Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

On 05/30/2016 06:11 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 12:57:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

Right, for sure, but seriously, anybody who watched Space Angel as a kid
knows you can't just let a solar mirror point anyplace it wants --
you're just asking to have your headquarters burned to a crisp while the
bad guys escape.

As I said to start with, you don't really need to point them all at the
ground.  Just deflect them a degree or so off target, each mirror going
someplace random -- that shouldn't take much energy, and is probably
something you could do with distributed backup power.

Actually, this can be problematic too, as the reflected light can temporarily
blind pilots, posing an air safety hazard.


Um ... good point.  A single 30 foot mirror still packs quite a punch.

OTOH it's still better than accidentally hitting it with the whole 
focussed output of the mirror field.  That be like a beetle under a 
foot-wide Fresnel lens -- popcorn airplane.




In any case, in the scenario which actually happened there wasn't any
lightning strike, power wasn't lost, and it was a lot more like the
meltdown at Chernobyl, where the technicians intentionally put the thing
into a bad state for testing and then bad stuff happened. If the thing
had a 'defocussed' mode one could even imagine spotting a few
temperature sensors around the towers to automatically shut it down in
the case of poor aim.  Just because it's not radioactive doesn't mean
it's not dangerous.

On 05/30/2016 12:02 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:

You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges
of pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears
and stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or
lightning strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the
sun) keeps moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal
point(s) of all of that incident power is constantly changing.

It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut
the source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the
towering inferno :)

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, > wrote:


 In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016
 17:18:24 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 >It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode
 >wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing.
 Shouldn't be
 >hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing
 at the
 >_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
 >

 Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html



Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence 
wrote:

If the thing had a 'defocussed' mode one could even imagine spotting a few
> temperature sensors around the towers to automatically shut it down in the
> case of poor aim.
>

Seems within the realm of possibility.  If the large mirrors are composite
mirrors comprised of an array of smaller hexagonal mirrors that are focused
using adaptive optics, you could have a slight amount of tension in the
support structure that must be countered by the actuators. This tension
would cause the array to defocus when power is cut off to the actuators.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 12:57:15 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Right, for sure, but seriously, anybody who watched Space Angel as a kid 
>knows you can't just let a solar mirror point anyplace it wants -- 
>you're just asking to have your headquarters burned to a crisp while the 
>bad guys escape.
>
>As I said to start with, you don't really need to point them all at the 
>ground.  Just deflect them a degree or so off target, each mirror going 
>someplace random -- that shouldn't take much energy, and is probably 
>something you could do with distributed backup power.

Actually, this can be problematic too, as the reflected light can temporarily
blind pilots, posing an air safety hazard.

>
>In any case, in the scenario which actually happened there wasn't any 
>lightning strike, power wasn't lost, and it was a lot more like the 
>meltdown at Chernobyl, where the technicians intentionally put the thing 
>into a bad state for testing and then bad stuff happened. If the thing 
>had a 'defocussed' mode one could even imagine spotting a few 
>temperature sensors around the towers to automatically shut it down in 
>the case of poor aim.  Just because it's not radioactive doesn't mean 
>it's not dangerous.
>
>On 05/30/2016 12:02 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
>> You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges 
>> of pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears 
>> and stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or 
>> lightning strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the 
>> sun) keeps moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal 
>> point(s) of all of that incident power is constantly changing.
>>
>> It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut 
>> the source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the 
>> towering inferno :)
>>
>> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, > > wrote:
>>
>>
>> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016
>> 17:18:24 -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode
>> >wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing. 
>> Shouldn't be
>> >hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing
>> at the
>> >_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
>> >
>>
>> Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  ChemE Stewart's message of Mon, 30 May 2016 00:02:57 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]

Lightning on bright sunny days is very rare. ;)

>You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of
>pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and
>stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning
>strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the sun) keeps
>moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal point(s) of all of
>that incident power is constantly changing.
>
>It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut the
>source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the towering
>inferno :)
>
>On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM,  wrote:
>
>>
>> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016 17:18:24
>> -0400:
>> Hi,
>> [snip]
>> >It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode
>> >wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing.  Shouldn't be
>> >hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing at the
>> >_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
>> >
>>
>> Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk
>>
>> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>>
>>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

Right, for sure, but seriously, anybody who watched Space Angel as a kid 
knows you can't just let a solar mirror point anyplace it wants -- 
you're just asking to have your headquarters burned to a crisp while the 
bad guys escape.


As I said to start with, you don't really need to point them all at the 
ground.  Just deflect them a degree or so off target, each mirror going 
someplace random -- that shouldn't take much energy, and is probably 
something you could do with distributed backup power.


In any case, in the scenario which actually happened there wasn't any 
lightning strike, power wasn't lost, and it was a lot more like the 
meltdown at Chernobyl, where the technicians intentionally put the thing 
into a bad state for testing and then bad stuff happened. If the thing 
had a 'defocussed' mode one could even imagine spotting a few 
temperature sensors around the towers to automatically shut it down in 
the case of poor aim.  Just because it's not radioactive doesn't mean 
it's not dangerous.


On 05/30/2016 12:02 AM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges 
of pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears 
and stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or 
lightning strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the 
sun) keeps moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal 
point(s) of all of that incident power is constantly changing.


It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut 
the source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the 
towering inferno :)


On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, > wrote:



In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016
17:18:24 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode
>wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing. 
Shouldn't be

>hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing
at the
>_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
>

Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Pay me $2 Bil and I will build you something that produces photons and
takes up much less than 4000 acres

You give these guys way too much credit

On Monday, May 30, 2016, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Speaking of a cross between Fuku and towering inferno, with a few thousand
> light sabers thrown-in … think about using all those mirrors as a renewable
> propellant …
>
>
>
> That’s right, propellant. You don’t really think that electricity was the
> only goal here, do you? Maybe there was something else going on behind the
> scenes and you-know-who will arrive to save the day. Can you say “space-x”.
> He is not far away.
>
>
>
> Solar pumped lasers are already on the horizon, and from there the next
> step would be to coat the mirror array with an optical material to
> consolidate the broad emission spectrum and then to focus the reflected
> superradiant light onto a point overhead in space where a vehicle,
> specially designed to use this light as a PLT (photonic laser thruster) is
> waiting for it… and there you have it… tenfold reduction in the cost of
> putting tonnage into low orbit.
>
>
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593010/
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster
>
>
>
> There are losses, but who cares when the advantage of having a few hundred
> megawatts of focused photons available for days and days on end (for
> accelerating objects to low earth orbit cheaply) is the bottom line. Once
> into low orbit, mylar solar mirrors deploy which can use the same converter
> to get to high orbit.
>
>
>
> It is a minor problem is to control the relative speed to maintain the
> craft is roughly overhead relative position to the mirrors until the first
> acceleration stage is complete. But all of this is doable… on paper. It
> seem no more complicated than landing a rocket in reverse, on a barge.
>
>
>
> Look for Elon to put in a bid for Ivanpah… but not necessarily for the
> electrical power… J
>
>
>
> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
>
>
> You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of
> pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and
> stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning
> strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the sun) keeps
> moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal point(s) of all of
> that incident power is constantly changing.
>
>
>
> It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut the
> source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the towering
> inferno :)
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jones Beene]

Speaking of a cross between Fuku and towering inferno, with a few thousand 
light sabers thrown-in … think about using all those mirrors as a renewable 
propellant … 

 

That’s right, propellant. You don’t really think that electricity was the only 
goal here, do you? Maybe there was something else going on behind the scenes 
and you-know-who will arrive to save the day. Can you say “space-x”. He is not 
far away.

 

Solar pumped lasers are already on the horizon, and from there the next step 
would be to coat the mirror array with an optical material to consolidate the 
broad emission spectrum and then to focus the reflected superradiant light onto 
a point overhead in space where a vehicle, specially designed to use this light 
as a PLT (photonic laser thruster) is waiting for it… and there you have it… 
tenfold reduction in the cost of putting tonnage into low orbit.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4593010/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photonic_laser_thruster

 

There are losses, but who cares when the advantage of having a few hundred 
megawatts of focused photons available for days and days on end (for 
accelerating objects to low earth orbit cheaply) is the bottom line. Once into 
low orbit, mylar solar mirrors deploy which can use the same converter to get 
to high orbit. 

 

It is a minor problem is to control the relative speed to maintain the craft is 
roughly overhead relative position to the mirrors until the first acceleration 
stage is complete. But all of this is doable… on paper. It seem no more 
complicated than landing a rocket in reverse, on a barge.

 

Look for Elon to put in a bid for Ivanpah… but not necessarily for the 
electrical power… J

 

From: ChemE Stewart 

 

You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of 
pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and stepper 
motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning strike.  No 
motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the sun) keeps moving up and then 
down towards the west, so the focal point(s) of all of that incident power is 
constantly changing.

