of the southwest is unproductive, unowned and only barely regulated by the BLM. The real problems show up when you change this from a thought experiment to a real idea.
Yeah, sure, that area of solar could produce more energy than we need. Unfortunately, there'd be no way to efficiently get that power where we need it, say, in New York City two thousand miles away. A super-conducting backbone would also have to be built all around the country.
Even more importantly, solar thermal plants currently only provide electricity during the day. Any infrastructure that would store daytime energy in some efficient manner and then discharge throughout the night is going to signficantly add to the cost of any power option. And the Ausra is already excited that they'll be producing power at roughly the cost of natural gas, they aren't planning on having flow batteries or other storage built into that cost.
In any case, Solar Themal looms as the new "utility scale" option for the next ten years. Hopefully Ausra, and the dozen other companies fighting for the space, can make this change happen.
Via WIRED Science
Hits: 25497
Comments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by SolarDave, March 12, 2008
In Dec 2007 edition. Don't you remember? http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1311/83/ Use compressed air energy storage to store energy produced during the day. Use DC cables to move electricity around the country with less loss than AC. Even with all that infrastructure, it's a relative bargain - we're over $500B in Iraq in 5 years so far, with nothing to show for it except $107/barrel and $3.50/gallon of gas. Here's the link to the article: http://www.sciam.com/article.c...grand-plan
38 pages of comments and it's still a go forward idea. Ausra can do it on 9600 sq mi? Even better.
38 pages of comments and it's still a go forward idea. Ausra can do it on 9600 sq mi? Even better.
-
- +0
-
-
written by JH, March 13, 2008
Hank, you could do a bit of reading on Ausra's plan before you bash it... they're planning to use low-cost steam storage for up to 16 hours of dispatchable delay. They're building base-load capacity.
And it's a foregone conclusion that we'll be building several long-haul HVDC (highly efficient, cross-grid compatible) networks as we move to more renewable electricity in coming years.
And it's a foregone conclusion that we'll be building several long-haul HVDC (highly efficient, cross-grid compatible) networks as we move to more renewable electricity in coming years.
-
- +0
-
-
written by net97surferx, March 13, 2008
And can't the existing hydro-generation systems take over the 'night time' load use?
-
- +0
-
-
written by kent beuchert, March 13, 2008
No one is going to pay the expense of replacing ultra
reliable nuclear or hydroeletric power plants, which will produce 40% of our power within a few years. Especially when those nuclear plants have beeen operating at 95% plus capacity for the past 10 years and produce power at less than 1/5th the cost of solar thermal and, Oh yes, are completely dispatchable, while even the desert is cloudy one out of every 10 days. Solar themal does spell the end for obsolete and primitive technologies like idiotic wind and most wave and photovoltaic solar. Won't miss
those losing propositions.
reliable nuclear or hydroeletric power plants, which will produce 40% of our power within a few years. Especially when those nuclear plants have beeen operating at 95% plus capacity for the past 10 years and produce power at less than 1/5th the cost of solar thermal and, Oh yes, are completely dispatchable, while even the desert is cloudy one out of every 10 days. Solar themal does spell the end for obsolete and primitive technologies like idiotic wind and most wave and photovoltaic solar. Won't miss
those losing propositions.
-
- +0
-
-
written by NoMoreCoal, March 13, 2008
Typical nuclear plants run 65% of the time, not 95%. Reliability is much worse than fossil plants and it's not getting better. The recent Miami blackout was caused by a nuclear plant tripping off in response to a minor substation problem; it took down much of Florida with it for hours.
Solar thermal power, storing energy as heat for night-time generation, can deliver energy more reliably, faster, and cheaper than nukes. And the hydro we have is the last hydro we're gonna see, pretty much; river flows are drying up with climate change (a recent news article reports a 50% likelihood that Hoover Dam will have to stop generating electricity within 10 years).
Solar thermal power, storing energy as heat for night-time generation, can deliver energy more reliably, faster, and cheaper than nukes. And the hydro we have is the last hydro we're gonna see, pretty much; river flows are drying up with climate change (a recent news article reports a 50% likelihood that Hoover Dam will have to stop generating electricity within 10 years).
