The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Solar Power: A Gift from Space

Thomas Blakeslee, Clearlight Foundation
August 18, 2009  |  19 Comments

Print

At noon on the equator our sun gives us one kilowatt of free energy per square meter! This gift from space is ultimately the basis of all of our power sources except nuclear and geothermal. Wind, hydro, biomass and all fossil fuels ultimately derive from solar energy. All of these economical sources of energy benefit from concentration and storage of the sun's energy.

But the dream of capturing the sun's energy directly has been elusive. The problem is that energy needs are unevenly distributed and usually peak at night. Fuels and reservoirs provide inexpensive storage of the sun's energy making it available when and where we need it.

Though the solar industry is making rapid progress, it is still by far the most expensive form of alternative energy. A recent NYU study found the following actual 2005 costs in cents/kWh:

Geothermal                         3.1  –  4.3  

Concentrating Solar Power    11   –  15   

Photovoltaic                         18.8 – 31  

Wind                                    4.3 –  5.5  

Coal                                     1.2  

Natural Gas                          3.5  

Of course these costs will come down some day but for now solar is basically a subsidized research project.  The new CSP plants with heat storage can keep the power flowing when clouds pass over and in the evening but that doesn’t help costs. The problem is that the sun only shines part of the time. Capacity factor even in the California desert is still only 25%, which means that a 4 MW solar plant only delivers an annual average of 1 MW.  Unfortunately the custom of rating solar plants based on their peak output on a clear summer day at noon leads to some dangerous misconceptions.  Cost per Watt, for example, understates the actual cost by a factor of 4 even in the desert. Growth figures and land use in acres/MW are similarly grossly misstated.

If we look at land use of some real projects now on the drawing boards we find that the latest photovoltaic, parabolic and tower projects all use about 5-6 acres per peak MW. The Saguaro 1 MW parabolic trough plant near Phoenix for example, generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually, using 15.8 acres.

It’s interesting to compare this sun-capturing performance to a field of biomass. Miscanthus is perennial grass that yields 15-20 tons/acre on marginal land.  That’s about 250 million Btu/acre which is 73 MWh/acre. If you use a 85% efficient combined heat and power (CHP) plant to convert the biomass to power, it would take only 2000/(73X.85) = 32 acres to grow the same amount of power. I’d rather mow and haul 32 acres of grass over the year than keep all those shiny troughs clean and working. And the one-time grass planting is a lot cheaper! 

So the race is on and only time will tell whether nature’s storage of the sun’s energy in plants can keep up with man’s best mechanical efforts. The nice thing about the biomass is that you can keep it around until you need it. The hot-oil thermal storage at Saguaro is only good for 6 hours.

The specifications for the Saguaro solar plant illustrate another messy thing about the specifications on solar power. The spec shows a capacity factor of 23% now, but with the 6-hour storage added the capacity factor jumps to 40%. This seems to be common practice. When storage is added the capacity factor spec goes up apparently to indicate the % of time that power is available. Power is sold by the kilowatt-hour, so perhaps it would be better if we stopped talking about Watts and used GWh/yr instead. 

Our comparison to biomass was a little unfair because we used an 85% efficient CHP plant for the biomass and Saguaro throws their waste heat away using an evaporation pond.  By locating solar thermal plants in places where heat is needed, they can be efficient too. The waste heat is simply sold or put to use near the plant running a cold storage warehouse, a kiln, etc. Hotels, industrial parks and apartments should have their own solar thermal CHP plants for hot water, air conditioning and pool heating. We have to break the “giant power plant” habit.

Solar thermal is often supplemented by natural gas at night. The boiler is simply kept going as needed with gas. Since heat loads are often variable, CHP plants lose efficiency if the waste heat must be disposed of. A good approach is to size the solar collectors for minimum heat needs so that efficiency is always high, and then use natural gas to make up the difference. This minimizes the investment and maximizes efficiency.  In fact, just one collector to preheat boiler water can cut gas consumption and CO2 emissions significantly.

