Author Topic: 10 MW from the Sun  (Read 4142 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

skravlinge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
10 MW from the Sun
« on: January 02, 2005, 07:55:56 AM »
The worlds biggest solarpower plant.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/20/MNGRAAEL4B1.DTL
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 07:55:56 AM by (unknown) »

wildbill hickup

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 183
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2005, 05:11:20 AM »
Congrads to Germany, BUSH STEP UP TO THE PLATE !!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 05:11:20 AM by wildbill hickup »

skravlinge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #2 on: January 02, 2005, 06:03:24 AM »
I got the thought it would be better to put the panels on top on all the houses, and use the land for rapeoil , to make some  transport work. Otherwise they show it can be power from the sun, and it will not be deleted in 4.5 billons years, not unlimited but where can you get better lifespan of a resource?
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 06:03:24 AM by skravlinge »

tcrenshaw

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 76
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #3 on: January 02, 2005, 06:47:29 AM »
I don't think that the German plan would work here. Forcing the utility company to buy my alternative energy power back at 10 times the amount I paid for their power? If I were in the present energy business there I'd be looking for a way out - fast. I could see a one for one though. I don't think the idea of me pumping power into the grid and getting nothing for it after I reach zero usage is right either. If I pay 11 cents a kilowatt then I should be paid back 11 cents per kilowatt that I generate beyond my usage. The power companies should not get my generated power for free.


California at one time did lead the world in testing alternative energy technology. Many of the laws that were enacted to promote this have been twisted to the max. For instance the law gave a person pretty much 50 to 100% pay back (with caps) for purchasing solar panels and installing them. It didn't take long for contractors to realize they could jack their prices up almost double because the consumer was getting a nice check from the state for the installation. That effectively doomed the growth that was spurred in solar energy in California after the law came out. Instead of taking care of the contractor ripe off issue, nothing was done and now California lags behind in solar and wind just like the rest of us.


I agree that I don't like the idea of more exploration. Enough is enough, it's time to move to sources of non-polluting energy. I do like that President Bush is pushing Hydrogen. I just wish the administration would put more funding into this technology. And I would like to see a lot more funding into wind and solar technologies too, which the administration hasn't been supporting nearly as much as exploration.


Just like the German political machine is finding out though, it's a rough road to plow and could end political careers in a heart beat. The same would happen here and so no one, democrat, republican, independent, doesn't matter - they aren't going to push it really hard. The mind set of the people would have to change first so that we would push the political machines to environmental friendly alternatives - ever see a snow ball in hell?


I do have faith though that we will get their, eventually. I would also say that in two to five years the German plan will either have to be replaced with another initiative or it will be scrapped as to costly mostly politically. Higher taxes just anger people.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 06:47:29 AM by tcrenshaw »

weldingrodd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #4 on: January 02, 2005, 09:42:21 AM »
Just a thought.....

Nothing will ever be done in the US until they figure a way to hit the new scource with taxes and lots of them....Since our cost of gasoline has almost doubled in the last year and a half...thanks to Bush and his policies...The States have enjoyed a "windfall" of tax revenue via gasoline taxes and "gross receipt taxes" Sales taxes rise with cost and when the climbed so did the revenue. You wont hear any politican in NY cry about gas costs....Or any other state for that matter..They got tons of cash they can waste and they dont have there signature saying they raised taxes to get it!!

Actually to entice new forms of energy they have tax credit programs....but as we all know they want to raise taxes ...not lower them....
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 09:42:21 AM by weldingrodd »

skravlinge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #5 on: January 02, 2005, 10:28:55 AM »
Even if you pay more for solar power, you pay the cost of the power, using fossils you pay a part of the cost, and leave the rest to your grandchildren to deal with. Should the debt of the enviroment problem, been paid today I doubt the fossil should be cheaper than renewable and polution free energy.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 10:28:55 AM by skravlinge »

Oso

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #6 on: January 02, 2005, 11:08:21 AM »
It may be the worlds largest PV solar plant(who knows?) but it is far from the worlds largest solar plant. The Harpers Lake Solar plant near Bakersfield California is 160 MW. (2 fields, 80 mw each, totals near 1,000 acres)

http://www.solel.com/products/pgeneration/ls2/harperlake/

I am not stating Harpers lake is the largest, it just happens to be a big one that I am aware of.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 11:08:21 AM by Oso »

drdongle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 552
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #7 on: January 02, 2005, 11:10:55 AM »
 While I am no fan of Mr. Bush and Co. his policies have very little to do with the price of Gas. That is determined primarily by supply and demand and there has be a great demand ( in part because of explosive growth in China) a limited supply and slow response from producers. When there is a shortage of anything the price increases, simple economics.


