On Aug 1, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Jones Beene wrote:
--- Horace Heffner wrote:
Sterling is expensive by comparison:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2dufax
Sandia labs model 25 kW at $50,000 is $2.00/W
"Why hasn't Stirling Energy's technology made more
of a splash in the power business?
But Horace, you must have sent the incorrect URL
because this article clearly states that the ONLY
large utility 'grid power plant' in the USA - the SCE
plant is going with the Sandia Stirling ! and has
rejected photovoltaic for comparative cost reasons!
IOW the article presents the opposite case and
argument which you intended.
Not at all. My argument was based on current cost per watt. This is
a highly subsidized sweetheart product development deal. It's not a
head to head competition for off the shelf commercial units.
"For 20 years the utility will buy all the electricity that Stirling
Energy can generate at a 500-megawatt solar energy farm that Stirling
will build in the Mojave Desert near Victorville, Calif."
If Stirling Energy Systems Inc. goes broke it's no problem for
Southern California Edison. They didn't buy the stuff.
And that is without the benefit of mass production.
The article ends:
"Stirling dish farms with a total area of 100 miles
square could replace all the fossil fuels now burned
to generate electricity in the entire U.S. What
happens in the California desert over the next few
years could determine whether thermal solar power can
help end the dominance of fossil fuels."
Solar panels can "replace all fossil fuels now burned to generate
electricity" too, and more economically. Of course that statement in
the article really means replace the kWh, because solar electricity
is not available after dark. Architecturally integrated solar
designs can eliminate *all* energy requirements for a home in many
locations when combined with a battery system, and avoid transmission
costs too.
I think it is a good thing all options are being pursued and
competition will sort it out.
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
