World's Largest Solar Power Deal

[WildHorse]

...and hence produces less waist...-Cogman

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Waste, man, waste! Waste != waist unless your waist is wasting away due to lack of nutrition. Or if you're living on a garbage dump, not enough waste means your waist wastes away.

The hot chick has a narrow waist.
Batman wears his utility belt around his waist.

The poison made by a fission reactor or the stuff in your round file is waste.

There IS a difference!

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: scott

...and hence produces less waist...-Cogman

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492

Waste, man, waste! Waste != waist unless your waist is wasting away due to lack of nutrition. Or if you're living on a garbage dump, not enough waste means your waist wastes away.

The hot chick has a narrow waist.
Batman wears his utility belt around his waist.

The poison made by a fission reactor or the stuff in your round file is waste.

There IS a difference!

Changed, but does not affect my argument.

 

[skyking]

The load following problem with solar won't go away. On the other hand, the tremendous amount of electricity spent to heat buildings can be reduced by solar systems. That is the proper direction to go, IMO.
We plan on building with active solar from dawn solar systems unerneath inexpensive standing seam metal roofing.

 

[whiplash willy]

A cool new PV panel is on its way, which should cost around $1/watt, which is about 75% less then current PV panels.

Nano Solar

Also,

Here is Europe's first commercial Solar Power Plant, in Spain.

Solar Tower

 

[RideFree]

http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-solar-power-advances/

7¢ per KWH...
that should level the playing field world-wide.

 

[WildHorse]

Originally posted by: whiplash willy
A cool new PV panel is on its way, which should cost around $1/watt, which is about 75% less then current PV panels.

Nano Solar

Also,

Here is Europe's first commercial Solar Power Plant, in Spain.

Solar Tower

Originally posted by: RideFree
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-solar-power-advances/

7¢ per KWH...
that should level the playing field world-wide.

You two guys EXACTLY reinforce my point! Thank YOU BOTH!!!

Considering the content of your postings about new, far more efficient methods of harvesting solar energy for less-polluting commercial use, why do YOU think the biggest new solar energy hartvesting deal is playing things so overly-safe as to use antiquated water-cooking methods which are older than us?

Do you think is has anything to do with making the limited partnesrship shares which are sold to wealthy private investors 'LESS RISKY" by employing antiquated technology like sun-following mirrors focused on a water tower? [That's what I think is the sad case.)

Surely project managers for this deal in the OP were fully aware of pending revolutionary breakthroughs (such as each of you have posted). Guys like that, engaged in the field, are almost certaintly hypersensitive to, and fully aware of, what all the companies comprising their industry are doing. This is basic marketing 101. Duh!

Why do YOU think the new California project is using 30+ year-ancient methods??? Friggin why?? Isn't that truly weird amidst our world of monthly tech breakthroughs?
======================================

"I don't give up!" - Superman

 

[BrownTown]

The problem is that even these most advanced new solar panels you are talking about in the two posts you quoted are considerably more than coal or nuclear is now with PROVEN technology. How many people are gonna risk billions of dollars on an unproven technology when they can spend considerably less on technology that has been proven for decades?

Even if we take these numbers at face value (which I DON'T):

solar at 7cents/kwh? thats not all that great compared to coal and nuclear at 4 to 5 cents/kwh and at far less risk.

1$ per watt? Given solars normal 8% capacity factor that would equal a coal or nuclear plant costing $9,000/kw, which is quite a bit steaper than the normal $2,000 to $3,000 per killowatt. Again, its people mixing apples and oranges, trying to ignore capacity factors, or compare home energy rates to bulk power rates. etc.

 

[wwswimming]

here's a good article on solar thermal

http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/3791

pretty comprehensive.

 

[BrownTown]

Solar thermal is deffinitely more practicle than PV imo, but there is still the problem of space and storage. On the infrastructure side, the palces where you can put these plants are obviously far away from where the cities are, so you have to build hundreds of miles of expensive power lines. Plus areas with large concentration of solar will need lots of instrastructure to stabilize the power on the grid. I know people don't think about power lines and substations and stuff like that all that much and like to only look at the power plants themsleves in terms of costs. But the cost of the infrastructure to stabilize and transport electricity is a signfigant portion of the cost.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: whiplash willy
A cool new PV panel is on its way, which should cost around $1/watt, which is about 75% less then current PV panels.

Nano Solar

Also,

Here is Europe's first commercial Solar Power Plant, in Spain.

Solar Tower

Originally posted by: RideFree
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-solar-power-advances/

7¢ per KWH...
that should level the playing field world-wide.

You two guys EXACTLY reinforce my point! Thank YOU BOTH!!!