Carpe Vigor


Dr.D

« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 11:10:55 AM by drdongle »

Ungrounded Lightning Rod

  • SuperHero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2865
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #8 on: January 02, 2005, 01:14:20 PM »
Though much of what you say is dead on, I differ with you on a couple points:


Forcing the utility company to buy my alternative energy power back at 10 times the amount I paid for their power? If I were in the present energy business there I'd be looking for a way out - fast. I could see a one for one though. I don't think the idea of me pumping power into the grid and getting nothing for it after I reach zero usage is right either. ... The power companies should not get my generated power for free.


Agree.  (Also:  If it were a great deal on its own merits they'd already be doing it themselves.  They have tried it intermittently and concluded it's not yet ready for prime time.)


If I pay 11 cents a kilowatt then I should be paid back 11 cents per kilowatt that I generate beyond my usage.


Disagree.


First, transmission isn't without loss.

Second, transmission isn't without other costs.

Thrid, power companies aren't charities.  Even if you were paid enough less to cover for the two above, they have to make a profit or they can't get investment for expansion (and their current investors have been cheated).


Net metering alone would be ripping them off big-time, if it weren't for the "be connected" minimum charge and the fact that solar and wind tends to generate when demand is high, and thus their supplies cost more than at other times.  If there were large numbers of homepower generators attached that would change, creating a surplus when the sun is up or the wind is high and driving the value down at those times.


(I'll skip quoting the parts I agree with from here on in interest of brevity.)


Non-polluting energy:


Solar is not non-polluting - even if you don't count their manufacture.  The panels absorb nearly all the light that hits them, turning it all into heat somewhere.  4/5 or more of it is dumped as heat right at the panel.  The remainder gets dumped where it is transported and used - and if it isn't used (say, because your storage is full) it too is dumped at the panel.  The space they occupied typically reflected much more of that light back into space.  So they are a form of ongoing greenhouse thermal pollution.  Perhaps not as much as gasses from fossil fuels - which keep on absorbing long after they're used, until they eventually get sucked back into the carbon cycle.  But non-trivial nontheless.


Wind generation is more efficient but still has some downsides:  Chopped-up birds, debris from flung blades and the like, site damage from foundations that must be cleaned up later, junk equipment once it's worn out, etc.  It takes a lot of equipment to collect a given amount of power and constructing that stuff also has polluting consequences.


Small scale water power differs from large scale only in scale.  If you do it wrong you can do as much eco damage to a stream and the wildlife and plants dependent on it as a hydro plant does to a major river and its surrounds.


No more exploration:


There's no point in more exploration now, if we have the will to drill for what we already know about.  For instance:  The section of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge that was set aside for oil drilling.  The refuge is larger than a number of eastern states, and the tiny spot intended for drilling is a close approximation of the surface of the moon - carefully chosen so as to minimize threats to wildlife.  (They always show you pictures from an idylic section a few hundred miles from it, where there is some wildlife to wring hands over.)


Claims of eco damage in previous Alaska projects turned out to be way overblown.  For instance, the Alaska pipeline was supposed to wipe out the carabu by interrupting their migration.  In fact they jump over it just fine.  And the heat from it (the oil must be heated to keep it thin enough to flow) has been a boon to wildlife, which has done very well in its shelter.  (Including carabu, which have had quite the population explosion.  Far more calves survive to adulthood now.)


Yes there are downsides to mined energy sources.  But let's not fool ourselves that renewable sources are all good and mined sources are all bad.  They all have upsides and downsides, which must be balanced when making decisions about them.


