Wind power has come of age (see here). Concentrated solar thermal power is next.
Southern California Edison has contracted with BrightSource Energy Inc. for seven projects totaling 1,300 megawatts of concentrated solar-thermal power. CSP is a core climate solution, probably the zero-carbon form of electricity with the most potential, since it can be easily integrated with thermal storage and provide power reliably throughout the day and evening.
The agreement, which now requires approval from the California Public Utilities Commission, calls for a series of totaling 1,300 megawatts. The first of these solar power plants, sized at 100 megawatts and located in Ivanpah, Calif., could be operating in early 2013 and is expected to produce 286,000 megawatt-hours of renewable electricity per year ... The full 1,300 megawatts of projects will produce 3.7 billion kilowatt-hours of clean energy and avoid more than two million tons of carbon dioxide emissions annually.
These are air-cooled power plants, so they sacrifice some efficiency to dramatically reduce water consumption in the arid regions in which they operate.
For a discussion of current and projected near-term CSP deployment see “CSP update” here and, more recently, here. As of November, “some 60 plants are either under construction or under contract worldwide—with most in either Spain or the United States—for a total capacity just north of 5,700 megawatts.”
On the one hand, the global recession and credit crunch may slow that down, but on the other hand, compensating for that is state renewable electricity standards, Obama’s commitment to double renewable production by the end of his first term, and the European Union’s strong renewable energy targets.
For some of the history of CSP, see my April 2008 Salon piece.
OK, maybe “will” should be “may help,” and CP readers have been hearing about CSP for a while (see here).
It is the best source of clean energy to replace coal and sustain economic development. I bet that it will deliver more power every year this century than coal with carbon capture and storage—for much less money and with far less environmental damage.
How much less? Many industry experts told me CSP will likely deliver power for well under $0.10 per kilowatt hour fully installed in the next decade.
What is its market potential? I think it could be more than two wedges, which is several thousand gigawatts:
It would be straightforward to build CSP systems at whatever rate industry and governments needed, ultimately 50 to 100 gigawatts a year growth or more.
Why is CSP so important?
Because it’s the only form of clean electricity that can meet all the demanding requirements of this century ...
Solar baseload’s ultimate “trump card” is, of course, storage, as the Daily Climate explained well:
The ability to store power for later use is a holy grail of sorts for renewable energy developers. Wind and photovoltaic plants force utilities to use the power on the spot or dump the load. Various batteries and capacitors are in the works for those technologies, but none so far match the smooth efficiency or low cost of solar thermal’s ability to hoard sunlight.
A plant designed with storage can shunt the hot oil from the mirrors to a giant insulated heat sink—a vat of molten salt, say, or a chunk of concrete or pig iron. Then after the sun sets but while demand remains high, that heat can be tapped to generate steam.
Or if a cloud rolls over a plant’s mirrors, or an afternoon thunderstorm stalls overhead, hundreds of megawatts of juice won’t suddenly drop off the grid. Utility operators can simply tap the tank.
“We’ve sort of stumbled on this thing with storage,” said Tom R. Mancini, program manager for concentrated solar power technologies at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. “The round-trip efficiency is 90 percent ... Solar thermal is made for this.”
Arizona Public Service is building a plant that can keep the sun’s power for six hours past sunset, allowing managers to meet evening demand with mid-afternoon sun. A utility in Spain hopes to develop a plant that can keep heat for seven. Engineers figure 14 hours or more is feasible.
Wired has a good discussion of the new deal and of the history of BrightSource:
BrightSource is the reincarnation of Luz International, which built the only currently operating solar thermal facility during the 1980s in the Mojave Desert. After natural gas and energy prices plunged in 1985, that operation became unprofitable. The group’s engineers and founders moved the business to Israel, where they continued to work on their technology.
Why Luz failed is a sad but interesting story I will say for another post.
Kudos to SCE for pursuing and closing this deal even in the midst of the greatest recession and credit crunch since the great depression.
[Note: Going forward, I will try not to refer to a CSP plant as solar thermal baseload if it doesn’t have storage. The BrightSource plants will not have storage.]
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Comments
View as Flat
theBike45 Posted 11:21 am
12 Feb 2009
Permalink
sunflower Posted 12:11 pm
12 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:07 pm
12 Feb 2009
In fact I think that each home, farm, or business could arrange for their own battery storage and backup. Every home with a generator? No that won't be neccesary.
Every 10th home would be enough, and a farm biogas system could backup 100 homes.
Don't replicate the central power grid. Period.
Build out a new HVDC super grid. That will simulate the effect of centralized power in a much more stable platform. a platform that can accept conventional power as backup while it maximizes renewable power use.