A mass-produced solar thermal-CHP system sized for large homes or apartments could be much more cost effective than the typical overpriced home photovoltaic installation we often see. Most homes and buildings use more energy for hot water, heating and cooling than for electricity. Instead of electric air conditioning, waste heat can power the heating and cooling. With decentralized small CHP plants scattered all over the map, power transmission losses are almost eliminated and we don’t need to spend billions adding transmission corridors.

In places that often have cloud cover, thin film photovoltaic power works much better than polycrystalline because the clouds scatter the light in all directions more than actually blocking it. Thin film panels usually have 3 layers to cover a wider spectrum of light. Evacuated tube solar collectors also work well with clouds.

Concentrating PV needs a sharp sun image to be efficient. It is best done in deserts where there are no clouds or haze. Concentrating PV lenses and mirrors work by focusing an image of the sun’s disk onto the solar cell. When haze scatters that image, efficiency plummets. Deserts in the US Southwest, Mexico and in North Africa have the potential to supply less sunny northern areas if we make the investment in massive HVDC transmission lines. Since solar panels produce DC naturally there may be a savings in electronics. Also the significant amount of waste heat can be used for energy intensive industries and to make fresh water from the ocean.

But don’t bet against solar as a long-term winner. Silicon development for computer technology fooled everyone with their “Moore’s law” doubling capability every couple of years.  This has gone on for decades and will probably continue. For example, proton plasma beams can now cut wafers as thin as 20 micrometers thick. This cuts material costs to 1/3 and the wafer flexes like thin sheet metal.  Another group at University of Delaware just announced a cell/concentrator combo with 42.8% efficiency. Clearly exciting developments will make this a fascinating race with many winners. We must pursue all ideas and let the winners be chosen by the marketplace.

19 Comments

Register To Comment
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
November 8, 2012
Solar is quiet, which some in the military appreciate now, quite a lot. You can put it on top of something else, thereby stacking functions, a permaculture imperative (also a working-class-mom imperative, but that is a difference conversation).
A Johnson
A Johnson
November 8, 2012
All posted systems using Solar Energy to date have been those of Passive Installations. These installations require massive numbers of acres of land to layout the Solar Panels to produce the energy desired. What a waste of land. What I have proposed to several research facilities including Brookhaven National Laboratory and the White House is to explore my proposal that is using an Active System. I have not had a response to date. This will require far less acreage to produce the Megawatts of energy desired. And, the energy collected via this System could be concentrated. I can foresee using this same basic System to superheat water to drive Steam Turbines used to generate electricity directly.
Gerard Vaughan
Gerard Vaughan
April 17, 2010
Likewise MWh means megawatts of heat. "Electricity" - electrical energy - would be megawatt-hour, MW-hr. i.e. so many megawatts for so many hours, multiply the two and we have "megawatt-hours" of Energy.
Gerard Vaughan
Gerard Vaughan
April 17, 2010
As all too usual, in this article the terms "Power" and "Energy" are confused. The basic unit of measure of Quantity of Energy is the Joule, which is defined as one Newton (about 1/10 of a kgm force) pushing something for a distance of 1 metre. The time taken to do this defines the Power - or Rate of usage/transfer of the energy. If the above object is pushed over the one metre, in one second, for instance, then the pusher - or puller - is supplying energy at the rate of 1 Watt - 1 Joule per second - during that time. Until these confusions and vaguaries are cleared-up
confusion must reign, with people going-away with an "I can't understand this stuff" head-condition, and wishing to forget all about it !!
I am of the opinion that it is just such stuff - coupled with business and political intrigue - which has lead to the squandering of 10 digit numbers of pounds sterling - and the equivalent quantity of CO2 - in the pursuit of "clean energy" programs such as "windfarms" - the design of which is so hopelessly out of touch with physical reality that during their entire life-span, they supply only just over half the energy required to replace them. This is not funny.
Doug Woodzy
Doug Woodzy
August 19, 2009
If using internal rate of return and net present value then anything beyond 25 years has little present value. A solar plant should be durable for at least 40 years with maintenance at 2% to 3% per year (of capital cost). Coal needs boiler replacements every 7 years or so. Most of the cost of coal is the burner, boiler, and handling equipment. The turbine might only be $250/kW. And there is the interconnecting substation.