 

It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut the 
source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the towering 
inferno :)

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Actually, banks of mirrors are all controlled though one load center at
Ivanpah. load centers are distributed throughout the field.  One well
directed lightning strike at a load center will kill power to many
mirrors.  Think of the increased negative economics of doubling the power
redundancy to 350,000 mirrors.  The system was already grossly over priced
@ $2B of taxpayers money for 390 MW

Fukushima lost utility tie-line and diesel generators.  UPS batteries last
only a few hours for that power load and are no good for an entire plant,
especially if load center(s) are fried.  Sun(nuclear power source) keeps
moving.

Probably cheapest to insulate the entire tower or lease the system to movie
studios as a prop for the next Avenger's movie since it appears headed for
default (again)







On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ChemE Stewart  wrote:
>
> You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of
>> pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and
>> stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning
>> strike.  No motor power, no movement.
>>
>
> Places such as large generators, telephone switching centers, data
> centers, military complexes and the like always have emergency power and
> backup power systems. Fukushima was powered for nearly a day even though
> there was catastrophic destruction to the Diesel backup generator system.
> No engineers would design a system that could be destroyed with a single
> lightning strike. Except for the engineers who design the bad-guy hideouts
> in James Bond movies.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:

You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of
> pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and
> stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning
> strike.  No motor power, no movement.
>

Places such as large generators, telephone switching centers, data centers,
military complexes and the like always have emergency power and backup
power systems. Fukushima was powered for nearly a day even though there was
catastrophic destruction to the Diesel backup generator system. No
engineers would design a system that could be destroyed with a single
lightning strike. Except for the engineers who design the bad-guy hideouts
in James Bond movies.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

You guys are ignoring all of the mechanical and structural challenges of
pointing 350,000, 30 foot mirrors at the ground using worm gears and
stepper motors that have just lost power due to a storm and/or lightning
strike.  No motor power, no movement.  The fuel source (the sun) keeps
moving up and then down towards the west, so the focal point(s) of all of
that incident power is constantly changing.

It is not like a typical boiler where the flame safety system can cut the
source of fuel.  It is more like a cross between fukushima and the towering
inferno :)

On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM,  wrote:

>
> In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016 17:18:24
> -0400:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode
> >wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing.  Shouldn't be
> >hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing at the
> >_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
> >
>
> Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Sat, 28 May 2016 17:18:24 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode 
>wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing.  Shouldn't be 
>hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing at the 
>_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.
>

Just turn them all upside down so they point at the ground.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Stephen A. Lawrence]

It ought to be possible to build the things with a fail-safe mode 
wherein loss of power results in the mirrors defocussing.  Shouldn't be 
hard; the /hard/ thing, presumably, is getting them all pointing at the 
_same_ spot.  Making them /not/ do that should be easy.


And locking them in place, focussed, just seems like bad procedure -- 
again, there should be a defocussed mode which they can go to for 
maintenance.


But I bet the plant operators have already figured all this out, with 
20/20 hindsight


On 05/27/2016 10:24 PM, ChemE Stewart wrote:
Fatal flaw:  Lock mirrors in the morning for maintenance or lose power 
to mirror motors but the sun keeps rising, thus the focal focal point 
of up to 300 MW's of thermal flux moves down the tower, torching it.  
Enough heat to collapse a tower under the right conditions.


http://solarindustrymag.com/update-nrg-confirms-cause-of-fire-at-ivanpah-solar-plant


On Friday, May 27, 2016, Blaze Spinnaker > wrote:


Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower.
This is why solar power is the solution to everything.


On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart > wrote:

Oops, Default

Oops, Fire


http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/

Oops







On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell
> wrote:

I wrote:

The taxpayers will get their money back eventually.
The power companies are not going to stop buying
electricity from this installation. They may
renegotiate the price . . .


Source:

I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I
cannot find the article. Anyway, that is the usual
arrangement. Since the machine is up and running, and
making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers
should be reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html

The article went on to say this is quite different from
the situation at Solyndra. There was no revenue stream
when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did not have anything up
and running.

When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the
company which are making a current profit, the courts are
careful to keep those parts in business. They try not to
sell off assets or do anything else which will disrupt
those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to
cause more unemployment than necessary. On the other hand,
they direct the current profit flow to the creditors, and
away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is among the
creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front
of the line. That's how it works.

The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is
not a scandal. Any investment can go south. Many
governments supported ventures have failed. In this case,
the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall the
fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for
the taxpayers. You might argue that the Federal government
should not be investing in technology. That might appeal
to purists who think the government should play no role in
the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
government has played a leading role since the
construction of the Erie Canal, and in ever major
technology since then. If it had not, I expect the U.S.
would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.

Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology
such as coal and oil, I do not think the industry should
complain.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Fatal flaw:  Lock mirrors in the morning for maintenance or lose power to
mirror motors but the sun keeps rising, thus the focal focal point of up
to 300 MW's of thermal flux moves down the tower, torching it.  Enough heat
to collapse a tower under the right conditions.

http://solarindustrymag.com/update-nrg-confirms-cause-of-fire-at-ivanpah-solar-plant


On Friday, May 27, 2016, Blaze Spinnaker  wrote:

> Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower. This is
> why solar power is the solution to everything.
>
> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart  > wrote:
>
>> Oops, Default
>>
>> Oops, Fire
>>
>>
>> http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/
>>
>> Oops
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell > > wrote:
>>
>>> I wrote:
>>>
>>>
 The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
 are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
 renegotiate the price . . .

>>>
>>> Source:
>>>
>>> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
>>> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
>>> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
>>> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>>>
>>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>>>
>>> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
>>> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
>>> not have anything up and running.
>>>
>>> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which
>>> are making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
>>> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
>>> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
>>> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
>>> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
>>> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
>>> line. That's how it works.
>>>
>>> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
>>> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
>>> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
>>> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
>>> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
>>> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
>>> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
>>> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
>>> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
>>> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>>>
>>> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal
>>> and oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>>>
>>> - Jed
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Blaze Spinnaker]

Oh noes, solar power incident results in . burnt tower. This is why
solar power is the solution to everything.

On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 6:31 AM, ChemE Stewart  wrote:

> Oops, Default
>
> Oops, Fire
>
>
> http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/
>
> Oops
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell 
> wrote:
>
>> I wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>>
>>
>> Source:
>>
>> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
>> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
>> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
>> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>>
>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>>
>> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
>> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
>> not have anything up and running.
>>
>> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
>> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
>> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
>> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
>> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
>> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
>> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
>> line. That's how it works.
>>
>> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
>> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
>> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
>> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
>> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
>> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
>> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
>> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
>> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
>> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>>
>> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
>> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>>
>> - Jed
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Oops, Default

Oops, Fire

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/ivanpah-solar-plant-catches-fire-but-taxpayers-get-burned/

Oops







On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>
>
> Source:
>
> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>
> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
> not have anything up and running.
>
> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
> line. That's how it works.
>
> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>
> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
There is a Swedish say; "Venture capital is not for widows and orphans."
 (Perhaps a little off the political correct scale but has some relevance .
. .)
If the government gets involved then they actually do involve people who
for one reason or the other should not take that kind of risk.
As, I am old and was involved in the investment business in the 80is in
Sweden, I experienced how the government managed to lose substantial money
from a pension fund that all Swedes had to contribute to (mandatory). Who
paid in the end? Good guess the retired people after the mid 90is.
Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what
allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's
money.
You might think the US government is better or the state of Georgia or
Atlanta city. No, they are not. The system makes the outcome not only
predictable but a self-fulfilling profetia. The say that power corrupts
describe part of it, if you prefer an American say.

Hoping we do not need to see any more of those profitable non-scandal
Solindra business during 2016.

Happy New Year to everybody.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
>> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
>> renegotiate the price . . .
>>
>
> Source:
>
> I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
> article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
> running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
> reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html
>
> The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
> Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
> not have anything up and running.
>
> When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
> making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
> business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
> disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
> unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
> profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
> among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
> line. That's how it works.
>
> The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal.
> Any investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have
> failed. In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall
> the fund did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers.
> You might argue that the Federal government should not be investing in
> technology. That might appeal to purists who think the government should
> play no role in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the
> government has played a leading role since the construction of the Erie
> Canal, and in ever major technology since then. If it had not, I expect the
> U.S. would have lost the Civil War, WWI and WWII.
>
> Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
> oil, I do not think the industry should complain.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is what
> allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the taxpayer's
> money.
>

Such as the development of railroads, steamships, aviation, highways,
subways, city traffic light control, sewers, water treatment plants,
nuclear power, the computer, the laser, space based weather forecasting,
the GPS, the Internet and decoding the human genome. Right? All paid for by
governments. All bad, bad, BAD misuses of the taxpayer's money.

Oh, and cold fusion. Discovered by government researchers. Paid for by
governments.

Add to that technology subsidized by governments, such as precision machine
tools and mass produced interchangeable parts (both invented for military
firearms), antibiotics (also used in war), telegraphs, semiconductors and
PV and what is left? Nothing! Essentially, no important technology has been
developed since 1750 without direct involvement and funding by governments.

