Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

A New Chapter Begins for Concentrated Solar Power

By Jesse Broehl, Editor, RenewableEnergyAccess.com
February 11, 2006   |   23 Comments
Companies break ground on the first Concentrated Solar Power project in more than 15 years

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"If we want to get serious about reducing carbon dioxide emissions and lower our use of fossil fuels, this is a way to quickly address that. I'm very optimistic about this technology."

-- Chuck Kutscher, Principal Engineer and Group Manager of the Thermal Systems Group at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
23 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 23
February 11, 2006
Just read the article; it is all there. Well written, good project and I hope we have many more of the same.

adrianakau@aol.com
Comment
2 of 23
February 12, 2006
In response to Rich Barbarics, there is not enough photovoltaic modules available to do that. The military is had a hard time finding enough for a 18 MW plant. It will be years before production catches up to demand and some plants need to be built now. If solar thermal were not available, natural gas or coal will be the only alternative. Also, solar thermal is cheaper per kilowatt (plant construction) and per kilowatt hour (energy cost). Solar thermal has more economies of scale, as well. Cogeneration, perhaps the biggest advantage of distributed generation, is not used in photovoltaics or solar trough (although it could be used in solar trough). The only downside of concentrated generation, in this case, that I can think of is if the plant had to be located so far from the consumers of electricity that a significant amount of electricity is lost. However, that is not the case for these plants.
Comment
3 of 23
February 12, 2006
Dish Sterling systems today are far more expensive and certainly in no way as proven as trough plants. It is hoped that cost reductions will come with large scale automated mass production. As of yet, no large or even remotely large scale dish plant has been built, much less accumulated sufficient operating experience to reasonably predict longer term costs. They should be somewhat more efficient than troughs since they operate at higher temperatures, but the relaibiilty of all those motors and trackers at the 100 MW+ scale seems to me problematic.
Comment
4 of 23
February 12, 2006
Sure, lift the cap on PV, but don't stop building parabolic trough plants! They are more efficient than PV and less than half the cost.

There is nothing wrong with a mix of large central station and smaller distributed generators. We need both - a lot more of both.
Comment
5 of 23
February 12, 2006
Does anybody know how the solar thermal troughs compare in cost/efficiency/reliability to Stirling CSP technology? As far as I know, Stirling CSP doesn't need backup natural gas and the solar energy is transfered directly to the working fluid instead of going through multiple steps.
Comment
6 of 23
February 12, 2006
The Nevada solar incentive program for distributed generation is capped at 1.9 MW per year yet this huge central plant is 64 MW. Why don't we increase the distributed portion of generation by higher capacity rebates and better production credits and reduce the amount of large scale central generation plants? The computer industry is a good model to follow. from mainframe to distributed processing, now the norm.
Comment
7 of 23
February 12, 2006
Solargenix and Ormat have built a concentrated solar power plant that is operating in Arizona.
The plant has an installed capacity of 1MWe.
The plant is owned by Arizona electrical company APS and uses Ormat's turbine that have been very successful in the geothermal power production.
http://www.hydrogennow.org/HNews/PressReleases/APS/APS%20to%20Construct%20Plant%20in%20AZ.htm

Ormat also built a high temperature high efficiency solar powered gas turbine:
http://www.solarpaces.org/sol-gate.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/pdf/cst_en.pdf
http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/energy/pdf/solgate_en.pdf
Comment
8 of 23
February 13, 2006
<rant>
It's because the German's aren't using CSP that the demand for Si is so high and that the price of PV panels has gone up! Perhaps CSP isn't feasible in German but it seems silly to suckup all of the PV modules that could be used for DG and use them to make puny 5MW plants. The two sterling projects that are going to be built in so cal dwarf what the Germans have done up to this point without creating global shortages.
</rant>
It's great to see new CSP installations. I'm sure that we'll see more of them in the coming years in many parts of the west.
Comment
9 of 23
February 15, 2006
Is the company quoted at a stock exchange
and if, where and with which ticker symbol.

Best Regards

Guenther Sigel
Comment
10 of 23
February 15, 2006
For Peter Marsh - The system could use the grid to send power one solar hour in either direction. In the early morning, send it west, in the late afternoon, send it east. At mid-day I would guess they are happy simply to replace fossil power because of CSP's basic cost advantage.

For Garry Barbuto - Hydrogen? "the perfect energy storage medium and fuel"? It is neither perfect nor a fuel in any sense.

Hydrogen will always be an expensive carrier of a fraction of the energy in the fuel that was used to produce it. Its function is exactly analogous to that of a rather poor electric battery.

It is clean to burn, but never efficient to make. And the "Hydrogen Economy" is a really despicable piece of energy-industry fiction.
Comment
11 of 23
February 15, 2006
I must firstly say that I am impressed by the project that is announced. Pardon me for asking what may be a dumb question, but if you look at solar radiation intensity figures averaged out over a year and on an hour by hour basis, the major solar insolation window effectively runs for four to six hours from 10:00 AM until 2 - 4 PM. I cannot see a system for storing the heat generated from this system and therefore assume that as the heat is generated it is going to be converted into electricity.

Peak electricity loads occur between 7-9 AM {when people crawl out of bed and get ready for work} and from 6-9 PM when they come home from work and turn on their air conditioning.

How exactly does this system propose to fit that real world requirement?
Comment
12 of 23
February 15, 2006
I was wondering why they are using a Rankin Cycle system to produce electrical power. Sterling engines are more efficient overall and can turn heat energy directly to mechanical, no heat exchangers/boilers etc. There are units out there using parabolic dish 2 axis tracking that produce 25 KW electrical. The other issue with Renewables is the often sporadic nature of the supply. That is why Hydrogen is the solution to this problem with renewables. Hydrogen is the perfect energy storage medium and fuel.
" Hydrogen Makes Renewable Doable"

Regards

Garry
Comment
13 of 23
February 16, 2006
Just doing a little digging around for cost of power produced:

Solargenix CSP: 9-13 cents per kWh (source: this article)
Stirling Energy Systems CSP: < 10 cents per kWh for 1000MW installation (source: http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all)
Wind power: between 4 and 6 cents per kWh (source http://www.nrel.gov/wind/working.html)

Of course, if there's no wind in the desert, use CSP.

