[Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[pjvannoorden]

Hello Robin

First the best wishes for 2016

You are right that the high efficiency cells can be used for that purpose
but I think they also will perform most optimal at lower temperatures like 
normal PV. To use them at 100 C or more
would bring down the efficiency, but to store heat it would be best to go 
above 100 C.
So when you put them in the centre axis of the concentrator you would have 
to cool them

down as possible, which would result in low grade heat.
Further these high efficiency cells are much more expensive to use in the 
trough compared to normal PV`s
so probably it is cheaper and more efficient to use normal PV`s in the 
trough and use the centre axis of the concentrator only

to get high grade heat.
That is my guess, but i am not 100% sure.

Peter





-Oorspronkelijk bericht- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Thursday, December 31, 2015 9:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

In reply to  <pjvannoor...@caiway.nl>'s message of Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:26:56
+0100:
Hi Peter,

While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also high
efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm guessing 
that
these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the 
case?



Hello Robin

To store heat economically they can not use water heated by the
PV cells, bcs these cells have to be as cool as possible to work
efficiently.
By concentrating the rest of the direct sunlight on a thermal absorber
it is possible to get much higher temperatures to store heat effectively,
while keeping the
solar cells at a much lower temperature

Peter v Noorden

[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

--
Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij.
Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/ 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:


> The real play with Ivanpah was the IPO, which failed.  That way the crooks
> would have had the taxpayers pay for it the first time and then investors
> buy it a second time while they suck the money out and bankrupt it.
>

This makes no sense. If the investors first borrow money from the
government and then do an IPO, they have to return the loan with the IPO
money. You cannot keep both the loan and the IPO money. The taxpayers would
not "pay for it the first time." They don't "pay for" anything. They lend
you the money. You pay for it.

You also have to return the loan with any profit you make. You cannot
choose not to pay back a loan!

As long as the power company continues to buy electricity from this
installation, the taxpayers will get their money back eventually.

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

"You also have to return the loan with any profit you make. You cannot
choose not to pay back a loan!"

Actually, the taxpayers just paid off $539M of their own loan to Ivanpah.
Taxpayers lent the money and taxpayers paid.

"Now, Ivanpah is asking

for
$539 million in cash from the federal government. This time, Ivanpah is
targeting a Department of Treasury tax credit program that reimburses
renewable energy projects for up to 30 percent of project costs.

Ivanpah would use the proceeds to pay off a large portion of its $1.6
billion loan. The company is asking the federal government to provide it
with an enormous amount of cash to be used to payoff its debt to taxpayers.
DOE actually requires Ivanpah to apply for a tax credit to aid loan
repayment.

The process is absurd. First, the government uses tax dollars to provide a
loan guarantee to a risky firm. Then, it functionally forgives a large
share of the outstanding balance after providing a large tax credit. This
is an unjustified giveaway to investors in Ivanpah and a horrible deal for
taxpayers."

IPO funds are capital, not profit.  The loan gets paid back based upon
terms of the loan, not profits.  Lots of loans never get paid back if
contracts default or are lost and companies run out of operating capital
and go bankrupt.



On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Jed Rothwell > wrote:

> ChemE Stewart  > wrote:
>
>
>> The real play with Ivanpah was the IPO, which failed.  That way the
>> crooks would have had the taxpayers pay for it the first time and then
>> investors buy it a second time while they suck the money out and bankrupt
>> it.
>>
>
> This makes no sense. If the investors first borrow money from the
> government and then do an IPO, they have to return the loan with the IPO
> money. You cannot keep both the loan and the IPO money. The taxpayers would
> not "pay for it the first time." They don't "pay for" anything. They lend
> you the money. You pay for it.
>
> You also have to return the loan with any profit you make. You cannot
> choose not to pay back a loan!
>
> As long as the power company continues to buy electricity from this
> installation, the taxpayers will get their money back eventually.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:


> Actually, the taxpayers just paid off $539M of their own loan to Ivanpah.
> Taxpayers lent the money and taxpayers paid.
>

That is not what Renewable Energy News said. I do not know which version of
the news is correct, but I kind of doubt the Federal Government would agree
to the arrangement described in your source. (Cato.org)

Both sources may be biased. Renewable Energy News is opposed to fossil
fuels and in favor of renewable energy and new energy sources. Cato.org is
the opposite. I doubt they have any objection to the gigantic subsidies for
oil and coal.

They oppose energy research, including research into fossil fuel. I expect
they would be furious to learn that DARPA has supported cold fusion!

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/energy/energy-subsidies

Some of the items listed here, such as the National Ignition Facility and
most National Labs are in the nuclear weapons development business, not
energy. They are under the DoE but they should be in the DoD.

Speaking of the DoD, see:

http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2015/11/06

- Jed

[Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[pjvannoorden]

Hello Robin

To store heat economically they can not use water heated by the
PV cells, bcs these cells have to be as cool as possible to work 
efficiently.