You need to study history. You keep making this empty assertion, but you
have no historical data or present data to back it up. This is a matter of
fact, not opinion.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

Jed,
I am not bragging but I actually have studied some history.

That, however, is not important. I have experience from real life and that
counts. You say I have no data to back up my statements! Did you read about
the Swedish pension funds I wrote about?

However, that is no so important either. Your misconception of government's
role and its achievements are scary. I have said it before; 'Organizations
cannot achieve result, people can.' If we channel most funds to one
organization (government in this case) then they are able to take the glory
for all positive development. You allow them to although they just used
your money without you having any say (Yes, I know about voting rights.)
You think that small scandals in the billion dollar size is OK as they do
so much other good thing. Well, we have the government you deserve. You are
pointing out what areas the government have been involved in one way or the
other. It is unavoidable as I said above if we channelize all funding that
way. As you suggest that I better my history knowledge, maybe you can tell
me why 1750 is the year the government became good. Does it have to do with
the creation of USA? I guess the old guys, I have read about (Archimedes to
Kopernicus,) they were just lucky to do anything good, as they did not even
have the support the church in some instances. Are you still of the
*opinion* that I have no* facts*?
Your opinion that government made a lot of progress in science since the
renaissance is barock (pun intended). The fact as you call it is;
scientists has made a lot of progress since the renaissance and you want
the government to have the credit for that. Talk about history but some
guys in Russia about 100 years ago they said that government can produce
much better than those individuals, which control the resources today. Let
us make it everybody's resources and we will all benefit. Well, the
experiment lasted for some 75 years. In China they adopted the same system
30 years later and it has no resemblance with the ideas of Mr. Marx any
longer. I know you think, that when it comes to science,  the government is
well equipped. Think again.
Happy New Year.

Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)


On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Jed Rothwell 
wrote:

> Lennart Thornros  wrote:
>
> Your faith in government is disturbing because that kind of mindset is
>> what allows this totally immoral and unaccounted for misuse of the
>> taxpayer's money.
>>
>
> Such as the development of railroads, steamships, aviation, highways,
> subways, city traffic light control, sewers, water treatment plants,
> nuclear power, the computer, the laser, space based weather forecasting,
> the GPS, the Internet and decoding the human genome. Right? All paid for by
> governments. All bad, bad, BAD misuses of the taxpayer's money.
>
> Oh, and cold fusion. Discovered by government researchers. Paid for by
> governments.
>
> Add to that technology subsidized by governments, such as precision
> machine tools and mass produced interchangeable parts (both invented for
> military firearms), antibiotics (also used in war), telegraphs,
> semiconductors and PV and what is left? Nothing! Essentially, no important
> technology has been developed since 1750 without direct involvement and
> funding by governments.
>
> You need to study history. You keep making this empty assertion, but you
> have no historical data or present data to back it up. This is a matter of
> fact, not opinion.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Lennart Thornros]

On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Yes, because the government paid for it. Also organized it. The scientists
> could not have done what they did without the government.
> ​ Any organization could have done that. It would be better if there at
> least were several organizations competing about the funding (They tried in
> Russia as I said). I guarantee the scientists could do it with support from
> many organizations. If free enterprise we would see organizations much more
> efficient .​
>
>
> If I build a factory and I hire people to work in it, I get some of the
> credit for what they do, even though they do the actual work.
> ​ Yeah, in Karl Marx ideal society. Besides that if you do not do a good
> job you go bankrupt. Also called accountability - that does not exist
> without competition.​
>
>
> I definitely think the State of Utah deserves some credit for cold fusion,
> since it employed Pons and provided the lab space for the experiments. F
> could not have done it without a paycheck and lab equipment.
> ​ Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
>
>
> Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley deserved the Nobel prize, but we also have
> to thank the management at Bell Labs for hiring them, paying their
> salaries, providing lab space, secretarial help, etc. I am sure the
> secretaries and the other support staff did a lot essential work to enable
> the discovery. Everyone at Bell Labs deserved a small share of the credit.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​ If you eliminate the three names there would be very little fame to
> share or  . . . ​
> ​
>
>
> Governments pay for most fundamental research. Corporations do not
> contribute much, because it does not often pay back directly. Of course
> corporations have made important contributions, such as integrated circuits
> invented at Texas Instruments. Following that invention, rapid progress was
> made mainly thanks to NASA and Defense Dept., which ordered many ICs and
> paid for additional R
> ​ BTW I ordered a few 7400  series IC's in 1965. Do I deserve credit for
> TI's invention?:) To your statement; Why corporations have short term goals
> is determined by how funds can be allocated and how corporations can
> benefit over short and long time​. That in  its turn is decided by tax
> laws and if our philosophy is distributed resources or all in
> one uncontrollable pile. That my friend is the pivot point.
>
>
> Most real-time computer technology such as core memory, the CPU designs,
> and so on, were invented at MIT in Project Whirlwind (1946 - 1953). Just
> about every future important hardware designer participated at one time or
> another. It was the training ground for the whole generation of people who
> went on to invent modern computing. "Whirlwind alumni/ae have founded
> countless companies and have made numerous innovations in technology and
> software." (http://museum.mit.edu/150/21)
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> That was entirely paid for by the U.S. Air Force.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>
>
> In the 1960s, IBM and other corporations took the lead in computer R
> The Air Force had to lead in the early 1950s because the research was not
> profitable yet. It was more theoretical. It was vitally important to the
> military, but not yet profitable.
> ​
>  Your logics are just in a class by itself.​
> ​
>



Best Regards ,
Lennart Thornros


lenn...@thornros.com
+1 916 436 1899

Whatever you vividly imagine, ardently desire, sincerely believe and
enthusiastically act upon, must inevitably come to pass. (PJM)

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Lennart Thornros  wrote:

The fact as you call it is; scientists has made a lot of progress since the
> renaissance and you want the government to have the credit for that.
>

Yes, because the government paid for it. Also organized it. The scientists
could not have done what they did without the government.

If I build a factory and I hire people to work in it, I get some of the
credit for what they do, even though they do the actual work.

I definitely think the State of Utah deserves some credit for cold fusion,
since it employed Pons and provided the lab space for the experiments. F
could not have done it without a paycheck and lab equipment.

Bardeen, Brattain and Shockley deserved the Nobel prize, but we also have
to thank the management at Bell Labs for hiring them, paying their
salaries, providing lab space, secretarial help, etc. I am sure the
secretaries and the other support staff did a lot essential work to enable
the discovery. Everyone at Bell Labs deserved a small share of the credit.

Governments pay for most fundamental research. Corporations do not
contribute much, because it does not often pay back directly. Of course
corporations have made important contributions, such as integrated circuits
invented at Texas Instruments. Following that invention, rapid progress was
made mainly thanks to NASA and Defense Dept., which ordered many ICs and
paid for additional R

Most real-time computer technology such as core memory, the CPU designs,
and so on, were invented at MIT in Project Whirlwind (1946 - 1953). Just
about every future important hardware designer participated at one time or
another. It was the training ground for the whole generation of people who
went on to invent modern computing. "Whirlwind alumni/ae have founded
countless companies and have made numerous innovations in technology and
software." (http://museum.mit.edu/150/21)

That was entirely paid for by the U.S. Air Force.

In the 1960s, IBM and other corporations took the lead in computer R The
Air Force had to lead in the early 1950s because the research was not
profitable yet. It was more theoretical. It was vitally important to the
military, but not yet profitable.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jones Beene]

From: ChemE Stewart 

*   OOPS DEFAULT
*   
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg-ivanpah-faces-chance-of-default-PGE-contract

Just to avoid any wrong implications, Stewart - any default would be a 
bookkeeping adjustment for Google’s tax purposes. Solar is growing rapidly in 
Cal. and it will be the lowest cost energy option by the end of next year, or 
sooner if natural gas prices return to historical norms. Google Swanson's law.

Compare that to a close nuclear plant to you. TVA estimated this beauty would 
cost 2 billion when it started in 1973, and it ended up at 6.5 or more 
depending on how one accounts for the interest payed during the long delay, 
since it is not yet running. (for 1.1 GW) 
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/oct/23/nrc-grants-operating-license-watts-bar-unit-2/332065/

According to the Solar Electric Power Association, in 2014 California had 
installed 4.3 GW… but that has increased to 11.5 GW today and should go to 15 
GW by the end of 2016. Compared to the installed cost of new nuclear power, 
this looks like a bargain, even when adjusted for daytime hours :-) 

The economists look at solar as a long term investment, like a toll bridge. The 
Golden Gate bridge cost $27 million to build, which sounded outrageously high 
at the time but now produces revenues of $125 million every year…. Solar power 
will not be as dramatic a cash cow in a few decades, but there is no refueling 
cost every 5-6 years… and mirrors tend to last a long time.

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jones Beene]

There is a recently funded (ARPA-E) technology which could push solar into 
higher demand by lowering cost per kW. It is a “brilliant” idea, so to speak.

