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 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. > > 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 > >