By concentrating the rest of the direct sunlight on a thermal absorber
it is possible to get much higher temperatures to store heat effectively, 
while keeping the

solar cells at a much lower temperature

Peter v Noorden


-Oorspronkelijk bericht- 
From: mix...@bigpond.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 30, 2015 10:16 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

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

--
Deze email is gecontroleerd door CAIWAY Internet Virusvrij.
Voor meer informatie, zie http://www.caiway.nl/ 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Thu, 31 Dec 2015 12:26:56
+0100:
Hi Peter,

While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also high
efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm guessing that
these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the case?

>Hello Robin
>
>To store heat economically they can not use water heated by the
>PV cells, bcs these cells have to be as cool as possible to work 
>efficiently.
>By concentrating the rest of the direct sunlight on a thermal absorber
>it is possible to get much higher temperatures to store heat effectively, 
>while keeping the
>solar cells at a much lower temperature
>
>Peter v Noorden
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

ChemE Stewart  wrote:


> Wrong, Ivanpah uses steam drum boiler technology and steam turbine
> technology and Home Depot flat mirror technology that have been around for
> 100 years.
>

I believe the mirrors are more high tech than the ones at Home Depot, but
if they were 100-year-old technology that would be an advantage, not a
problem. Simple, cheap, proven old technology is good. However, as you see
in the ASME document I referenced below, these are not ordinary mirrors.

Wind turbine technology has been around since 1000 BC, with windmills.
There were experimental giant 3-blade wind turbines in the 1940s. Even
though wind energy has been around for centuries, tremendous improvements
in wind energy have been made since the 1970s.

There is no technology that cannot be improved and updated to the latest
techniques. Combustion engineering (fire) has been used for 4.3 million
years, and yet we are still improving it. I read that the production of
wine and the quality of wine has improved more in the last 50 years than in
all the thousands of years previously.


Nothing to mature except maybe some of your robots to wash mirrors.  Where
> are they?
>

Any technology can "mature" more than it is now. Here is an ASME
publication describing some recent advances in CSP technology. This is
sophisticated, 21st century engineering:

https://www.asme.org/getmedia/44edaee0-d607-4ec4-b241-1b7877bdbd01/Catching-the-Sun.aspx

I believe they are using HECTOR robots to wash the mirrors:

http://social.csptoday.com/technology/hector-meet-future-solar-field-mirror-washing

The mirrors are mostly self-cleaning, because they are made with a
high-tech coating that keeps water and dust from sticking. Quoting the ASME
document:

"By using transparent superhydrophobic coatings on collector mirrors, we’ll
be able to create high-performance and low-maintenance concentrating solar
power electricity generation . . ."


The reflector coatings are expected to provide as much as a 90 percent
reduction in mirror cleaning and maintenance costs, and provide about a 20
percent improvement in the average amount of reflected solar energy.


There are any number of improvements that could be made. If history had
been different, and someone had made this coating in 1980 instead of
improving wind turbine blade technology, we might have giant CSP plants,
and everyone would be saying how high-tech and 21st century they appear.

If you look up Ivanpah you will find the WSJ and many others attacking it
because it failed. This is unfair. CSP did not fail so much as PV and wind
*succeeded* better than anticipated. People who have never made a new
product or risked money in R are always quick to criticize those who try
yet lose the competition. If history had been a little different, the WSJ
would be excoriating wind turbines and PV, saying "people should be using
tried-and-true CSP generators instead of wasting money on unproven,
speculative technology."

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

 wrote:


> While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also high
> efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm
> guessing that
> these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the
> case?
>

Yes, I recall reading about them years ago. This kind of hybrid approach is
a nifty idea, but I believe it has now been dropped because so much
progress has been made in conventional PVs. It has been overtaken.

This is what has happened to the Ivanpah CSP design. It was a promising
approach. Many smart people thought it deserved a chance. Unfortunately for
the investors, conventional PV made such rapid progress that by the time
they built Ivanpah it was obsolete. It was too expensive.

This often happens in commercial technology. Many great computer
innovations came and went in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the
minicomputer CPU designs and operating systems, and things like RISC
processors.

In a competition for the best commercial technology you only have room for
one or two winners. Everyone else loses. By that I mean there is usually
only room in the marketplace for one or two standards: the PC and the Mac;
33 rpm and 48 rpm records; AM and FM radio; the U.S. NTSC and the European
TV broadcast standard. Design engineers could probably come up with many
alternatives to these standards that would be better in some ways, but the
market can only support a few standards because the engineers, installers,
technicians, salespeople and others do not have time to learn multiple
standards.

Often the technology that wins is not the "best" by every standard. If some
other approach had been pursued earlier, it might have deserved to win.
Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar CSP
technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it would
be cheaper than PV or wind. The power companies would have constructed many
giant CSP installations in the Southwest, especially the Mojave Desert. In
this alternative universe, Southern California and Nevada might have
cheaper electricity than they do now, most of it from CSP. This did not
happen, and by now I think it is too late and it will never happen.