There are two primary methods for using sunlight: direct conversion to 
electricity using photovoltaics, or focusing sunlight onto a fluid that is used 
to drive a steam turbine - aka concentrated solar power (CSP). 

Combining the best of both technologies could provide a means to get the more 
from the solar spectrum, generating both electricity and storable heat (for 
later use) within the same system. 

Arizona State U is developing a hybrid solar energy system that modifies the 
single axis CSP “trough” design, converting the mirrored trough with solar 
cells that collect direct rays while reflecting the rest of the direct sunlight 
to a thermal absorber to generate heat. 

I can find no recent update on the ARPA announcement but it sounds like a great 
idea.

http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/solar-concentrating-photovoltaic-mirror

 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Mirrors last a long time in the desert? With wind and sand blowing? 375,000
motors turning? Taxpayers paid $1.6B for this plant, Google is a minority.

BTW this plant burns natural gas...
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/ivanpah-may-be-burning-enough-natural-gas-to-qualify-for-cap-and-trade-in-c

I hope you are right.  I like distributed PV, not this albatross.

On Wednesday, December 30, 2015, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* ChemE Stewart
>
> Ø   OOPS DEFAULT
>
> Ø
> *http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg-ivanpah-faces-chance-of-default-PGE-contract*
> 
>
> Just to avoid any wrong implications, Stewart - any default would be a
> bookkeeping adjustment for Google’s tax purposes. Solar is growing rapidly in
> Cal. and it will be the lowest cost energy option by the end of next
> year, or sooner if natural gas prices return to historical norms. Google
> Swanson's law.
>
> Compare that to a close nuclear plant to you. TVA estimated this beauty
> would cost 2 billion when it started in 1973, and it ended up at 6.5 or
> more depending on how one accounts for the interest payed during the long
> delay, since it is not yet running. (for 1.1 GW)
> *http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/oct/23/nrc-grants-operating-license-watts-bar-unit-2/332065/*
> 
>
> According to the Solar Electric Power Association, in 2014 California had 
> installed
> 4.3 GW… but that has increased to 11.5 GW today and should go to 15 GW by
> the end of 2016. Compared to the installed cost of new nuclear power, this 
> looks
> like a bargain, even when adjusted for daytime hours J
>
> The economists look at solar as a long term investment, like a toll brid
> ge. The Golden Gate bridge cost $27 million to build, which sounded
> outrageously high at the time but now produces revenues of $125 million
> every year…. Solar power will not be as dramatic a cash cow in a few
> decades, but there is no refueling cost every 5-6 years… and mirrors tend
> to last a long time.
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Wed, 30 Dec 2015 10:03:42 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Arizona State U is developing a hybrid solar energy system that modifies the 
>single axis CSP “trough” design, converting the mirrored trough with solar 
>cells that collect direct rays while reflecting the rest of the direct 
>sunlight to a thermal absorber to generate heat. 

I don't see why they don't just attach the back of the solar cells to the wall
of a cooling tube. This kills two birds with one stone. Water is heated, and the
cells are actively cooled allowing use a of a higher concentration of light.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jones Beene]

Looking at the super bright incandescence of the tower of the CSP station at 
Ivanpah (makes a nice screensaver) also brings to mind another possible hybrid… 
plasmonics.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.6949

“Plasmonic materials for energy: from physics to applications” by Svetlana 
Boriskina of MIT. 

Boriskina - the #1 guru of Plasmonics, suggests that photovoltaics could get a 
major boost from SPP. Quote: “High density of optical states in the vicinity of 
plasmonic structures enhances light absorption and emission, enables localized 
heating, and drives near-field heat exchange between hot and cold surfaces. SP 
modes channel the energy of absorbed photons directly to the free electrons, 
and the generated hot electrons can be utilized in thermoelectric, photovoltaic 
and photo-catalytic platforms.”

Why stop with SPP-boosted PV ?  There could be more…

Holy heliostats! there’s no good reason that a solar/LENR hybrid could not be 
implemented… (you heard it first on Vortex)

 
There is a recently funded (ARPA-E) technology which could push solar into 
higher demand by lowering cost per kW. It is a “brilliant” idea, so to speak.
There are two primary methods for using sunlight: direct conversion to 
electricity using photovoltaics, or focusing sunlight onto a fluid that is used 
to drive a steam turbine - aka concentrated solar power (CSP). 
Combining the best of both technologies could provide a means to get the more 
from the solar spectrum, generating both electricity and storable heat (for 
later use) within the same system. 
Arizona State U is developing a hybrid solar energy system that modifies the 
single axis CSP “trough” design, converting the mirrored trough with solar 
cells that collect direct rays while reflecting the rest of the direct sunlight 
to a thermal absorber to generate heat. 
I can find no recent update on the ARPA announcement but it sounds like a great 
idea.
http://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=slick-sheet-project/solar-concentrating-photovoltaic-mirror

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:

Mirrors last a long time in the desert? With wind and sand blowing?


They last for a remarkably long time. Many of the SEGS parabolic mirror
generators in the Mojave desert have been working since the late 1980s and
they are still in good condition.

The people who designed this know what they are doing. They have been
building similar installations in the U.S., Spain and Israel for 40 years
now.



> 375,000 motors turning? Taxpayers paid $1.6B for this plant, Google is a
> minority.


The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies are
not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
renegotiate the price, so the payback may take longer, but the taxpayer
loans are first in line and they will be settled first. The operating cost
of the facility is low. It is turning a profit on current operations.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> The taxpayers will get their money back eventually. The power companies
> are not going to stop buying electricity from this installation. They may
> renegotiate the price . . .
>

Source:

I think I read this at Renewable Energy World, but I cannot find the
article. Anyway, that is the usual arrangement. Since the machine is up and
running, and making a profit on current operations, the taxpayers should be
reimbursed. The owners may face bankruptcy.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/index.html

The article went on to say this is quite different from the situation at
Solyndra. There was no revenue stream when Solyndra went bankrupt. They did
not have anything up and running.

When a company goes bankrupt, if there are parts of the company which are
making a current profit, the courts are careful to keep those parts in
business. They try not to sell off assets or do anything else which will
disrupt those parts and stop the flow of income. They try not to cause more
unemployment than necessary. On the other hand, they direct the current
profit flow to the creditors, and away from stockholders. When Uncle Sam is
among the creditors or unpaid vendors, he always goes to the front of the
line. That's how it works.

The Solyndra bankruptcy has been called a scandal. It is not a scandal. Any
investment can go south. Many governments supported ventures have failed.
In this case, the Solyndra portion of the fund failed but overall the fund
did exceptionally well and made a ton of money for the taxpayers. You might
argue that the Federal government should not be investing in technology.
That might appeal to purists who think the government should play no role
in the economy, but as I have often pointed out, the government has played
a leading role since the construction of the Erie Canal, and in ever major
technology since then. If it had not, I expect the U.S. would have lost the
Civil War, WWI and WWII.

Since most Federal money goes to conventional technology such as coal and
oil, I do not think the industry should complain.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

OOPS DEFAULT

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg-ivanpah-faces-chance-of-default-PGE-contract



On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with a
> central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more efficient
> and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They recently
> finished erecting the tower. See:
>
> http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf
>
>
> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed
>
> 1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
> versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
> an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).
>
> Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the
> southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for
> airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not
> drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the
> energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV
> solar. The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Esa J. Ruoho]

I hope that someone (Faraday Future, Tesla Motors, Apple) buys these things or 
The company. They should, right?

Sent from some iDevice. Written by Esa.

> On 30 Dec 2015, at 02:41, ChemE Stewart  wrote:
> 
> OOPS DEFAULT
> 
> http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2015/12/15/nrg-ivanpah-faces-chance-of-default-PGE-contract
> 
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with a 
>> central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more efficient 
>> and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They recently 
>> finished erecting the tower. See:
>> 
>> http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf
>> 
>> http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed
>> 
>> 1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate 
>> versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of 
>> an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).
>> 
>> Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the 
>> southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for 
>> airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not 
>> drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the 
>> energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV solar. 
>> The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.
>> 
>> - Jed
> 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Robert Lynn]

 There is no technical reason why CSP cannot become competitive with other
 technologies, especially if you factor in the cost in lives, health, and
 global warming from the alternatives such as coal and natural gas from
 fracking. Of course it is not competitive now. If I had a cold fusion
 generator right now, you can be darn sure it would be hundreds or perhaps
 thousands of times more expensive per watt than any alternative. The first
 100,000 cold fusion power reactors will be far more expensive than any
 other kind. The first computers cost way more than mechanical calculating
 machines. Some of the first transistors cost $17 and they
 replaced vacuum tubes costing a nickel each. That comparison misses the
 point. It was obvious that transistors would soon get cheaper. Granted, not
 many people realized they would someday cost a millionth of of a penny, but
 it was clear there was plenty of room at the bottom (Feynman).