CSP is a loaded term and indicates old government designs. Most of that is from the 1980s. In terms of energy, troughs are the most expensive, followed by heliostat systems, then dishes. Balance of plant for CSP is expensive due to poor utilization. More advanced systems are gas fired with solar supplements for full utilization of balance of plant, like BrightSource. They claim heliostat systems at $150/m2, so does eSolar. I believe those aspirational goals are achievable when analyzing materials, tooling, and production costs.
Martin Nicholson (Author - ENERGY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE)
Martin Nicholson (Author - ENERGY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE)
August 19, 2009
Doug if you are looking at long run margin cost you need to consider the life cycle of the equipment. A coal plant can last 40 to 50 years so the capital cost is amortised over a long period. I'm not sure how long CSP plants will last.

Are you sure about the CSP capital costs? I have an IEA report which puts the overnight capital cost for a coal plant (including generators) at around US$1,300/kW and a CSP plant (including generators) at US$2,775/kW.
Doug Woodzy
Doug Woodzy
August 19, 2009
Solar economics -- Direct normal peak irradiation is 0.85 kW/m2. Concentrator cost is between $100 and $200 per m2. At 80% collection efficiency (dish ~ 680 kW/m2) that comes to $147 to $294 per peak kW. Adjusting for 25% solar capacity factor that would be $588 to $1176 per kW at 100%. A new coal boiler cost about $1000/kW(thermal). If coal utilization capacity is 90% then that comes to $1111/kW(t) at 100%. So, solar boilers and coal boilers cost about the same. O&M for coal costs more than O&M for solar.
Mary Saunders
Mary Saunders
August 19, 2009
Why couldn't you retain heated water by covering or sinking it and using it as an energy source at night?

In an alternative, why not use waste water to grow something that might shade the evaporation pond?

In addition, it is my understanding there are renewable sources of biomass in the southwest, such as mesquite pods and coppice pruning that do not require water or fertilizer inputs.

There used to be a bounty on juniper in the Oregon desert. Juniper can send roots down far enough to tap aquifers, as can some kinds of pine. Personally I love juniper. First peoples made medicine from it, while western people made gin.

Why people want to plant things as biomass sources that require outside inputs is just mystifying to me.

Agave is an increasing resource in Mexico. Everybody knows about tequila, but that is not the only thing you can make from agave. It is an increasingly popular low-glycemic alternative to the use of corrupt subsidized forms of sugar. Increasing numbers of conscientious U.S. people boycott beet sugar from genetically modified plants. Agave requires minimal inputs from outside the local area where it is grown.

Anybody complaining about corruption can stop buying subsidized sugar products. One's health would likely improve as a result. One of the genes frequently inserted in genetically modified plants is a digestive inhibitor. Offshore research is finding deleterious effects from these inhibitors in certain percentages of the population. These genes are now escaping to other species from the GM beets.

Grasses are not my favorite garden plant. At least diversifying from them by interplanting taller species would decrease the water inputs required for them. Adding pulses and beans would fix some nitrogen for the hungry grasses. A grass monoculture is about as boring, ugly, and resource-hungry as I can think of. I don't get why anybody likes this.
Martin Nicholson (Author - ENERGY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE)
Martin Nicholson (Author - ENERGY IN A CHANGING CLIMATE)
August 19, 2009
What this article demonstrates (give or take the odd quibble) is what a low grade resource solar power actually is.

With minerals, the cost of extraction is usually directly related to the grade of the ore. The higher the grade (usable mineral per cubic metre of earth) the cheaper the extraction cost. Black coal is a very high grade resource in terms of energy units per cubic metre so even though it is vilified for wasting two thirds of the energy when coverted to electricity it is still the cheapest form of electricity generation (externalities not included).