Considering the content of your postings about new, far more efficient methods of harvesting solar energy for less-polluting commercial use, why do YOU think the biggest new solar energy hartvesting deal is playing things so overly-safe as to use antiquated water-cooking methods which are older than us?

Do you think is has anything to do with making the limited partnesrship shares which are sold to wealthy private investors 'LESS RISKY" by employing antiquated technology like sun-following mirrors focused on a water tower? [That's what I think is the sad case.)

Surely project managers for this deal in the OP were fully aware of pending revolutionary breakthroughs (such as each of you have posted). Guys like that, engaged in the field, are almost certaintly hypersensitive to, and fully aware of, what all the companies comprising their industry are doing. This is basic marketing 101. Duh!

Why do YOU think the new California project is using 30+ year-ancient methods??? Friggin why?? Isn't that truly weird amidst our world of monthly tech breakthroughs?
======================================

"I don't give up!" - Superman

Why would they take it? Simple, because people that don't know better are willing to pay for it. Why do people buy into cars powered by water or Perpetual motion machines? They see potential profit and run with it.

Heck, here locally a company is going to build a damn at higher elevations then a lake, then at night when energy is cheaper they will fill up the dam and let the water run through generators during the day to give power. They claim things like "Its better for the environment" and "It will slow global warming". It won't do either of those things, basically they are buying low and selling high because they can earn money that way, then they try to pander it to the "green" people to make a quick buck.

Solar power isn't very different in my eyes. It isn't very efficient. It has major lifetime problems, and it produces a lot of pollution to make (Yep, mining these rare wonder metals to make this stuff doesn't come free).

So why on earth is it viewed as the "Green" option? Because it turns sunlight to electricity? Give me a freaking break, just because the finished product doesn't produce pollution doesn't mean the processes to make it didn't.

Marketing 101. If you can sell it, sell it. That is why this deal was made, because people that don't know anything about solar power other then "It must be clean" will go for it. The "green" agenda is in many cases just as bad as the evil polluting companies agendas.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: whiplash willy
A cool new PV panel is on its way, which should cost around $1/watt, which is about 75% less then current PV panels.

Nano Solar

Also,

Here is Europe's first commercial Solar Power Plant, in Spain.

Solar Tower

Originally posted by: RideFree
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-solar-power-advances/

7¢ per KWH...
that should level the playing field world-wide.

You two guys EXACTLY reinforce my point! Thank YOU BOTH!!!

Considering the content of your postings about new, far more efficient methods of harvesting solar energy for less-polluting commercial use, why do YOU think the biggest new solar energy hartvesting deal is playing things so overly-safe as to use antiquated water-cooking methods which are older than us?

Do you think is has anything to do with making the limited partnesrship shares which are sold to wealthy private investors 'LESS RISKY" by employing antiquated technology like sun-following mirrors focused on a water tower? [That's what I think is the sad case.)

Surely project managers for this deal in the OP were fully aware of pending revolutionary breakthroughs (such as each of you have posted). Guys like that, engaged in the field, are almost certaintly hypersensitive to, and fully aware of, what all the companies comprising their industry are doing. This is basic marketing 101. Duh!

Why do YOU think the new California project is using 30+ year-ancient methods??? Friggin why?? Isn't that truly weird amidst our world of monthly tech breakthroughs?
======================================

"I don't give up!" - Superman

Why would they take it? Simple, because people that don't know better are willing to pay for it. Why do people buy into cars powered by water or Perpetual motion machines? They see potential profit and run with it.

Heck, here locally a company is going to build a damn at higher elevations then a lake, then at night when energy is cheaper they will fill up the dam and let the water run through generators during the day to give power. They claim things like "Its better for the environment" and "It will slow global warming". It won't do either of those things, basically they are buying low and selling high because they can earn money that way, then they try to pander it to the "green" people to make a quick buck.

Solar power isn't very different in my eyes. It isn't very efficient. It has major lifetime problems, and it produces a lot of pollution to make (Yep, mining these rare wonder metals to make this stuff doesn't come free).

So why on earth is it viewed as the "Green" option? Because it turns sunlight to electricity? Give me a freaking break, just because the finished product doesn't produce pollution doesn't mean the processes to make it didn't.

Marketing 101. If you can sell it, sell it. That is why this deal was made, because people that don't know anything about solar power other then "It must be clean" will go for it. The "green" agenda is in many cases just as bad as the evil polluting companies agendas.

I hate to break it to you, but the dam-and-lake thing is actually very useful. It evens out load on the distribution network. Since electricity can't be easily "stored", the distribution network has to be hooked up to energy sources with a generating capacity at least equal to peak energy usage on the network. What these guys do is to effectively "store" energy and release it again during high demand, lessening the total amount of generation capacity that needs to be built.