 - Jed


I would dispute that.  There is are very strong technical reasons why it
can't become competitive with other technologies:
1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.
2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.  Hail,
snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to
be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad
weather is infrequent.  Occasional cleaning and other maintenance will
still be required.
3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing
grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.
4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
LENR, maybe hot fusion).

Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at
$0.04-0.06/kWh (currently $0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price)
and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no
foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of
4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear.  Rooftop PV can compete
because it can avoid paying for the grid and distribution costs that
dominate domestic electricity costs but CSP currently only works in scales
too large for urban sites (excepting very expensive dish stirling).

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better than
uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed for the
mines and railroads to transport the fuel.



 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.  Hail,
 snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to
 be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad
 weather is infrequent.


That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.



 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing
 grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
hook up. That's why they put it there.

Solar is more flexible than wind.

Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who
will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the
U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these
days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need
much power on rainy days.


 4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.



 Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at
 $0.04-0.06/kWh (currently $0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price)
 . . .


That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by
fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living
space, our wildlife and our future.

If you burn the furniture in your house in winter to keep warm, you can
live cheaply for a month. Then what do you do? After we destroy large parts
of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where will we live? What will
we eat?



 and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no
 foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of
 4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear.


That's absurd. What is so expensive about making mirrors? Do you think they
cost far more than gas turbines? And what do you think coal electricity
would cost if 20,000 families every years successfully sued them for
murdering their fathers and mothers? As I said here before, if the airlines
killed 20,000 people in one year, the entire aviation industry would be
closed down, and we would soon have high speed trains instead. The only
reason that does not happen with coal fired electricity is because the
victims are poor people living downwind of the generators. They do not vote
and they cannot afford to file suits, so you can kill them off with
impunity. No one but his family gives a damn when a poor person dies at age
60 instead of 70 or 80.

This is not because power companies are particularly evil. If Delta
Airlines could get away with murdering 20,000 passengers to make the same
kind of money the power companies do, I am sure they would do it. The
tobacco companies kill of hundreds of thousands of people with impunity. As
long as society lets corporations or individuals massacre people for
profit, they will do it.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

On Friday, June 15, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.

 That is terrible power density.  If you are going to use railroads  mines
you need to take into account mining and transportation for glass and rare
earths used in csp and pv.  You also need to take into account all of the
fossil fuels required to clean millions of mirrors you are talking about.
Luz installations require frequent washing and blowdown in the middle of
the desert!  Where/how are you getting that water?



 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.
  Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction
 needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the
 bad weather is infrequent.


 That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
 installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.

 The luz installtions are troughs which have a much smaller wind profile
than a flat mirror when operating.  Troughs only reflect the light 10 feet
to a receiver.  Flat mirrors have to point and hit something a 1/4 of a
mile away, which is nearly impossible in wind.



 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing
 grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


 That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
 solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
 of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
 peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
 voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
 hook up. That's why they put it there.


Last time i looked i did not see alot of existing high voltage transmission
lines running through the mohave and sahara...


 Solar is more flexible than wind.

 Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who
 will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the
 U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these
 days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need
 much power on rainy days.


I am ok with distributed pv and solar hot water heaters where it makes more
sense


4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.



 Given massive availability of shale gas produced electricity at
 $0.04-0.06/kWh (currently $0.04/kWh in USA due to extremely low gas price)
 . . .


 That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by
 fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living
 space, our wildlife and our future.


But you are OK filling up the Mohave with solar panels, washing vehicles
and transmission lines and irrigation lines?  Killing thousands of birds
with thousands of megawatts of concentrated flux.  Crushing tortoises, etc


 If you burn the furniture in your house in winter to keep warm, you can
 live cheaply for a month. Then what do you do? After we destroy large parts
 of New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where will we live? What will
 we eat?


Wood/biomass is a renewable resource.  You cut more wood/make more
furniture in the summer. I grew up in Maine, I know these things




 and the best CSP running along at $0.2-0.3/kWh, there is just no
 foreseeable technology path that can bring the CSP cost down by a factor of
 4 to compete with gas and (eventually) nuclear.


 That's absurd. What is so expensive about making mirrors? Do you think
 they cost far more than gas turbines? And what do you think coal
 electricity would cost if 20,000 families every years successfully sued
 them for murdering their fathers and mothers? As I said here before, if the
 airlines killed 20,000 people in one year, the entire aviation industry
 would be closed down, and we would soon have high speed trains instead. The
 only reason that does not happen with coal fired electricity is because the
 victims are poor people living downwind of the generators. They do not vote
 and they cannot afford to file suits, so you can kill them off with
 impunity. No one but his family gives a damn when a poor person dies at age
 60 instead of 70 or 80.


Yes CSP does cost 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Robert Lynn]

 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.


100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a
conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there
is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under every
square meter of the earth's crust.  Thorium deposits are of course far more
concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure needed to
produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the thorium itself
is benign enough to delivered by a postman.  LTFR waste decays below
natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years.


 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.  Hail,
 snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction needs to
 be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the bad
 weather is infrequent.


 That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
 installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.


The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it
can't be made much lighter to reduce costs.  Each m² contains 10's of kg of
expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints,
concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat
piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over
the year.  All that material content and its processing is a large part of
the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate
capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity
per year.





 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and existing
 grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


 That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
 solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
 of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
 peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
 voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
 hook up. That's why they put it there.

 Solar is more flexible than wind.

 Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who
 will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the
 U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these
 days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need
 much power on rainy days.


 4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.


That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the
fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher
salaries for dangerous jobs etc.  But there are different standards in the
West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is
not valued so highly.  Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in
China.  Gas is just 4 per TWh worldwide (1 TWh is worth about $200 million
at retail level).

Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and
Chernobyl, and will be very cheap once perfected, but we are not there yet.
 The global nuclear plant development hiatus of the last 30 years hurt, and
antiquated plants like fukushima have to go, but new build nuclear is
$2000/kW in China (targeting $1000/kW) and much much safer, with tiny fuel
and operations costs.  However it is still only a stop-gap until breeder
reactors are developed to reduce waste and Thorium in particular offers
huge gains in safety, waste minimisation and fuel efficiency that will all
lead to big cost savings.  If you are willing to assume favourable learning
curves for CSP then you should be willing to do the same for nuclear.

Without wanting to open another can of worms, not a whole lot of warming
apparent in last 15 years, and falling rate of sea level rise since 2006.
 While the earth warmed in the 20th century and it seems most likely CO2
had some positive effect, the IPCC's assumed high positive H20 feedbacks
were ill-founded and are now being steadily revised downwards.  Even their
best-case model predictions from 10 years ago have now been shown to be
excessively pessimistic.  Seems very likely that CO2 driven thermaggedon
isn't as bad as was advertised.

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.

 That is terrible power density.


No, it isn't. As I showed in subsequent messages, a 1,600 acre strip mine
producing power at this rate would only last 30 years. This will last
indefinitely.



  If you are going to use railroads  mines you need to take into account
 mining and transportation for glass and rare earths used in csp and pv.


The mass of those materials is less than one trainload of coal for a
typical plant. Trains are dispatched to a coal plant weekly for the entire
time it is in operation. The total amount of mass that is processed is many
orders of magnitude greater than for CSP.



  You also need to take into account all of the fossil fuels required to
 clean millions of mirrors you are talking about.


It does not take fossil fuels. This can be done with electrically powered
robotic equipment, powered by the CSP itself. The energy overhead is very
small.



   Luz installations require frequent washing and blowdown in the middle of
 the desert!  Where/how are you getting that water?


As shown in the documentation it takes very little water to clean them. In
this case, all of the water they need is available in the 1,600 acre
lot. Again, it takes many orders of magnitude less water than a
conventional coal steam plant.


Last time i looked i did not see alot of existing high voltage transmission
 lines running through the mohave and sahara...


Look at the photos of this site and you will see they chose it because it
has high voltage lines nearby.



 That price does not include the cost of the land that is destroyed by
 fraking. Add that in and we are paying a fortune and destroying our living
 space, our wildlife and our future.


 But you are OK filling up the Mohave with solar panels, washing vehicles
 and transmission lines and irrigation lines?


Absolutely I am! It is infinitely better than killing 20,000 people a year,
or causing global warming. Every technology requires a trade off. This one
is reasonable.



  Killing thousands of birds with thousands of megawatts of concentrated
 flux.  Crushing tortoises, etc


Strip mining kills far more wildlife than this will. The smoke from coal
kills millions of birds. In any case, it is better than killing people or
causing global warming.



 Yes CSP does cost more. $2.2B for 392 MW at Ivanpah is a taxpayer and
 consumer rip-off.  That is 4-5 times the cost of a gas turbine plant.


1. It will cost far less if it is scaled up and mass produced. Mirrors are
cheap. The materials are abundant.

2. The cost of a gas turbine plant, if you factor in global warming, would
be incalculable. It might cause the extinction of millions of species, and
kill billions of people. No one knows how bad it might get.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a
 conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there
 is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column . . .