-
- +0
-
-
written by Johnnyb, March 13, 2008
Eh, you're full of it, NoMoreCoal. 65%??? I've heard 95% from every source every where in the world. Nuclear is the only practical way to reduce carbon dioxide and not destroy us economically.
Besides we need to quit wasting money on most of the these goofy ideas like Solar and Wind, and get down to the serious business of rebuilding America. New York City is the greenest city in America, because New Yorkers do not have to drive cars, and large buildings are more efficent than private homes. We simply do not have the resources to both pursue goofy eco-ideas and rebuild the infrastructure of this nation.
What we need is to urbanize American cities, and get away from the suburban city model. This is the only way get off oil. Few other nations besides the US pursued the all suburban city model, so since most other countries already have the urban infrastructure, America has to catch up. This alone will save far more carbon than goofy solar or wind farms, while putting more taxes on carbon will just slow things down and make things more expensive.
Best to forget alternative energy all together. We are wasting too much of our limited resources on that crap as is, while we have important work to do building all the stuff we need to support a modern society that can live without their cars. This means modern rails, mass transits and tall buildings, big ticket items all.
Besides we need to quit wasting money on most of the these goofy ideas like Solar and Wind, and get down to the serious business of rebuilding America. New York City is the greenest city in America, because New Yorkers do not have to drive cars, and large buildings are more efficent than private homes. We simply do not have the resources to both pursue goofy eco-ideas and rebuild the infrastructure of this nation.
What we need is to urbanize American cities, and get away from the suburban city model. This is the only way get off oil. Few other nations besides the US pursued the all suburban city model, so since most other countries already have the urban infrastructure, America has to catch up. This alone will save far more carbon than goofy solar or wind farms, while putting more taxes on carbon will just slow things down and make things more expensive.
Best to forget alternative energy all together. We are wasting too much of our limited resources on that crap as is, while we have important work to do building all the stuff we need to support a modern society that can live without their cars. This means modern rails, mass transits and tall buildings, big ticket items all.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Snooj, March 13, 2008
Nobody ever talks about this and I don't know why. Why not simply install solar thermal collectors to act as feedwater heaters for power plants that have already been build. Transmission is in place, all the balance of plant costs are covered, it is simply a means of adding BTU's the the boiler. I understand that the solar characteristics aren't the same in TN or FL vs the desert southwest but all the costs (minus the collectors) are already covered. Even if you could only cover 5% of the thermal input, you have 300,000 MW of coal in the US - that would get you to 15,000 MW of solar thermal real quick.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Lauren Guite, March 13, 2008
Solar thermal plants are more efficient than wind farms which need about 6 times the acreage per watt produced. Still, there are hurdles to overcome.
These plants are usually in the middle of nowhere so they will need access to the grid, enough money to build transmission lines at $1 million per mile, and prove to be a reliable source of energy.
The solutions? One is viable storage which Ausra thinks they have in the kind of hot water storage tanks they propose adding to the plants. Utilities could also fill transmission lines with wind, solar, biomass, etc. to be drawn from diverse geographic regions reducing intermittency and transmission costs.
There's much more Ausra and other innovative start-ups are doing to fight global warming. Check them out at www.EarthTheSequel.com.
Lauren Guite
Environmental Defense
These plants are usually in the middle of nowhere so they will need access to the grid, enough money to build transmission lines at $1 million per mile, and prove to be a reliable source of energy.
The solutions? One is viable storage which Ausra thinks they have in the kind of hot water storage tanks they propose adding to the plants. Utilities could also fill transmission lines with wind, solar, biomass, etc. to be drawn from diverse geographic regions reducing intermittency and transmission costs.
There's much more Ausra and other innovative start-ups are doing to fight global warming. Check them out at www.EarthTheSequel.com.
Lauren Guite
Environmental Defense
-
- +0
-
-
written by Bob Wallace, March 13, 2008
"Why not simply install solar thermal collectors to act as feedwater heaters for power plants that have already been build."
Excellent point. Pre-heated water would be less expensive to turn to steam, even if there wasn't enough sun to make a direct conversion.
