Priligy online now, save money

Arizona Solar Power Plant Will Deliver Power Day and we like it official canadian pharmacy Night!


In 2013 the world will see the real future of solar technology.  That's when the http://www.hasselaar.nl/buying-levitra-online 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 tramadol fed ex overnight these are far from being affordable enough for large scale power needs. The alternative is www.hasselaar.nl 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 only for you discount online viagra 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 fast order cialis 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.

Via Green-Energy-News

Hits: 12441
Comments (12)Add Comment
0
And...
written by BBM, June 08, 2009
How much will it cost per kwh?

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 cost of cialis 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.

0
What??
written by engr, June 08, 2009
Photovoltaics that can be 39% efficient have an ROI of ~20 years making them essentially unviable. Yes tax dollars can be artificially pumped into their price to subsidize their apparent costs, but that ammounts to cooking the books.

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 viagra for women interest rates on the high capitol cost (these billions are borrowed), how is it remotely possible that this is very good site best way to use viagra an economically feasible idea?
0
Photovoltaics vs Thermal
written by Hank, June 08, 2009
@engr
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
Even with "low-tech" the ROI is still pr
written by shek, June 08, 2009
If you give a very generous estimate of 290 MW generating 24-7 and if they could get $0.08 per kwh, it would still take thirteen years to break even for the $2.7B, also assuming that the facility has zero operating expenses (very rough estimates in here). It'd probably be twenty years. Although that chould certainly be shortened if the price of coal goes up when the coal industry is cleaned up (no more MTR, etc...).
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
how much is it a solar pannel
what is the solar pannel called
what is it made of http://www.grantontrailers.com/cialis-50mg
how much time does it take to viagra uk chemist make one
how much energy will it produce
are they demountable
0
...
written by hyperspaced, June 09, 2009
"Converts heat energy to thermal energy"?
Someone explain??

We need a breakthrough to bring efficiencies up and costs down.
0
Water cooled plants in desert a bad idea
written by Roger Brown, June 09, 2009
If CSP is going to become a major contributor word to the cialis generic global energy supply then they will have to operate with air cooling rather than water cooling. Water cooled power plants in the desert will not scale to Terra Watts. Air cooling increases the already high capital costs and just try! levitra in uk decreases efficiency. Power towers which operate at high temperature are better candidates for air cooling than parabolic troughs.
0
Untrue
written by Jay Tee, June 09, 2009
"the construction will create 7700 jobs......" my azz.

"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.
0
Cost Breakdown?
written by Carl Hage, June 09, 2009
I was unable to find any details on cialis the cost of adding thermal storage. In a report I read long ago, adding the molten salt tanks was a significant percentage of the total cost. So you can't compare this directly with a coal plant-- you'd need to buy viagra pill compare to a coal/gas plant plus pumped hydro storage or something.

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.
0
Expensive; maybe, but not doing it may b
written by The Author, June 10, 2009
People need to move past these first cost for renewable systems. While many times more expensive than traditional, inefficient, polluting and archaic power producing technologies, the cost pales in comparison to what the cost would be if measures aren't taken now.
0
Last costs, not first costs, are the rea
written by Roger Brown, June 10, 2009
My concern is ordering viagra overnight delivery not first costs but last costs. CSP is not like computer technology where increasing miniaturization has enabled exponentially increasing performance over a period of decades. I am sure that costs will come down somewhat as designs improve and as productions ramps up, but there is no guarantee that the long term costs will be low enough to support the same level of economic activity which we have today just because we wish it to be so.

Don't get me wrong. I am an enthuiastic supporter of cialis free pills 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 daily levitra 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 it's great! cialis soft gel 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 levitra cheap 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.
0
...
written by Fred, July 01, 2009
its good to see this will be able to manage energy on cloudy days

Write comment

security code
Write the displayed characters


busy
 

Are you an EcoGeek?

We've got to keep 7 billion people happy without destroying our planet. It's the biggest challenge we've ever faced....but we're taking it on. Are you with us?