Yes, thorium does have higher overall energy density. I was talking about
uranium. Also I meant uranium which is not used in a breeder reactor.


The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it
 can't be made much lighter to reduce costs.


CSP mirrors are much lighter than they were 30 years ago, and they use much
less materials. Most of the equipment is now in the tower.



 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.


 That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the
 fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher
 salaries for dangerous jobs etc.


The coal industry pays NOTHING for the 20,000 people it kills. Not one
dime. I guess they have have to pay expensive lawyers to fight periodic
lawsuits, and of course they have pay for the Member of Congress they have
bribed, but those are trifling expenses compared to what an industry would
pay if it killed 20,000 urban middle class or wealthy people. You can kill
off as many rural poor people as you like. It is always open season for
them.

As for nuclear power, it is never covered by insurance. Only governments
cover it. See the Price-Anderson act. They have a similar arrangement in
Japan.

There is no way TEPCO will ever begin to pay the cost of the Fukushima
accident. It would bankrupt them a dozen times over. ~90,000 people have
lost their houses, schools, factories, town halls, roads and livelihoods,
which in the aggregate costs millions of dollars per person. TEPCO has
offered them $16,000 per family.


Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in China.


Coal costs far more deaths than that in the U.S., according to the EPA.
That is just the direct cost of accidents and mining. Coal smoke kills far
more people. As I said, the power companies pay a few lawyers and buy off
members of Congress, in return for a license to commit mayhem and murder.


Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and
 Chernobyl, and will be very cheap once perfected . . .


It is not close to being perfected after 60 years. There is no chance it
will be now. The Japanese are shutting down the entire industry. I expect
other countries will follow.

It is possible that one or two nukes will open this summer and next year,
in the Osaka area. After that, I predict that all 54 plants will be closed
permanently.

Perhaps it is unwise to precipitously abandon nuclear power, but Japan is a
democracy and the voters have spoken. If an MP were to suggest they should
continue using nuclear power, he would lose the election by a landslide.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Axil Axil]

Details, details, details…

There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with the
LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this technology.

One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to
require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the
supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even
worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental
neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated
by some bomb tests in India and the USA.

Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%. This
produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk.

The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is some
way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium. But the
LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable.

So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy.


Cheers:  Axil
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:


 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.


 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than a
 conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm there
 is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under every
 square meter of the earth's crust.  Thorium deposits are of course far more
 concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure needed to
 produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the thorium itself
 is benign enough to delivered by a postman.  LTFR waste decays below
 natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years.


 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.
  Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction
 needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the
 bad weather is infrequent.


 That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
 installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.


 The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it
 can't be made much lighter to reduce costs.  Each m² contains 10's of kg of
 expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints,
 concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat
 piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over
 the year.  All that material content and its processing is a large part of
 the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate
 capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity
 per year.





 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and
 existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


 That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
 solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
 of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
 peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
 voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
 hook up. That's why they put it there.

 Solar is more flexible than wind.

 Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who
 will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the
 U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these
 days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need
 much power on rainy days.


 4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.


 That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the
 fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher
 salaries for dangerous jobs etc.  But there are different standards in the
 West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is
 not valued so highly.  Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in
 China.  Gas is just 4 per TWh worldwide (1 TWh is worth about $200 million
 at retail level).

 Nuclear is in global terms still extremely safe even after Fukushima and
 Chernobyl, and will be very cheap once perfected, but we are not there yet.
  The global nuclear plant development 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Robert Lynn]

Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues?

On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Details, details, details…

 There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with
 the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this
 technology.

 One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to
 require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the
 supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even
 worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental
 neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated
 by some bomb tests in India and the USA.

 Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%.
 This produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk.

 The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is some
 way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium. But the
 LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable.

 So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy.


 Cheers:  Axil
 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.


 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than
 a conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm
 there is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under
 every square meter of the earth's crust.  Thorium deposits are of course
 far more concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure
 needed to produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the
 thorium itself is benign enough to delivered by a postman.  LTFR waste
 decays below natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years.


 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.
  Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction
 needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the
 bad weather is infrequent.


 That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
 installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.


 The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that it
 can't be made much lighter to reduce costs.  Each m² contains 10's of kg of
 expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints,
 concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat
 piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over
 the year.  All that material content and its processing is a large part of
 the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate
 capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity
 per year.





 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and
 existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


 That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
 solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
 of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
 peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
 voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
 hook up. That's why they put it there.

 Solar is more flexible than wind.

 Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people who
 will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles the
 U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere these
 days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do not need
 much power on rainy days.


 4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.


 That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the
 fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher
 salaries for dangerous jobs etc.  But there are different standards in the
 West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is
 not valued so highly.  Coal is 15 deaths per TWh in USA, but almost 300 in
 China.  Gas is just 4 per TWh worldwide (1 TWh is worth about $200 million
 at retail level).

 Nuclear is in global terms still 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Axil Axil]

Start off with

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

if you need more just ask.

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 7:44 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Interesting, can you point me to any sources that discuss those issues?


 On 15 June 2012 21:11, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Details, details, details…

 There are some fundamental political as well as technical problems with
 the LFTR that take some of the luster off your high opinion of this
 technology.

 One of the most insidious is the desire of the LFTR advocacy crowd to
 require the use of 19.75% enriched U235 to perpetually provide the
 supplemental neutrons needed to keep the thorium fuel cycle critical. Even
 worst is the desire to use plutonium as the source of supplemental
 neutrons. You can build bombs with reactor grade Plutonium as demonstrated
 by some bomb tests in India and the USA.

 Then there is the need for U233 denaturing with U238 at a rate of 88%.
 This produces lots of plutonium which is always a proliferation risk.

 The only way to get a PURE thorium fuel cycle is to use hot fusion is
 some way in a hybrid to eliminate the need for uranium235 and plutonium.
 But the LFTR advocates say that fusion is not viable.

 So currently a LFTR with a PURE thorium fuel cycle is a fantasy.


 Cheers:  Axil
 On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Robert Lynn 
 robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote:


 1/  The power source is too diffuse, and the sun doesn't shine at night
 meaning you need a huge plant to produce significant power.


 This is 110 MW on 1,600 acres. That is excellent power density. Better
 than uranium fission or coal, when you take into account the land needed
 for the mines and railroads to transport the fuel.


 100MW/year is about 70kg of thorium in a LFTR (about 250 times less than
 a conventional non-breeding uranium reactor requires), at average 6ppm
 there is about 70kg of thorium in the accessible column of earth under
 every square meter of the earth's crust.  Thorium deposits are of course
 far more concentrated, so you can see the mined land and infrastructure
 needed to produce 70kg of thorium per year are relatively tiny and the
 thorium itself is benign enough to delivered by a postman.  LTFR waste
 decays below natural uranium radioactivity in 300 years.


 2/  You have to build mirrors heavy to survive weather/environment.
  Hail, snow, rain, salt, wind, dust and UV all mean that the construction
 needs to be reasonably heavy if you want it to survive decades even if the
 bad weather is infrequent.


 That has not been a problem with existing installations. The LUZ
 installations have lasted for 30 years in a harsh environment.


 The point is that existing CSP is heavy but the environment means that
 it can't be made much lighter to reduce costs.  Each m² contains 10's of kg
 of expensive low iron and borosilicate glass, metals, plastics, paints,
 concrete, mirror controls, copper wiring, bearings, stainless steel heat
 piping, silver coatings etc and yet only delivers about 100W averaged over
 the year.  All that material content and its processing is a large part of
 the reason that CSP is currently optimistically $4000/kW nameplate
 capacity, but at $0.05/kWh delivers only about $100 worth of electricity
 per year.





 3/  The plants are a relatively long distance from consumers and
 existing grid infrastructure - expensive grid connections.


 That is a problem with some wind installations, but not a problem with
 solar PV or CSP. The PV installations are being built right on the grounds
 of gas turbine generators, giving the overall installation about 10% more
 peak power. The Crescent Dunes installation is right next to a major high
 voltage line so it will not cost any more than a conventional generator to
 hook up. That's why they put it there.

 Solar is more flexible than wind.

 Most solar power in Japan is a couple of meters away from the people
 who will use it, right on the roof. In southern Japan -- which resembles
 the U.S. southwest only with lots more rain -- solar roofs are everywhere
 these days. They do not generate much power on rainy days, but people do
 not need much power on rainy days.


 4/  There will be alternative extremely cheap sources of intense heat
 energy available for foreseeable future (fossil fuels + nuclear, probably
 LENR, maybe hot fusion).


 Nuclear is not cheap! Not after Fukushima. Fossil fuels are only cheap
 because the power companies do  not pay for the 20,000 they murder every
 year, and they will not pay for the cost of global warming. Add in those
 costs and coal or natural gas would cost FAR more than CSP.