Speaking of nuclear reactors, I come from Sweden, which means that I was personally on the receiving end of some of those radioactive rainfalls that followed the Chernobyl accident. Nuclear fallout is pretty nasty. I personally do not appreciate that I can't eat wild mushrooms anymore without worrying about cancer.

I would also like to add that the reactor housing does indeed become irradiated in a nuclear reactor, and presents a disposal problem just as much as the fuel does. The plant building will not become radioactive, but the actual reactor apparatus will, and it's pretty sizable. It's still a minor issue when compared to the large amounts of spent fuel rods that are produced over the operational lifetime of a reactor, though.

Still, when it comes to power generation there are basically two viable choices: Nuclear and Fossil. Sure, wind farms and solar panels and wave traps and are great and can certainly do their part, but none of these technologies has the capacity to meet the kind of energy demand that we face today, much less in the future. They are basically options that may be able to meet local needs in certain places, but are nowhere near potent enough form the basis of a comprehensive solution to the global energy problem.

I'm very aware of the real-life risks with nuclear reactors, but I don't see any other way to come up with the power the world will need over the next 50 years, and you can't count on some miraculous breakthrough in fusion or solar or insert-your-personal-favorite-here power to suddenly come save us all. It is certainly true that modern nuclear reactors are much safer than 30-year-old ones. The new ones being built in France and Finland are especially safe, since they are built to contain a meltdown once it happens, not just to prevent it from happening in the first place (like Chernobyl, for example). So props to France and Finland for facing the unpalatable realities of, well, reality. If only Americans and Swedes were as sensible.

 

[gorobei]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Solar thermal is deffinitely more practicle than PV imo, but there is still the problem of space and storage. On the infrastructure side, the palces where you can put these plants are obviously far away from where the cities are, so you have to build hundreds of miles of expensive power lines. Plus areas with large concentration of solar will need lots of instrastructure to stabilize the power on the grid. I know people don't think about power lines and substations and stuff like that all that much and like to only look at the power plants themsleves in terms of costs. But the cost of the infrastructure to stabilize and transport electricity is a signfigant portion of the cost.

1) The grammar/spelling Nazi in me asks, "how do you ignore all the red underlines in all your postings?" Being fast is admirable, but 6 is just sloppy.

2) The point of low cost PV tech isn't to build large solar arrays in the desert. The thin film printer deposition solar panels are meant to be integrated into skyscraper glass window modules, roofing components, and other types of siding. The entire building would then become a power generator/harvester. Entire cities made out of these materials would reduce the local load on the grid during peak hours.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: gorobei
1) The grammar/spelling Nazi in me asks, "how do you ignore all the red underlines in all your postings?" Being fast is admirable, but 6 is just sloppy.

2) The point of low cost PV tech isn't to build large solar arrays in the desert. The thin film printer deposition solar panels are meant to be integrated into skyscraper glass window modules, roofing components, and other types of siding. The entire building would then become a power generator/harvester. Entire cities made out of these materials would reduce the local load on the grid during peak hours.

Well first off there are only red lines if you use FireFox which i don't do to its horrible memmory leak problems. As for putting solar panels on the sides of buildings and stuff, thats a pipe dream so far as i am concerned. Any part of a building that was no facing south and was not the highest point in the vicinity would be getting less solar insolation than otherwise. Putting solar panels on the north side of a house, or on a building with a taller building right next to it make no sense. Also, cities are not all located in great solar areas, so good luck putting them in places with lots of overcast days or up in the northern latitudes. Not to mention that the roof space of a city does not provide enough solar energy even if totally covered with solar panels.

As for the grammar nazi stuff, have you ever read those paragraphs that show you only need the first and last letter to be right for people to understand? I dunno about you, but personally I can read those fine even though 50% of the letters are in error, so I can never really get people acting like having 1% of your letter typed wrong is some big deal, does it really make it that much harder to read that I spelled memory with 2 'm' s earlier in this post? Not to mention this is a freaking internet forum, not a published document or something. I have similar error rates in papers I have turned in for college and nobody gives a shit. I'm not an English major, Im an electrical engineer, if you can understand just fine what I am saying then who cares is a few werds are misspeled?

 

[RideFree]

Brown, Gorob,
If it wer important, I suppose we could all run everything thru M$ Wurd, let it OttoCorrect and then cut & paste.

That having been said, it is a darn shame for a college prof to ignore spelling, syntactical or grammatical errors. They should be shot!

 

[bobsmith1492]

Originally posted by: Nathelion

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: scott

Originally posted by: whiplash willy
A cool new PV panel is on its way, which should cost around $1/watt, which is about 75% less then current PV panels.

Nano Solar

Also,

Here is Europe's first commercial Solar Power Plant, in Spain.

Solar Tower

Originally posted by: RideFree
http://www.engadget.com/2008/0...-solar-power-advances/

7¢ per KWH...
that should level the playing field world-wide.

