Nature recently ran an article ($ub. req'd) on "Energy alternatives: Electricity without carbon." Like most discussions written by people who don't follow clean energy closely, the article lumped baseload solar (also known as concentrated solar thermal power) in with solar PV and generally treated it as an afterthought.
Here is everything that they wrote about baseload solar:
Solar cells are not the only technology by which sunlight can be turned into electricity. Concentrated solar thermal systems use mirrors to focus the Sun's heat, typically heating up a working fluid that in turn drives a turbine. The mirrors can be set in troughs, in parabolas that track the Sun, or in arrays that focus the heat on a central tower. As yet, the installed capacity is quite small, and the technology will always remain limited to places where there are a lot of cloud-free days -- it needs direct sun, whereas photovoltaics can make do with more diffuse light.
Costs: The cost per kilowatt-hour of concentrated solar thermal power is estimated by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, at about $0.17 ...
Capacity: Earth receives about 100,000 TW of solar power at its surface -- enough energy every hour to supply humanity's energy needs for a year ... Theoretically, the world's entire primary energy needs could be served by less than a tenth of the area of the Sahara. [This was actually all part of their PV analysis.]
Advantages: The Sun represents an effectively unlimited supply of fuel at no cost, which is widely distributed and leaves no residue. The public accepts solar technology and in most places approves of it -- it is subject to less geopolitical, environmental and aesthetic concern than nuclear, wind or hydro, although extremely large desert installations might elicit protests ...
Both photovoltaic and concentrated solar thermal technologies have clear room for improvement. It is not unreasonable to imagine that in a decade or two new technologies could lower the cost per watt for photovoltaics by a factor of ten, something that is almost unimaginable for any other non-carbon electricity source.
(Nature has no comment on the price of baseload solar, which could easily drop 30 percent to 50 percent over the next several years, making it the cheapest form of carbon-free baseload power.)
Disadvantages: The ultimate limitation on solar power is darkness ... Some concentrated solar thermal systems get around this by storing up heat during the day for use at night (molten salt is one possible storage medium), which is one of the reasons they might be preferred over photovoltaics for large installations ...
Another problem is that large installations will usually be in deserts, and so the distribution of the electricity generated will pose problems. A 2006 study by the German Aerospace Centre proposed that by 2050 Europe could be importing 100 GW from an assortment of photovoltaic and solar thermal plants across the Middle East and North Africa. But the report also noted that this would require new direct-current high-voltage electricity distribution systems ...
Verdict: In the middle to long run, the size of the resource and the potential for further technological development make it hard not to see solar power as the most promising carbon-free technology. But without significantly enhanced storage options it cannot solve the problem in its entirety.
My verdict: Quite a lame treatment, for a leading science journal. Baseload solar could easily be a major player in the short to middle run if we're smart, perhaps the single biggest source of new carbon-free generation. It certainly deserved its own section, especially given that "ocean energy" got its own section.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
How much CO2 do our nation’s coal and gas plants actually produce?
Comments
View as Flat
sunflower Posted 2:21 am
05 Sep 2008
San Fransico CSP conference Sept 30 - Oct 1
STORAGE OPTIONS - The holy grail of CSP! Understand the real economics of storage in the USA; evaluate the pros and cons of molten salt, thermal oil and newly researched transmission fluids.
http://www.csptoday.com/us/programme.shtml
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 2:42 am
05 Sep 2008
Well...
Seems to be written by someone still stuck in 20th Century cynicism.
"the technology will always remain limited to places where there are a lot of cloud-free days -- it needs direct sun, whereas photovoltaics can make do with more diffuse light."
Would be more accurately written
"the technology is going to be best installed where there are a lot of cloud-free days. Think the Southwest US, for example, where thermal solar could provide much of the power needed by Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, ....
It won't be as useful in places where there are more cloudy days and there PV, with its ability to use diffused light, might be a more appropriate technology."
They might have even gone one step further and admitted that there is no one single answer to our energy future. Solar in some places, wind in others, Bay of Fundy has huge tidal potential (while the plains of Colorado has none),....
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 3:51 am
05 Sep 2008
academics!
can't take em anywhere.
there's this pathetic, pedantic need to state the obvious (e.g. solar power and darkness having issues with one another) which overwhelms clear thinking on so many occasions...
sheesh...
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:13 am
05 Sep 2008
A lot of the comment s over on Nature
pointed out that they forgot to mention efficiency gains as part of the solution. Rising prices will force that issue. We need to get on it to soften the landing.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 6:48 am
05 Sep 2008
what about the harm and waste of CSP?
the glaring omissions here are not how GREAT CSP is but rather how destructive and wasteful it is. check out Black & Veatch's (they are PRO BIG SOLAR) June 25, 2008 assessment for RETI on how many hundreds of billions of gallons of scarce desert groundwater would be wasted to cool and rinse these desert-killers. want air-cooled? it'll cost you 15% more/watt for the entire lifecycle of the plant if you build it anywhere HOT (over 21 cents/kWh by their estimate). want recycled water? tough, very few desert communities run on centralized waste treatment systems, nowhere near enough to feasibly supply these water hogs. i only have the doc as a pdf, no link, sorry! if anyone doubts the veracity, i think i can copy and paste the entire doc here?
if a few golf courses in palm springs can waste enough water to cause aquifer collapse and measurable subsidence, how do you think several big power plants sucking hundreds of billions of gallons a year will help out our desert ecosystems? If you go with the less-efficient air-cooled plants, which still waste tens of millions of gallons a year apiece on "mirror rinsing," plus lose 7-10% in transmission, you are looking at efficiencies below 25% for MASSIVE ecosystem death, while rooftop PV is running at 18% and rapidly ratcheting up.
even the utility journals have explained how incredibly wasteful and harmful these plants are, requiring enormous multiples of dead ecosystem per watt, compared to PV. the only free link i know of to that article is in the first sentence of this blog (check out their footnotes, too):
http://tinyurl.com/5ps9nx
and just for fun, why not read about the 350+ foot high, blazing, scorching death rays shooting to the CSP tower in this pro-CSP journalist's little visit:
http://tinyurl.com/3yk5m9
why anyone who is not financially tied up in this dual eco-disaster (economic and ecological) would ever cheerlead for it is beyond me. rooftop solar, microwind, conservation and other point of use solutions are far and away the best for the planet, ratepayers and taxpayers. conservation and generation tech, efficiency, storage and smart metering solutions will ramp up like crazy if our resources are not diverted to these giant deadly boondoggles, so let's all push a little harder!