 That is ridiculous, every industry has a death toll and of course the
 fossil fuel industry pays for those lives, in insurance levies, higher
 salaries for dangerous jobs etc.  But there are different standards in the
 West to the developing world where most of those deaths occur as life is
 not valued so highly.  Coal 

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

I meant to say: Solar availability and peak power are much better than WIND
in the southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand . . .


In some parts of Europe, you get a lot of wind at night, when you least
need electricity.

You cannot store wind, coal or nuclear energy, except a small amount with
batteries. You can store water or CSP. Earlier CSP installations with
stored fluid had natural gas heating for days without sunlight. This one
does not.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

Jed,

Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green energy
blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20 years
ago.  Solar one used steam/water, Solar Two used molten salt.

$1.6B/$2.2 Billion of government taxpayer money for 392 MW @ Ivanpah is a
horrendous amount of capital for that much generation, only part of the
day.  $56M went to RELOCATE 150 TORTOISES!

Hundreds of thousands of clunky, motor driven heliostats/mirrors in the
desert are going to be a maintenance headache as well as operational
nightmare washing mirrors.  Wind deflection and airborne dust is also a
problem trying to point mirrors and hit a target 1/4 mile away.

BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.

These guys spend more in Washington Lobbyists than RD

The only operating power tower is Gemasolar in Spain generating ~ 10 MW's
of electricity and cost @$200M, an absurd amount.

Brightsource's working fluid is water/steam with a steam boiler sitting
500' in the air.  Ivanpah does not have thermal salt storage.  Also, CSP
uses standard Rankine cycle so 65% of your heat collected goes back out the
air-cooled condenser.

You can install a PV field in one tenth the time it takes to install a CSP
tower, foundation, turbine, power plant, etc.  Alstom likes the CSP
technology because they still get to sell their power equipment.

Also, placing these things in the middle of the desert, although the sun is
bright, creates a huge transmission cost/problem.  Distributed PV is alot
more cost effective.

Let's wait until these things are completed and running before spending one
more cent of taxpayer money.

Other than that I agree with everything you are saying...


On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with a
 central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more efficient
 and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They recently
 finished erecting the tower. See:

 http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf


 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed

 1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
 versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
 an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).

 Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the
 southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for
 airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not
 drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the
 energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV
 solar. The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
 energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

 The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
 years ago.


Yes. Things often go wrong with cutting edge technology. Ask Boeing.



 BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
 late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.


They were driven out of business by political machinations of the power
companies and the coal industry. They were forced to build installations
that every study showed would be too small. They could have built them 5
times larger and made a profit, but the power companies refused. It was a
ploy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Robert Lynn]

I was involved in a CSP project a few years back, and as much as I enjoyed
the tech side of it I have to agree with you.  Large scale CSP is probably
cheaper than large scale PV, but after you factor in maintenance, fighting
BANANAs ( Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything) and particularly
grid connection and distribution costs CSP just can't compete with roof-top
PV or small local PV installations supplemented by other power sources to
deal with lack of sun at night.

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive with natural
gas in the next few decades.  And it will not compete with nuclear in the
long term either (China already does nuclear for about $0.03-04/kWh, the
west will eventually get the price down as well on the back of China's
learning curve).  May as well let CSP die.

On 14 June 2012 19:40, Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

 Jed,

 Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
 energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

 The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
 years ago.  Solar one used steam/water, Solar Two used molten salt.

 $1.6B/$2.2 Billion of government taxpayer money for 392 MW @ Ivanpah is a
 horrendous amount of capital for that much generation, only part of the
 day.  $56M went to RELOCATE 150 TORTOISES!

 Hundreds of thousands of clunky, motor driven heliostats/mirrors in the
 desert are going to be a maintenance headache as well as operational
 nightmare washing mirrors.  Wind deflection and airborne dust is also a
 problem trying to point mirrors and hit a target 1/4 mile away.

 BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
 late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.

 These guys spend more in Washington Lobbyists than RD

 The only operating power tower is Gemasolar in Spain generating ~ 10 MW's
 of electricity and cost @$200M, an absurd amount.

 Brightsource's working fluid is water/steam with a steam boiler sitting
 500' in the air.  Ivanpah does not have thermal salt storage.  Also, CSP
 uses standard Rankine cycle so 65% of your heat collected goes back out the
 air-cooled condenser.

 You can install a PV field in one tenth the time it takes to install a CSP
 tower, foundation, turbine, power plant, etc.  Alstom likes the CSP
 technology because they still get to sell their power equipment.

 Also, placing these things in the middle of the desert, although the sun
 is bright, creates a huge transmission cost/problem.  Distributed PV is
 alot more cost effective.

 Let's wait until these things are completed and running before spending
 one more cent of taxpayer money.

 Other than that I agree with everything you are saying...


 On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:

 This is a 110 MW concentrating solar power (CSP) project in Nevada, with
 a central tower, on 1,600 acres of land. The tower approach is more
 efficient and cheaper than the troughs that were common 20 years ago. They
 recently finished erecting the tower. See:

 http://www.tonopahsolar.com/pdfs/FactSheet_CrescentDunes.pdf


 http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2012/06/u-s-solar-industry-posts-solid-q1-with-506-mw-installed

 1.1 GW of CSP plants are now under construction. I think the nameplate
 versus actual ratio is better than wind, so this represents roughly half of
 an average nuclear plant (which is 0.9 GW).

 Solar availability and peak power are much better than solar in the
 southwest because the peak coincides with the highest demand, mainly for
 airconditioning. Demand at night is always much lower anyway. CSP does not
 drop when there is temporary cloud cover. It will be able to store the
 energy, even for use at night. That is a big advantage of CSP over PV
 solar. The working fluid is molten salt at 1050 deg F = 566 deg C.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
to prove that something 5 times more expensive than current generating
technologies would cost 5 times as much to the consumer/taxpayer.

The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.
 LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for that.
 Let capital markets decide.

There was a government study done once that showed there is good money to
be made in government studies. The recent government/green spend program
has taken that concept to a new level.

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 Your problem is that you believe everything you read off those green
 energy blogs/flyers and believe it is true.

 The original Solar One and Solar Two Power Towers were moth-balled 20
 years ago.


 Yes. Things often go wrong with cutting edge technology. Ask Boeing.



 BrightSource was Luz2 the reincarnation of Luz1 that went bankrupt in the
 late 80's when the government cut their funding back then.


 They were driven out of business by political machinations of the power
 companies and the coal industry. They were forced to build installations
 that every study showed would be too small. They could have built them 5
 times larger and made a profit, but the power companies refused. It was a
 ploy.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:

You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a ploy
to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful method
of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new technology.
As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just about every
large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with government help.
In many cases these technologies have been invented and implemented by
governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the GPS and human
genome reading technology.

Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold fusion
succeeds it will be the same way.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

Jed,

Is 10 billion enough to prove it is not cost effective?

20 billion?  50?

I could have launched those tortoises into earth orbit for $56M in taxpayer
money spent at Ivanpah relocaiting them

I am not much for conspiracy theories although they are fun to read

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


 Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
 operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
 paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
 licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
 times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


 The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


 That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a
 ploy to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful
 method of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


 Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new
 technology. As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just
 about every large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with
 government help. In many cases these technologies have been invented and
 implemented by governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the
 GPS and human genome reading technology.

 Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
 invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
 transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
 which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
 government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
 johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
 Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

 Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold
 fusion succeeds it will be the same way.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

Also,

CSP is not radically new it has been around for 30 years awaiting
government money, only the names have changed.

If SEGS was so profitable why did Luz go bankrupt?

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com javascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
 'cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote:

 You are right, the government should have given them 5 times as much money
 to prove that something 5 times more expensive . . .


 Luz did not use much government money, and their 300 MW plant has been
 operating continuously at a profit since the 1980s, so I suppose they have
 paid back in taxes by now. The government and the power company should have
 licensed them to build a plant 5 times bigger. It would not have cost 5
 times more. That's the whole point! See: economies of scale.


 The market for CSP(none) drove them out of business not the government.


 That is not the story I read, in a book, which I cannot find. It was a
 ploy to destroy the industry. A squeeze play, not unlike GM's successful
 method of destroying electric cars.



  LENR has the potential to up-end the current market and I am all for
 that.  Let capital markets decide.


 Capital markets have never been able to introduce radically new
 technology. As I have often pointed out here, in the last 300 years, just
 about every large-scale technology has been brought to fruition with
 government help. In many cases these technologies have been invented and
 implemented by governments, such as nuclear power, computers, lasers, the
 GPS and human genome reading technology.

 Even technology that seems to be brought about by industry was not. Ford
 invented the mass produced automobile, but that is only a small part of the
 transportation system. It is an adjunct to the paved roads and highways,
 which are all built by the government. Ford was taking advantage of a
 government-provided technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were also
 johnny-come-latelys who took advantage of microcomputer technology after
 Uncle Sam paid something like ~80% of the money to develop it.