Keep the CSP on and around factories that use furnace heat, use solar furnace heat then cogenerate from thermal storage. Desert solar isn't really necessary.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Ken Johnson Posted 3:12 pm
12 Feb 2009
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:15 pm
12 Feb 2009
So that we don't have to waste even more on stuff like this.
http://greyfalcon.net/yellowcake
http://greyfalcon.net/dubainukes.zip
-David Ahlport
Permalink
jeffgreen11 Posted 11:02 pm
12 Feb 2009
Nuclear has serious problems to deal with that are very expensive.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 12:13 am
13 Feb 2009
Iron oxides can smooth solar power over the whole temperate-zone year.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:14 am
13 Feb 2009
How much from other renewables?
Another 30% with solar maybe? Maybe half rooftop PV cogeneration and half factory mounted CSP with thermal storage to backup the solar panel input at night?
Maybe 10% from waste stream biogas distributed generation using fuel cell cogeneration with 70%+ efficiency?
Then conservation and efficiency to cut the other 50%?
By the time this is acomplished, maybe 10 to 20 years from now, storage will most likely be cheap and mass produced. Battery and superconducting storage systems widely available, reliable, and safe. And an HVDC national super grid will provide all the stability 100% renewable energy needs.
Year after year wind, solar, waste stream biogas, and conservation could chip away, maybe 6% per year, at the combustion problem. Until no more fuel is needed, fossil or nuclear.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 11:05 am
14 Feb 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:06 pm
14 Feb 2009
The internet boom, interrupted by bush era cronyism, is finally eliminating them. But how could that be if powerful industries and their lobbyists always win?
In this case the commercial wave beat them.
Notice the reluctance of investors to back nuclear power, new oil exploration, and even coal plants, a lot of them remember the lesson of big old land line telecom.
There could be hope, just a little bit. If the smart money starts lobbying for the new energy economy. Then maybe the big slow institutional money might follow along.
They gor burned by the scamming around the old energy economy, enron, exxon, oil price manipulation, who knows what can happen?
A lot of smart people may notice what is happening in Boulder and Austin and LA, they might want to buy into smart grid companies early, just like some people bought into MSFT and Cisco very early.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
splashy Posted 7:39 pm
14 Feb 2009
They go up when the sun shines, then gradually come down, turning turbines, when it doesn't. They should be able to store energy, for as long as they are off the ground (although they could be underground too, taking up less room. Hmm, perhaps compressed air could lift them, then it could turn the turbines while they come down. Not much pollution involved there.
Just a thought, in case no one has come up with it yet. There may be prohibiting issues that I don't know about. Seems pretty simple though.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 9:04 pm
14 Feb 2009
The really sweet part of this is that the high temperatures at the foci of a CSP plant are enough to crack water into hydrogen thermally and then the next step that creates ammonia is exothermic. You still get to use the heat minus some waste. This isn't the most efficient means of power storage but the lag time between solar influx and power output can be months.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 3:42 am
17 Feb 2009
Joe, thanks for clarifying that BrightSource does not plan to have storage capacity at Ivanpah. It provides peaking power and would most likely offset some portion of a gas-fired peaker power plant rather than a coal plant.
Can you point to an existing CSP plant that uses the molten salt technology? I know some companies, such as Abengoa, are planning to use the technology in Spain and Arizona. Can BrightSource's technology, which uses solar heat to turn water directly into steam, be retrofitted to have this storage technology? How about Stirling Energy Systems' dish-Stirling technology (assuming that ever works commercially)?
Those are the two companies with large projects farthest along in the approval pipeline for the California deserts. Together, they will cover 36,700 acres. The way the planning process is going right now, we have to assume all of that will be intact habitat (Ivanpah, and both of SES's projects are in functioning habitat, not "disturbed lands.")
36,700 acres of the desert scraped, and not one coal-fired power plant offset. (There is some debate over whether SES will or will not scrape the desert, but no debate over BrightSource's Ivanpah project, which will remove functional plant cover from the entire area.)
Meanwhile, potential storage technologies for PV are continually discounted, even though MIT claims hydrogen fuel cell storage for PV systems is less than ten years from being commercially ready. Sure, the response is "we can't wait around ten years for storage to become available." But is this response credible when we're building large-scale solar plants without storage?
To answer Sunflower's question, yes the Ivanpah project will have gas-fired backup. It will be used at startup every day, as I understand it, and on cloudy days. I still want to find out whether the gas turbine would also run at night.
At least, unlike most of the news coverage on this contract, Joe's post didn't reprint BrightSource's lie that the 1300 megawatts would power 845,000 homes. That number only works if you think a home can be powered on 1.5 kw of nameplate solar capacity. On the other hand, when denying that PV will "work," the CSP industry uses a figure of 5 kw nameplate capacity to power a home with solar.
Permalink
mwright1 Posted 7:03 am
17 Feb 2009
Andasol 1, and Andasol 2, are 2x 50MW Solar Thermal plants using conventional Troughs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_1
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2008 ...
Andalucia Spain - with 7.5 hours of Molten Salt Storage at Full Capacity ie 50MW constant for 7.5 hours after sun down.