As for the acreage needed for wind turbines, little of that space is actually taken out of use by the turbines. Farmers can still graze livestock and/or grow crops around the towers.
This most likely is not a rush to power from a single source. There are location and time advantages for each type of generation - solar, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc. Each will most likely take an appropriate role in our non-fossil fuel future.
(And, my guess, nuclear will gradually disappear from the scene. It's just too expensive and slow to bring on line.)
Excellent point. Pre-heated water would be less expensive to turn to steam, even if there wasn't enough sun to make a direct conversion.
As for the acreage needed for wind turbines, little of that space is actually taken out of use by the turbines. Farmers can still graze livestock and/or grow crops around the towers.
This most likely is not a rush to power from a single source. There are location and time advantages for each type of generation - solar, wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc. Each will most likely take an appropriate role in our non-fossil fuel future.
(And, my guess, nuclear will gradually disappear from the scene. It's just too expensive and slow to bring on line.)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Keane, March 13, 2008
Great post. With the constant stream of incoming news about Masdar and this, one can't help but stay hopeful!
Best,
Keane
keane.festizio.net
Best,
Keane
keane.festizio.net
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel, March 14, 2008
>nuclear will gradually disappear from the scene. It's just too expensive and slow to bring on line.
It's also quite inexpensive and slow to bring offline. I think the costs that have been sunk in to nuclear energy will mean we continue to use it for the forseeable future.
I also happen to think more nuclear plants can, shall, and should be built. Nuclear will be a part of the solution to global warming, but certainly not a solution in itself.
It's also quite inexpensive and slow to bring offline. I think the costs that have been sunk in to nuclear energy will mean we continue to use it for the forseeable future.
I also happen to think more nuclear plants can, shall, and should be built. Nuclear will be a part of the solution to global warming, but certainly not a solution in itself.
-
- +0
-
-
written by frisbee, March 25, 2008
Of course it will include some big additional investments to feed the grid of the whole nation. With a reliable storage system it will mean a huge cutting on total carbon emissions and thus in the end will save us (and our next generations) many more spendings on combating climate change, provided we also manage to dramatically cut emissions in other fields, like transport, industry, aviation and shipping.
So why not dramatically increasing the desired 9.600 square miles and moving on to a society almost entirely using electrical powering devices in stead of all kinds of fuel? Technically it can be done in almost any field. I guess only in (large) aviation one cannot use other than (kerosene) fuels.
But for heaven sake let’s skip the idea of nuclear energy. It only lasts on behalf of major subsidies and because of a rapidly increasing storage of ever lasting nuclear waste at a price to be paid endlessly (!) by next generations.
There are climate friendly alternatives, so let’s make use of those!
So why not dramatically increasing the desired 9.600 square miles and moving on to a society almost entirely using electrical powering devices in stead of all kinds of fuel? Technically it can be done in almost any field. I guess only in (large) aviation one cannot use other than (kerosene) fuels.
But for heaven sake let’s skip the idea of nuclear energy. It only lasts on behalf of major subsidies and because of a rapidly increasing storage of ever lasting nuclear waste at a price to be paid endlessly (!) by next generations.
There are climate friendly alternatives, so let’s make use of those!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Uncle B, September 10, 2009
Super insulations developed for Space travel, Defense industries, and industrial uses in general, have been hidden, or priced off the market for home use! These insulations, and the technologies that go with them, if properly applied in place of current extremely outdated HIVAC bull-Shiite, combined with solar endeavors, quite possibly can resolve the energy crisis! Massive changes by Federal interventions into Civil Building Codes will break the monopolistic Ka-Ka we face from that quarter, and by breaking the strangle-hold of the patent office and military, on super-insulations, pricing can be made practical for private dwellings! Less oil imported equals a richer America! Live Solar for free! But: Rest assured, those dirty bastards will never allow it! They would lose too much oil revenues, don't be fooled for a damn minute! You are not free! China owns you, The Saudi Princes operate you, Yankee Doodle in Afghanistan for Halliburton's new pipeline! Now, go fvck Barbie Doll like a good little soldier while we build our dreams!
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
if you are interested in solar, check ouy my social network when you leave this great site...
-scott