Because solar is such a low grade resource it will always struggle to compete with coal or uranium. We might improve the solar conversion techniques but we cannot do anything about the solar concentration per unit area of collection surface. It will always need to be hugh and therefore expensive.
ANONYMOUS
August 19, 2009
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/redbook/atlas/

7.5 kWh/m2/day annual average = 2737 kWh/m2/year
Two Axis Tracking Concentrator SE California

9.0 kWh/m2/day annual average
Two Axis Tracking Flat Plate SE California

Oil 1610 kWh/bbl.
william hughes
william hughes
August 19, 2009
The sun might give one kWh of energy from one square metre (per day) or one kW of power from one square metre, it which case in the Sahara with about 6 peak hours it would give about 6kWh (per day). Which is it. People talking about power and energy should be scrupulous about using the terms correctly. They have very different meanings.
ANONYMOUS
August 19, 2009
Scott:
Regarding your comment #5. It isn't a myth that coal is extremely cheap, which is why much of the developing world in depending on it for new production facilities. The data in the NYU study that was quoted here derive from a 2005 EIA report and include only the cost for fuel operations and maintenance. Note that this neglects the capital costs for building the plant and for any utility profits, etc. Your unsourced data seems to be US retail prices, which are naturally higher for this model of pricing would also lead to higher prices for all the other generating methods as well. Would you care to provide us with the reference for these data?

The environmental costs that you cite don't seem to influence utilities worldwide because they don't have to be paid by the producers. Thus, these data are not especially relevant in determining technology adoption rates. This may be unfortunate, but (alas) it is certainly no myth.
Steven
Doug Woodzy
Doug Woodzy
August 19, 2009
Hard numbers. Direct normal sunlight (dish et al.) in Colorado 5.5 kWh/m2/day average or 2000 kWh/m2/year (1.25 bbl./m2/year oil equivalent), half that in Seattle. At 80% thermal efficiency sunlight is worth one barrel of oil per square meter per year. Land density at 25% delivers 1000 bbl/m2/acre/year equivalent.

Solar is cheaper than coal even if coal were delivered for free due to the cost of new coal burners.
Scott Sklar
Scott Sklar
August 19, 2009
If I see one more myth about coal being 1.2 cents per kWh, I may regrow my hair on my bald head. In the three States where coal provides over 90% of electricity, delivered kwh costs are: Kentucky 4.63 cents/kwh, West Virginia 5.13 cents per kWh and Wyoming 4.98 cents per kWh. Now if the grandfathered, polluting coal plants still allowed to generate after passage of the Clean Air Act were actually shut down and newer coal plants were built
to generate the same amount of power, add another 1.8 cents per kWh. If the coal industry were no longer allowed to blow up mountain tops and leave their wastes in our rivers, stream, farmland and schools, add another 1.72 cents per kWh. If the coal industry were not allowed to emit mercury, a heavy metal that interferes with human and animal immune systems, add another 1.02 cent per kWh, and if required technology to reduce just the proven carcinogens from entering our air and water, add another 1.23 cents per kWh. When you add this aggregate 5.77 cents per kWh over Kentucky's 4.98 cents per kWh, you result in 10.75 cents per kWh and that's not including carbon sequestration or charging for the real cost of using 40 percent of our nation's surface water for electric power generation..
Carolyn Luce
Carolyn Luce
August 19, 2009
"Solar thermal is often supplemented by natural gas."

That's true, because natural gas is cheap. But you could supplement the solar with biomass instead if you're willing to pay more.


"A mass-produced solar thermal-CHP system sized for large homes or apartments could be much more cost effective than the typical overpriced home photovoltaic installation we often see."

That could be true for commercial and industrial buildings or even residential communities with district heating, but personally for an individual house, I'd much rather wash my fixed PV array twice a year than have to maintain a steam generator and a solar tracker. Not sure I'd want to try to make telephone calls with a steam generator next to the house either.
Carolyn Luce
Carolyn Luce
August 19, 2009
6) "The specifications for the Saguaro solar plant illustrate another messy thing about the specifications on solar power. The spec shows a capacity factor of 23% now, but with the 6-hour storage added the capacity factor jumps to 40%. This seems to be common practice. When storage is added the capacity factor spec goes up apparently to indicate the % of time that power is available. Power is sold by the kilowatt-hour, so perhaps it would be better if we stopped talking about Watts and used GWh/yr instead."