Due to the structure of the Feed in tarriff and the limit on plant size at 50MW electrical almost all solar plants being built in Spain will now have significant storage, in order to maximise income, leveraging the feed-in tarriff.
Solar Tres by Torresol is under construction in Spain. It is a 17MW capacity Solar Power Tower (Distribution Power Tower - with Heliostat Mirror Field) It will have a 74% capacity factor ie run the equivalent of 74% of the time over 365 days of the year or be generating around 18 hours per day every day of the year.
Fuentes de Andalucia, near Seville,
This plant has broken ground, and construction has begun, it will be complete at the end of 2010.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ypQo-gzf0
Solar Reserve which has come out of the US Military / NASA industrial complex is ready to build the same kind of power towers with storage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiBzmvoWsBU
Lloyd Energy Stroage uses a Novel system with a Graphite block mounted on top of a power tower.
http://www.lloydenergy.com/home.htm
Wizard Power is commercialising 500 square metre low cost dishes developed by Australian National University that are using Ammonia Thermochemical storage.
http://solar-thermal.anu.edu.au/high_temp/thermochem/inde ...
Permalink
mwright1 Posted 7:05 am
17 Feb 2009
http://beyondzeroemissions.org/
we run a bi-weekly radio program devoted to Climate Change Science and Solutions and the need to goto 100% renewable Energy straight away. Hopefully Joseph Romm realises this and adjusts the targets he is advocating accordingly.
388ppm --> Too much carbon in the atmosphere
350ppm --> Still too much for a safe arctic.
300ppm --> Around where we need to be with atmsopheric carbon stabilisation.
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 8:11 am
17 Feb 2009
For me, that raises the question: why aren't we seeing more smaller CSP plants (50-100MW) with storage rather than these large (400-900MW) with no storage that require scraping the desert?
The smaller size would make it easier to find better, truly disturbed sites for these projects. Desert activists have been saying that a better spot for BrightSource's Ivanpah project would be the ag fields around Daggett (east of Barstow). These are arranged in circles of about the same area as the adjacent original Solar One site. But that alternative was rejected by the CEC as too expensive. A smaller project would probably be able to take advantage of the particular land use pattern at that site.
Aerial photos here and here.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:26 am
17 Feb 2009
Stored solar energy will not save more natural gas, at least for the next $300 billion in solar deployments.
Now my question is -- why do the most expensive things first? There are far more direct methods to displace natural gas with solar energy, methods that would scale very quickly.
Nonetheless, the science is interesting.
Permalink
Matt G Posted 10:06 am
17 Feb 2009
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:32 am
17 Feb 2009
Maximum sun is mostly a carryover from the science of efficiency and performance. Isolation is expensive and not compensated by increased solar insolation.
Land cost is probably a red herring for locating in a desert. Typically, land cost is something like 10% the cost of heliostat deployment not including the tower, receiver, grid, and engine costs.
The advantage of big PPAs was mostly to demonstrate big customers to big investors.
Big solar is a group of smaller plants in one location. There is very little discussion on actual costs and values. Size matters for attracting investors (do they still exist?).
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 1:35 am
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
sunflower Posted 2:43 am
18 Feb 2009
Coal must and will be stopped on its own merits, unconditionally, even if alternatives do not exist. Otherwise it does not matter what we do.
There are three alternatives that can scale to fill the vacuum -- efficiency, conservation, and natural gas.
Further, shutting down our coal power plants does nothing as long as we export coal. Coal companies must be nationalized and terminated, all coal railroads dismantled.
Permalink
Lhogue Posted 6:14 am
18 Feb 2009
I especially liked "Solar will not stop coal unless it is used Archimedes style to burn down coal facilities."
Permalink
mwright1 Posted 7:18 am
18 Feb 2009
Just to abandon a railway without a proper assesment of reuse of that route would be ridiculous.
Now carrying coal -- well that has to end ASAP.
This is a bigger deal in Australia where I come from, where we are the world's biggest exporter of coal.
Though 2/3 of it by value is for coking steal making (metallurgic coal) This requires biochar and high temperature industrial solar thermal (Dishes or power towers) to replace the heat requirement.
Same goes for concrete need dishes to provide teh 1000 degree + temperatures required to cook up the cement mix
This company aora -- formerly edig solar.. is doing small scale from 100kw electrical upto 5MW
http://aora-energy.com/
http://www.edig.co.il/archive/en/377ecadfc255
http://www.edig.co.il/archive/en/e2b201df3ddd
http://cleantech-israel.blogspot.com/2009/01/arava-power- ...
http://web.israel21c.net/bin/en.jsp?enDispWho=Articles^l1 ...
http://cleantech-israel.blogspot.com/2008/01/edig-solar-p ...
http://cleantech-israel.blogspot.com/2009/02/aora-raises- ...
Permalink