In another alternative universe, electric cars performance would not have
fallen so far behind gasoline models in from 1900 to 1914. The 1907
gasoline-electric hybrid automobile might have been developed. In this
scenario, I think there would have been more breakthroughs in battery
technology over the last 100 years, because there would be more incentive,
and more R money. By now, every car would be electric, OPEC would not
exist, and we would not have fought all those wars in the Middle East.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Jed:

"Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar CSP
technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it would
be cheaper than PV or wind"


Wrong, Ivanpah uses steam drum boiler technology and steam turbine
technology and Home Depot flat mirror technology that have been around for
100 years. Nothing to mature except maybe some of your robots to wash
mirrors.  Where are they?

Also, please show where Ivanpah is profitable, that division of NRG with a
share in Ivanpah had a net loss in Q3. Ivanpah was producing 40% less steam
and using 40% more natural gas and had higher than expected development
costs.

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> >
> wrote:
>
>
>> While true of normal solar cells, I seem to recall that there are also
>> high
>> efficiency cells designed to be used with solar concentrators. I'm
>> guessing that
>> these will also function at boiling water temperatures. Is this not the
>> case?
>>
>
> Yes, I recall reading about them years ago. This kind of hybrid approach
> is a nifty idea, but I believe it has now been dropped because so much
> progress has been made in conventional PVs. It has been overtaken.
>
> This is what has happened to the Ivanpah CSP design. It was a promising
> approach. Many smart people thought it deserved a chance. Unfortunately for
> the investors, conventional PV made such rapid progress that by the time
> they built Ivanpah it was obsolete. It was too expensive.
>
> This often happens in commercial technology. Many great computer
> innovations came and went in the 1970s and 1980s, especially in the
> minicomputer CPU designs and operating systems, and things like RISC
> processors.
>
> In a competition for the best commercial technology you only have room for
> one or two winners. Everyone else loses. By that I mean there is usually
> only room in the marketplace for one or two standards: the PC and the Mac;
> 33 rpm and 48 rpm records; AM and FM radio; the U.S. NTSC and the European
> TV broadcast standard. Design engineers could probably come up with many
> alternatives to these standards that would be better in some ways, but the
> market can only support a few standards because the engineers, installers,
> technicians, salespeople and others do not have time to learn multiple
> standards.
>
> Often the technology that wins is not the "best" by every standard. If
> some other approach had been pursued earlier, it might have deserved to
> win. Suppose that in the 1990s someone had put a lot of money into solar
> CSP technology. The cost might have fallen quickly and perhaps today it
> would be cheaper than PV or wind. The power companies would have
> constructed many giant CSP installations in the Southwest, especially the
> Mojave Desert. In this alternative universe, Southern California and Nevada
> might have cheaper electricity than they do now, most of it from CSP. This
> did not happen, and by now I think it is too late and it will never happen.
>
> In another alternative universe, electric cars performance would not have
> fallen so far behind gasoline models in from 1900 to 1914. The 1907
> gasoline-electric hybrid automobile might have been developed. In this
> scenario, I think there would have been more breakthroughs in battery
> technology over the last 100 years, because there would be more incentive,
> and more R money. By now, every car would be electric, OPEC would not
> exist, and we would not have fought all those wars in the Middle East.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[Jed Rothwell]

Note: The ASME document may not describe the coating used at Ivanpah.
However, I read an article about the glass there some time ago that said it
has some similar coating. It resembles Teflon. Water and dust do not easily
adhere to it; they blow right off again.

I wish they would invent something like that for eye glasses.

The ASME document describes heat transfer fluid and many other aspects of
CSP that are at the cutting edge, and that may be useful in other
technology.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Re: Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

[ChemE Stewart]

Interesting that Ivanpah is a high wind area with land sailing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanpah_Lake

Flat mirrors catch a lot more wind than a low profile trough, like a sail.

I guess without the mirror coating the system would be be performing
even worse than 40% below design...

Troughs have used Dowtherm fluid or equivalent for 40 years, molten salt is
a newer fluid with much less proven performance and design hazards
(corrosive & solidifies when it cools off)

The real play with Ivanpah was the IPO, which failed.  That way the crooks
would have had the taxpayers pay for it the first time and then investors
buy it a second time while they suck the money out and bankrupt it.

Having a big glare problem Ivanpah also, FAA is involved.

http://docketpublic.energy.ca.gov/PublicDocuments/07-AFC-05C/TN203395_20141203T090345_IVANPAH_SOLAR_GENERATING_SYSTEM_GLARE_INVESTIGATION.pdf

Bird problem takes care of itself, most vaporize before striking the ground
so they don't count. :)

Happy New Year!

On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Note: The ASME document may not describe the coating used at Ivanpah.
> However, I read an article about the glass there some time ago that said it
> has some similar coating. It resembles Teflon. Water and dust do not easily
> adhere to it; they blow right off again.
>
> I wish they would invent something like that for eye glasses.
>
> The ASME document describes heat transfer fluid and many other aspects of
> CSP that are at the cutting edge, and that may be useful in other
> technology.
>
> - Jed
>
>