Yes, CSP is more messy than PV. No, it does not indicate the % of time that power is available. It will still show how much electricity in MWh will be produced annually compared with how much electricity would be generated by a plant running at peak capacity 24h x 365d.

A 1 MWp plant running 24h x 365d would generate 8760 MWh annually. At the current 23% capacity factor, that's 2000 MWh annually. At 40% capacity factor, it will be 3500 Wh annually. That is because they will be adding solar collectors, increasing the solar energy collected and convertible to electricity, (from 2000 MWh to 3500 MWh) while not increasing the capacity of the steam generator (1 MW). This means at noon the collector will be collecting solar power at more than 1 MW, but only 1 MW will be turned into electricity by the steam generator. The rest will be stored for later use.

While as consumer, MWh is much more relevant to me, utilities and ISOs need to know both MW and MWh. I think showing both W(peak) and W(average) could be helpful, but no doubt people will still be confused.
Carolyn Luce
Carolyn Luce
August 19, 2009
More corrections in addition to the ones from Steven:

5) "If we look at land use of some real projects now on the drawing boards we find that the latest photovoltaic, parabolic and tower projects all use about 5-6 acres per peak MW. The Saguaro 1 MW parabolic trough plant near Phoenix for example, generates 2000 MWh of electricity annually, using 15.8 acres."

The numbers in your example shows 15.8 acres per peak MW, not 5-6. But that may have something to do with the next item. Why didn't you follow your own advice and give acres per annual GWh, instead of acres per MWp?
Richard Balderson
Richard Balderson
August 19, 2009
Steven, you were quite right to point out gravitational energy but hydro electric is from indirect solar energy, in my book.

If you are assuming hydro is gained from gravitational potential energy (GPE) you must look at the energy balance - that water was once at, or around ,sea level and has gained GPE to get into the clouds so there is actually no net gain in GPE when the water returns to the sea. The more important energy transfer involved is the thermal latent heat of evaporation which is derived from solar energy, mostly. Without solar energy to give us our weather patterns (wind), the clouds would not form or move?

Regards, RAB
ANONYMOUS
August 18, 2009
Some corrections:
1) The NYU report claims natural gas costs are 3.5 cents/kWh not the 1.35 value given in the table.

2) When the author states that solar energy is the basis of "all of our power sources except nuclear and geothermal" he has neglected gravitational forces which account for hydroelectric and tidal sources.

3) The statement "The problem is that energy needs are unevenly distributed and usually peak at night" depends on your location. Heating needs usually peak at night but commercial and industrial energy usage typically peaks in the daytime and A/C demand often accounts for much of the peaking electrical power needs.

4) CHP is an underutilized strategy in today's marketplace, but the 85% efficiency the author uses neglects the percentage of the time that the heat produced can be put to no productive use. The 15-20 ton/acre value for miscanthus production does not seem to be, as stated in the article, for degraded farm land and neglects the energy costs of fertilizer, harvesting, and transportation. Thus the advantage of biomass over CSP is somewhat overstated.

Steven

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas Blakeslee

Thomas R Blakeslee’s books have been published in nine different languages. After serving for three years in the U.S. Navy, he earned a degree from CalTech in Pasadena, California in 1962. After working for IT&T in Antwerp, Belgium, he...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13 Residential Demand Spurs US Solar Installations in 1Q13
  • Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems Ocean Energy Development: Apply Common Sense to Common Problems
  • Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables” Severn Barrage “No Knight in Shining Armour for UK Renewables”
  • Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy Project Permit: Cutting Red Tape for Green Energy
  • Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options Solar CHP Innovations Offer Efficiency Kick, Future Energy Storage Options

Most Commented

  • 9
    Country-Based Action to Achieve Universal Access to Energy
  • 4
    California Energy Storage Plan May Require $3 Billion Investment
  • 2
    Big Apple Anticipates Solar Explosion for 2013
  • 2
    Is the IRS Considering Solar REITs?

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Solmetric Corporation
  • EcoFasten Solar
  • SolarEstimate.org
  • GoGreenSolar.com
  • Renewable Energy World Europe
  • Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software
  • Prudent Living, Inc.
  • RevoluSun
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen 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 Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information