You two guys EXACTLY reinforce my point! Thank YOU BOTH!!!

Considering the content of your postings about new, far more efficient methods of harvesting solar energy for less-polluting commercial use, why do YOU think the biggest new solar energy hartvesting deal is playing things so overly-safe as to use antiquated water-cooking methods which are older than us?

Do you think is has anything to do with making the limited partnesrship shares which are sold to wealthy private investors 'LESS RISKY" by employing antiquated technology like sun-following mirrors focused on a water tower? [That's what I think is the sad case.)

Surely project managers for this deal in the OP were fully aware of pending revolutionary breakthroughs (such as each of you have posted). Guys like that, engaged in the field, are almost certaintly hypersensitive to, and fully aware of, what all the companies comprising their industry are doing. This is basic marketing 101. Duh!

Why do YOU think the new California project is using 30+ year-ancient methods??? Friggin why?? Isn't that truly weird amidst our world of monthly tech breakthroughs?
======================================

"I don't give up!" - Superman

Why would they take it? Simple, because people that don't know better are willing to pay for it. Why do people buy into cars powered by water or Perpetual motion machines? They see potential profit and run with it.

Heck, here locally a company is going to build a damn at higher elevations then a lake, then at night when energy is cheaper they will fill up the dam and let the water run through generators during the day to give power. They claim things like "Its better for the environment" and "It will slow global warming". It won't do either of those things, basically they are buying low and selling high because they can earn money that way, then they try to pander it to the "green" people to make a quick buck.

Solar power isn't very different in my eyes. It isn't very efficient. It has major lifetime problems, and it produces a lot of pollution to make (Yep, mining these rare wonder metals to make this stuff doesn't come free).

So why on earth is it viewed as the "Green" option? Because it turns sunlight to electricity? Give me a freaking break, just because the finished product doesn't produce pollution doesn't mean the processes to make it didn't.

Marketing 101. If you can sell it, sell it. That is why this deal was made, because people that don't know anything about solar power other then "It must be clean" will go for it. The "green" agenda is in many cases just as bad as the evil polluting companies agendas.

I hate to break it to you, but the dam-and-lake thing is actually very useful. It evens out load on the distribution network. Since electricity can't be easily "stored", the distribution network has to be hooked up to energy sources with a generating capacity at least equal to peak energy usage on the network. What these guys do is to effectively "store" energy and release it again during high demand, lessening the total amount of generation capacity that needs to be built.

Speaking of nuclear reactors, I come from Sweden, which means that I was personally on the receiving end of some of those radioactive rainfalls that followed the Chernobyl accident. Nuclear fallout is pretty nasty. I personally do not appreciate that I can't eat wild mushrooms anymore without worrying about cancer.

I would also like to add that the reactor housing does indeed become irradiated in a nuclear reactor, and presents a disposal problem just as much as the fuel does. The plant building will not become radioactive, but the actual reactor apparatus will, and it's pretty sizable. It's still a minor issue when compared to the large amounts of spent fuel rods that are produced over the operational lifetime of a reactor, though.

Still, when it comes to power generation there are basically two viable choices: Nuclear and Fossil. Sure, wind farms and solar panels and wave traps and are great and can certainly do their part, but none of these technologies has the capacity to meet the kind of energy demand that we face today, much less in the future. They are basically options that may be able to meet local needs in certain places, but are nowhere near potent enough form the basis of a comprehensive solution to the global energy problem.

I'm very aware of the real-life risks with nuclear reactors, but I don't see any other way to come up with the power the world will need over the next 50 years, and you can't count on some miraculous breakthrough in fusion or solar or insert-your-personal-favorite-here power to suddenly come save us all. It is certainly true that modern nuclear reactors are much safer than 30-year-old ones. The new ones being built in France and Finland are especially safe, since they are built to contain a meltdown once it happens, not just to prevent it from happening in the first place (like Chernobyl, for example). So props to France and Finland for facing the unpalatable realities of, well, reality. If only Americans and Swedes were as sensible.

True that about pumped-water storage, it's a good idea.

Also, nuclear plants world-over are far safer than Chernobyl ever was.

Chernobyl had a quadruple-hit against it as far as safety goes:
1. Poor design; having a positive void coefficient, once the RBMK-1000 reactor overheats it tends toward thermal runaway. It is also unstable at low power levels.
2. Operator error; they were performing a test and let the power level drop below the minimum safe design level. Because of the test, the automatic fail-safe systems AND half of the core cooling was turned off.
3. There was no containment dome - subset of poor design but crucial. (Yes, US reactors have containment domes!)
4. It was Russian.

Good site about Chernobyl. That kind of accident is physically impossible in modern reactors.