 Industry gets the profits, but the taxpayers foot the bills. If cold
 fusion succeeds it will be the same way.

 - Jed

RE: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jones Beene]

From: Robert Lynn 

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive
with natural gas in the next few decades.  

Your bring up an interesting point, although it is not clear how you
intended it.

In fact, there could be synergy between CSP and LENR that goes beyond
baseload considerations. This could involve efficient P-in during day time
operation, and shared heat-storage for 24/7 operation.

Many observers are convinced that even if Mills' theory is incorrect in
major parts, the gain from LENR still originates in the EUV spectrum
(extreme ultraviolet) and via the Rydberg progression that Mills suggests.
This is the alternative to Hagelstein's magic phonon method of attenuation
and it makes a lot more sense.

In short, Mills could be wrong on many details, since he denies a nuclear
origin of excess energy, but still he could be accurate in describing the
way that nuclear energy is removed without gammas in a novel (mass to
energy) conversion process - via EUV quanta in multiples of the Rydberg
value where 1 Ry = 13.6057 eV. 

Mills' theory, in fact does accurately explain how and why the solar corona
is not only hotter than the sun itself, which is true, and how it provides a
large fraction of energy received on earth (most of the 'light' received
begins as EUV in the corona and not as gamma radiation in the core).

Jones

attachment: winmail.dat

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Axil Axil]

From the LENR/gamma experiments of Piantelli, it seems to me that the way
gamma radiation is thermalized is provisional; sometimes gamma is
thermalized and other times it is not.



Rossi also had occasional gamma emission problems(at startup and shutdown)
before he cured this condition.



If Mills mechanism is an absolute law of nature like gravity, what in the
Mills theory explains why gamma radiation is not thermalized in every
possible case and kindly explain what that special situation works?




Cheers:  Axil

On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:


From: Robert Lynn

Assuming no LENR there is no chance of CSP being competitive
 with natural gas in the next few decades.

 Your bring up an interesting point, although it is not clear how you
 intended it.

 In fact, there could be synergy between CSP and LENR that goes beyond
 baseload considerations. This could involve efficient P-in during day time
 operation, and shared heat-storage for 24/7 operation.

 Many observers are convinced that even if Mills' theory is incorrect in
 major parts, the gain from LENR still originates in the EUV spectrum
 (extreme ultraviolet) and via the Rydberg progression that Mills suggests.
 This is the alternative to Hagelstein's magic phonon method of
 attenuation
 and it makes a lot more sense.

 In short, Mills could be wrong on many details, since he denies a nuclear
 origin of excess energy, but still he could be accurate in describing the
 way that nuclear energy is removed without gammas in a novel (mass to
 energy) conversion process - via EUV quanta in multiples of the Rydberg
 value where 1 Ry = 13.6057 eV.

 Mills' theory, in fact does accurately explain how and why the solar corona
 is not only hotter than the sun itself, which is true, and how it provides
 a
 large fraction of energy received on earth (most of the 'light' received
 begins as EUV in the corona and not as gamma radiation in the core).

 Jones

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 CSP is not radically new it has been around for 30 years awaiting
 government money, only the names have changed.

 If SEGS was so profitable why did Luz go bankrupt?


I told you: it was a squeeze play. The power company and coal companies
conspired to set up the conditions in a way that Luz could not make money.
Everyone knew they were backed into a corner. It was build something too
small at a loss, or you will not have the opportunity to build anything. I
think Luz hoped to cut a deal for a larger-scale profitable plant later,
since their technology was easily scaled up, but it was not to be. As I
recall the state Attorney General looked into an anti-trust charge, but
dropped it.

To exaggerate, it is as if you told Ford they can set up a manufacturing
plant as long as they restrict it to 5,000 cars a year. They might do it,
hoping a sane person will take over and let them make enough cars to make a
profit.

I sometimes think that energy production in California has produced more
graft, corporate malfeasance and obscene profits than the rest of U.S.
combined. Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with the Enron
burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing into thin
air. The lawsuits are probably continuing to the present day. As I recall,
California was able to claw back a lot of the loot.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


 [California's] Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with
 the Enron burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing
 into thin air.


By the way, I would not say that was the fault of capitalism. What Enron
and the legislators in California was not capitalism! It was a kleptocracy,
like Saddam Hussien's government. The state of California issued Enron a
license to steal.

You cannot have free market competition when one company is given carte
blanche access to write the legislation, the tax laws, and the regulations
in a way that benefits them and excludes the competition. Or, when there
are no rules, and you can burn down the competition's warehouses and
undersell them at a loss, the way the great Robber Barons of the 19th
century did. Capitalism only works when there is a strong government to
enforce things like anti-trust laws, and fair advertising laws.

Capitalism is a great way to develop existing technology but as I said, it
has never worked to develop radically new big ticket disruptive technology.
I do not know of any examples, and I have read a lot of books about the
history of technology. Capitalism does a wonderful job inventing and
perfecting incremental improvements to existing technology, such as the
hard disk (invented by IBM pretty much without Uncle Sam's help as I
recall).

Most technology is an incremental improvement on what exists already. That
is not an insult. Engineers generally prefer the tried and true technology,
rather than the radical new one. They have good reasons.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Chemical Engineer]

Jed,

I am an engineer and I like new technology as do many.  The entire CSP
market in California has been created from State Legislation, Federal
grants, loans and subsidies.  The market will dry up when those options go
away again with changing adminstrations just as it did 25+ years ago.  It
is just the same old girl in a new dress... I think it is a step backwards.
 Give me distributed PV, distributed LENR and some high capacity electrical
storage batteries such as that from http://lmbcorporation.com/ and hybrid
LENR/electric transportation and off we go.

On Thursday, June 14, 2012, Jed Rothwell wrote:

 I wrote:


 [California's] Their laissez faire approach ended spectacularly with
 the Enron burn baby burn episodes, with billions of dollars vanishing
 into thin air.


 By the way, I would not say that was the fault of capitalism. What Enron
 and the legislators in California was not capitalism! It was a kleptocracy,
 like Saddam Hussien's government. The state of California issued Enron a
 license to steal.

 You cannot have free market competition when one company is given carte
 blanche access to write the legislation, the tax laws, and the regulations
 in a way that benefits them and excludes the competition. Or, when there
 are no rules, and you can burn down the competition's warehouses and
 undersell them at a loss, the way the great Robber Barons of the 19th
 century did. Capitalism only works when there is a strong government to
 enforce things like anti-trust laws, and fair advertising laws.

 Capitalism is a great way to develop existing technology but as I said, it
 has never worked to develop radically new big ticket disruptive technology.
 I do not know of any examples, and I have read a lot of books about the
 history of technology. Capitalism does a wonderful job inventing and
 perfecting incremental improvements to existing technology, such as the
 hard disk (invented by IBM pretty much without Uncle Sam's help as I
 recall).

 Most technology is an incremental improvement on what exists already. That
 is not an insult. Engineers generally prefer the tried and true technology,
 rather than the radical new one. They have good reasons.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote:


 I am an engineer and I like new technology as do many.


Of course! But if you had to choose between a tried and true old method
that works as well as a new one, I'll bet you would go with the old one. It
is a safer choice. It is often a wistful choice . . .



  The entire CSP market in California has been created from State
 Legislation, Federal grants, loans and subsidies.


My point exactly! And in May 1844, the entire telegraph market was created
by fiat by Congress, which paid way to much to adventurous young Turks such
as Ezra Cornell so they could waste money learning many different wrong
ways of laying a telegraph line between Baltimore and Washington DC. A big
fat waste of the taxpayers' money it was -- everyone said so.

That is also what many people said about the government's subsidies for
steamships, and railroads, and canals before that, and later sewers and
other public health measures, public schools, land grant universities, the
NIS, the Panama Canal, air transport (heavily subsidized from 1914 to the
1930s) and countless other technologies.



  The market will dry up when those options go away again with changing
 adminstrations just as it did 25+ years ago.


Or not. The market for steamships, railroads, air transportation,
computers, integrated circuits and the Internet did not dry up after the
government privatized these things and let corporations reap the benefits.

These things always start out as a technology that could not survive
without government support. There are THOUSANDS of examples, big and small.
Of course there are failures, such as ethanol. But they are far outnumbered
by the successes.

There is no technical reason why CSP cannot become competitive with other
technologies, especially if you factor in the cost in lives, health, and
global warming from the alternatives such as coal and natural gas from
fracking. Of course it is not competitive now. If I had a cold fusion
generator right now, you can be darn sure it would be hundreds or perhaps
thousands of times more expensive per watt than any alternative. The first
100,000 cold fusion power reactors will be far more expensive than any
other kind. The first computers cost way more than mechanical calculating
machines. Some of the first transistors cost $17 and they
replaced vacuum tubes costing a nickel each. That comparison misses the
point. It was obvious that transistors would soon get cheaper. Granted, not
many people realized they would someday cost a millionth of of a penny, but
it was clear there was plenty of room at the bottom (Feynman).

- Jed