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:10 am
05 Sep 2008
Twisted and true
SGP is correct. However, market manipulation is not sustainable, so I would not worry too much about that image going forward.
The reason they want maximum sun is because they are excessively expensive. If the technologies mature and costs go down then the return on investment will be positive without subsidies, and without desert sun.
If it works, and it will, then solar concentrators will be located near industries and cities for total energy systems of local heat and power. The desert is the last place I would locate such systems. The O&M, especially mirror cleaning, is too expensive, as is the energy loss, cooling, and transmission costs. In situ solar and local ownership is my vision, a positive ROI in Seattle type climates.
Permalink
lglustrom Posted 6:45 am
06 Sep 2008
Joe--Could You Write a Piece for Science or Nature
Hi Joe--Yes, Science and Nature have been slow to understand what is happening with CSP.
I've spoken to the CSP researchers about writing an article, but they are busy advancing the technology and developing projects--with lots of good news, as you know.
Could you write a piece for these top journals? You have the credentials that people like myself don't. If you need any information on recent developments I can help provide that.
Best. Leslie
Leslie Glustrom with Clean Energy Action (Colorado)
Permalink
2wheeler Posted 6:33 am
08 Sep 2008
CSP is a better term than
Baseload solar is a misleading judgmental term. I believe many types of renewable energies including PV, micro-wind, mega-wind, as well as conservation, may help supply today's "baseload" needs. The challenge of energy storage (on the order of hours or a few days) for these technologies will be something to address regardless of the type of "baseload renewable" source(s) are utilized.
I am keeping an open mind about CSP for now. If the same technology that is recently rolled out to make self-cleaning windows (a dirt repellent coating, titanium based if I'm not mistaken) may be in the wings for these CSP mirrors, maybe the water use achilles heel can be overcome. The dismissing of the water treatment and reuse option seems overly presumptious (that treatment cannot be done or won't be affordable) at this time.
I agree the premise of the Nature piece, if it presumes there is a "silver bullet" single technology to renewable energy challenges, is way off base from reality. The best solutions will be locally optimized for the environmental conditions and niches at each area humans are living.
Moving toward sustainability with hopefulness, one revolution at a time.
Permalink
Alex3energy Posted 8:33 pm
11 Sep 2008
Good alternative for wind turbines
We at Solar Botanic are mimicking nature, creating natural looking artificial trees and plants, fitted with Nanoleaves, the leaves are a combination of nano technologies that enable the leaf to convert solar radiation (light & heat) into electricity, furthermore the leaf petiole or the stem, and twigs comprise nano-piezovoltaic material - these tiny generators react to movement caused by wind or from falling rain drops and start to produce electricity, this synergy of technology with natures design will soon become a reality.
Renewable energy that combines solar radiation and wind energy in one system and offers added value to the end users and above all, is in harmony with nature.
The reason is simple. Nature, through billions of years of trial and error, has produced effective solutions to innumerable complex real-world problems.
There is no need to fill our landscapes with wind turbines and other systems that impact our environment. The field of biomimetics is the application of methods and systems, found in nature. To capitalize on the wealth of designs and processes found in nature, engineering and technology has given solar Botanics the tools to harvest the energy resources in a responsible way.
- Triple conversion of green energies (Light, Heat and Wind)
- Aesthetic in harmony with Nature
- Partly made from recycled waste materials
- Can be placed in and around cities or residential areas
- Durable, easy to install, provides shade, cools the air, gives wind protection
- Recharges your car, takes the CO2 out the air, and much more.
Solar Botanic trees and plants will bring a variety of species to the market, so that every environment can choose something that fit its natural habitat. Trees can be implemented in cities and rural areas, places of natural beauty and island resorts that depend on tourism.The project is currently underway with help from Investment funds from the Middle East were the first solar botanic palm tree will be planted. This palm tree with its 36 leaves will generate more than 5000 kWh per year. The location and amount of sun hours per year makes this palm tree a very cheap energy provider at less than $ 0, 3 per kWh.
The added value of solar botanic trees are; providing shade, cooling the air, wind break, crop protection, prevention of heat islands in cities, road glare, noise barrier, protection of dune vegetation. Solar botanic trees can be fitted with additional equipment to filter the air, (taking out CO2) and water. Water management can be controlled by trees.
Trees and shrubs can be planted most of the time without permission because they fit in with our local scenery. Trees, plants and shrubs have aesthetical function the enhance our city and meeting places, or are just there to give us a nice view when we look out of our window. Trees decrease our visual awareness if it comes to visual or noise pollution. The psychology effect of trees takes care of a better micro climate, extreme temperatures are reduced and absorb, trees and shrubs give protection against wind, and sun. Trees are a source of inspiration for artistic creativity. Trees carry a culture of history they can show the history of a place and are often proof of past history. Trees are a symbol growth and energy, trees have a economic value. The presence of trees often increases the value of property, especially mature trees that at the same time deliver more energy.
Permalink