Stephen
Comment
14 of 23
February 17, 2006
Vegas could use as much natural electricity as possible?! Yucca du-du must be full by now?
Comment
15 of 23
February 17, 2006
Re: "...the power is slightly more expensive than wind power, but less than photovoltaic (PV) power..."

I see some people discharge solar PV as a solution for solar to electric? The investors have already go through this exercise, and learned their lesson. PV solar is on of (if not the) fastest growing high-tech sector.

As for the concentrated solar to electric solutions, if one uses the high concentration Vertical Multi-Junction (VMJ) solar cells (developed by Bernie Satter of NASA GRC), and low-cost Fresnel lenses, I strongly believe the VMJ-based compact systems will produce a lower price/KWh of electricity than most solar thermal to electric solutions.
Comment
16 of 23
March 15, 2006
I want to understand how this works!

I have studied the schematic for how this system works and have some questions as I am having a spirited discussion with my Son on the fundamental physics of this process. Would someone be so kind as to fill in the missing pieces so that we can better understand how the system works.

What are the temperatures expected throughout the system, namely...
1. Turbine Generator {mentioned to be ~750C}
2. Condenser input
3. Condenser output.

And on the two inputs/outputs
1. Return for parabolic dishes
2. Cooling tower input
3. Cooling tower output

Another fundamental concept I am uncertain about. At the bottom of the diagram, the arrowed flow in the main circuit shows "Steam". Should this not be "liquid" or is the evaporant {Water} never returned to its liquid state in this system? Why not? because I would have thought that the greatest change in its mechanical energy would be when you tranform water from a liquid to a gaseous state.
Comment
17 of 23
June 6, 2006
For Peter,

It might help to understand that the fired boiler is a means of generating power when the sun isn't shining - you can simplify the design for illustration by ignoring the fired boiler (or the solar boiler if you prefer - in which case you have a standard NG turbine).

It is a simple rankine cycle turbine (heat -> steam -> turbine -> cooling tower ->repeat)

Your question as to the temperature coming off the solar system is a good one. These concentrators run in the low hundred(s) of suns. If one sun can reach 100 degrees F, than 100 suns can approach 10,000 degrees, but 2,000 degrees is fairly standard for turbines.

Whether or not the working fluid condenses to a liquid is a good question. Rankine will probably work at any temperature, but the most effecient set of temperatures have long been studied. I suspect the diagram is right, and let's hope someone has the temperature diagram handy.

Ben
Comment
18 of 23
March 19, 2007
The Feb. 17th remarks by Dr. Faur regarding the low $/kWh potential of PV concentrators using high intensity vertical multi-junction (VMJ) cells were appreciated. Silicon VMJ cells have demonstrated efficient performance at intensities greater than 1000 suns (www.photovolt.us), meaning the silicon in 1 MW of conventional PV modules could make 1000 MW of PV concentrators with a significantly lower $/watt cost. (This would be a simple and low-cost way to eliminate silicon shortage problems.) The technologies to make PV concentrator power cost-competitive with coal-fired power are now proven but require the right leadership and commitments to make it possible.
Comment
19 of 23
March 21, 2007
Peter, the figure is definitly wrong (missleading if you want to be kind). The condensor changes the steam to water, which is pumped to a high pressure by the pump just above the word "steam" in the figure.

Incidently, Ben, 100 suns will Not produce 10,000 degrees. First you have to start in Absolute temperature (O deg F is -460 deg Rankine. Then remember that the primary loss in a concentrating system is radiation, and it increases at the fourth power of temperature. So if 1 sun = 560 deg R, 100 suns is 1452 deg R, or about 1000 deg F. One should also worry about convection, etc, but this is in the ballpark.
Comment
20 of 23
April 9, 2007
Does anyone have a sense for the smallest feasible size for such a unit? In the 10kw range, could this ever compete with conventional pv?

If not, would someone mind pointing me in the direction to follow this type of discussion further?

Per
Comment
21 of 23
April 13, 2007
Per, here's an article on small-scale concentrating solar: "<a href="http://energypriorities.com/entries/2007/04/soliant_hines_interview.php">Soliant Energy Targets Commercial Rooftops with its Concentrating Solar Platform</a>"
Comment
22 of 23
September 6, 2007
<p>The good news is that this demonstrates that you can boil water without using nuclear.&nbsp; Essentially, building a better tea kettle.&nbsp; We have clowns trying to site for nuclear power here in California.&nbsp; They also are gathering signatures for a ballot initiative for June 2008.&nbsp; Fortunately, Wall $treet won't buy a &quot;Nuke&quot; until Washington DC ponies up $1 Billion dollars just to underwrite a &quot;hard target&quot;. GAME ON!</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Comment
23 of 23
November 23, 2007
regarding to all replys i have an important question:

how is the tarriff calculated for 1kw of solar energy?

in other words what are the elements that usually construct the tarriff in solar power.

because a lot people thinks that the tarriff in the US which is 9 - 13 cent will be the same in Dubai for example.

i hope from any body that can help puts a comment or direct me to where i can find an answer.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

Konica Minolta Sensing Americas, Inc WindPole Ventures, LLC Blue Sky Energy, Inc. IntertechPira Apricus, Inc. UnThink Solar Das Haus: Innovation in Renewables and Energy Efficiency
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters