Abengoa & Xcel To Integrate Solar Thermal System with Coal Plant

I believe that integrative technologies such as with CPS and coal will help the transition to clean energy over the next few decades. CPS benefits by not having to be concerned with heat storage while the amount of coal needed to run the thermal plant is reduced. If the transition from coal to clean renewable energy is to occur gradually, then job positions may also be transferred from coal to other sources without harm as more hybrid plants are realized.

Coal-CPS Plants

Reduction of coal is a very good goal,
With CPS taking up the slack,
Direct use of the sun is now just begun,
There should be no turning back.

adrianakau2aol.com

I'd be thrilled if this concept give operators of coal-fired plants a reason to expand into renewable energy and become active in CSP. But I don't see how CPS will make a coal-fired plant run more efficiently by supplying heat -- the coal-fired turbine already produces its own heat. Is there something special about the heat from the CSP, e.g. significantly higher average temperature?

This is like the giant Japanese battery kluge Xcel bought in Minnesota for a few million bucks. It keeps legislators happy.

Xcel should be required to project cost-benefit for such green-wash projects, before wasting ratepayer money. I would think it would be more cost efficient to just separately use the solar for peaking. This demo sounds like they are trying to co-fire coal with solar instead of biomass, at far greater cost, since far more additional equipment is needed. I suspect it is even far more expensive than supplementing natural gas with intermittent wind, which accounts for 97% of renewable energy, I mean greenwash, capacity in the US. The July 2009 issue of Power Engineering estimates windpower increases generation costs by more than twice, while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11 percent, mostly because it must be inefficiently backed up by natural gas. This solar project really exemplifies what America is all about: allow the entrenched energy monopolies to control and misuse renewable energy to prove it can't work. The US needs free markets or feed-in tariffs (for independents).

Feh! I approached Xcel in 2001 with this exact same plan. Should I try to get a finders fee???

Ahh fooey -- 4MWth isn't a hill of beans when compared to a coal plant. The shop air compressors probably reject more heat than that 24x7. So yes, it's a publicity stunt.

I'm not saying that adding CSP to the property surrounding a coal plant can't contribute to the total energy output, but politicos really need to get their heads in the game and stop all this phony green-wash. The lefty agenda still trumps good-old-fashioned common sense.

BTW S&T could probably have bid a 4MW(electric) system with installation for less than they are going to pay for the Abengoa panels.

Lastly, I hope the panels are ready to stand up to the coal emissions that are going to coat the mirrors with black dust and goo... It ought to be funny, but it's actually quite sad.

I can't resist responding to the somewhat silly comments.

paul-passarelli: It is meant to be a small demo project. Thus the 4MWth capacity. Of course a pV system of equivalent size would be cheaper, but that is irrelevant because the entire purpose of the project to evaluate parabolic trough technology. Finally, Cameo's emissions are not black dust and goo; however the panels might get dirty from normal dust in the air and possible carry-over from cooling tower.

mike-holly: Xcel is required to project cost-benefit for projects. The Cameo project is approved by PUC and is meant as a demonstration. Should all scientific research have to demo cost-benefits before doing it? The demo is about proving viability of parabolic trough. Using an existing power plant for the demo is much faster, cheaper and easier than building an entire solar plant to test. So much the better if less coal is burned. The proper comparison is the costs of stand-alone solar with hybrid solar-fossil, not hybrid solar-fossil with co-firing coal and biomass or supplementing gas with wind. Those may be worthy approaches but the Cameo demo is studying a totally different question. Hybrid solar-fossil should be much cheaper than stand-alone solar due to the sunk costs of the steam turbine and other plant infrastructure.

Brian-ballek: Steam from CSP is the same as steam from burning coal. The coal plant efficiency is improved with solar because less fuel is burned for the same amount of power out.

Felsher, you now spew defensive nonsense after your attempts at green wash failed. The article stated: "The goal of the project is to prove that the heat produced by a solar facility can increase the efficiency of a conventional power plant while also lowering carbon dioxide emissions." You never said anything about "proving viability of parabolic trough" or that "using an existing power plant for the demo is (just) a much faster, cheaper and easier than building an entire solar plant to test." And no, the proper comparison is not the costs of stand-alone solar with hybrid solar-fossil (that is obvious), but rather the costs of stand-alone solar AND stand-alone fossil with hybrid solar-fossil. Hybrid solar-fossil may actually be more expensive because of the lost capacity of the steam turbine and other plant infrastructure for use with coal generation. And yes all scientific research performed by utility monopolists, especially if funded by ratepayers and/or reported in the media, should require cost-benefit before doing it. Otherwise there is no accountability since you are under no competition and PUCs are a joke rubber stamp. I also noticed you didn't disclose your "likely internal" cost-benefit for the project. I would be very interested.

Mike-Holly: I stand corrected that the goal of the project is to evaluate parabolic trough's ability to increase the efficiency of a conventional power plant while lowering carbon dioxide emissions. There are good applications for all generation technologies, but the purpose of the Cameo project is fairly narrow.

I strongly agree with you on the need for cost benefit analysis prior to investing in a power plant, but in this case Xcel is doing a demonstration project. Typically R&D such as this demonstration project isn't done for an immediate financial return. Of course the knowledge gained (e.g., improved efficiency, cost impact on normal plant operations, O&M costs for the solar field etc.) could be applied to future decisions on whether to build a stand-alone CSP plant or hybridize an existing coal unit.

I don't speak for Xcel or need to defend them. Renewable energy has to survive the cost-benefit analysis for it to provide a true alternative to burning fossil fuels. CSP offers many unique advantages including partially repowering existing fossil plants. We need more projects like this.