(Meanwhile, renewable sources are really handy for those of us in remote places who would like to power our homes, whether it's because we believe renewable sources are better for the Earth, the cost to hook up to the grid is too high, or it's just a fun hobby.)

« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 01:14:20 PM by Ungrounded Lightning Rod »

skravlinge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #9 on: January 02, 2005, 02:30:36 PM »
Yes it is a few plants which  produce more. The question is to make a bigger share from solar, big or small does matter less. In countries with many sun hours plants using mirrors can produce cheaper. In fact the lands now having most of the oils in the ground, have  possibility to make use of the sun. First it must be law and order and elected government. The South part of USA would  be an good place for such plants.  This plants using mirrors can be used for a lot of things, in France they get temperatures of 5500 centigrades, will melt most of stuff you put there.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 02:30:36 PM by skravlinge »

Aelric

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #10 on: January 02, 2005, 02:59:08 PM »
First off I do support President Bush, I think he has done a fine job.

Secondly, I do agree with you on some points, fossil fuels should be looked at with heed to balance.  One report I read said that the Fossil fuel pollution was contributing a very small factor of the massive amount of material that is altering our ozone layer.  One report said that a much larger portion of the deterioration was due to Volcanic emmisions rather than automobile.  (I am not claiming this is true it is just a report I read)

Secondly, I do not agree with the bit about solar panels adding to green house effect.  Our air conditioning systems/radiators/ore refining plants/factories in general and all the Automobiles constitute a major amount of heat, I believe that even if every US home used solar panels the reflected heat would not even come close to the heat we give off from other sources.  In addition our ozone is deteriorating due to a boost in CFC's and due to a boost in CO2 from the destruction of the rainforests, and yes fossil fuel consumption adds to this.  Right now solar power is very expensive, but there are ways around it as this board is very good at finding.  Sadly this is not very widespread.  Capitalism pushes need for profit rather than need for helping others or reducing pollution.  


On the 11 cents per KW I don't know, I have no idea how much it costs the electric company to monitor/re-distribute that power, but I do believe in a fair share, and I think they should return a fair ammount, at least as much as they would pay an outside company supplying their power needs (whether they buy from a Hydro plant or a coal plant etc.).  I think they should treat any RE source from private individual the same as they would treat a business supplying them power, and give them the same payment.


Next I just wanted to mention about the recycling of copper and iron of any type.  Right now Metal prices are still going up pretty fast, many companies are very eager to buy up used iron/steel or copper.  Most places now have buy back programs for old alternators and old starters because its cheaper to do that than to buy new copper and refine it and turn it into wire.  Instead its a lot easier to unwind an existing alternator or starter and clean it, check for continuity and then rewind it.


As Technology advances generally it becomes cheaper to produce goods.  Not in every case but in most cases (putting aside rising cost of living, cost of materials used)  This is where big business will eventually help out.


Last I think that Supply and Demand will eventually work itself into the RE equation. Eventually Fossil Fuels will run out, as they get low big business will be left with a few choices, either use synthetic oil and synthetic Fuels or switch to some form of RE.  If by this point technology has sufficiently advanced to make wind/solar/hydro on a large scale (yes i know major parts of the country are hydro but I am talking countrywide/global) cheap and appealing to the business they will turn to it.  If however the synthetic (sometimes from recycled goods still a form of RE) is cheaper or more appealing it will become the primary fuel source.


Just my thoughts and opinions.

« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 02:59:08 PM by Aelric »

johnlm

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #11 on: January 02, 2005, 03:00:05 PM »
There is some very good rationale thinking in some of the above posts, and there is some thinking that is not so rational.

John
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 03:00:05 PM by johnlm »

BrianK

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #12 on: January 02, 2005, 04:56:46 PM »
just remember this is the U.S. they don't do things until to late kind of like dangerous intersections someone has to get killed before they do somthing to make it safe.  I am very sorry if i bother someone with this i don't really mean to it is just what i think.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 04:56:46 PM by BrianK »

domwild

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 357
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #13 on: January 02, 2005, 09:04:58 PM »
The German socialist/green coalition is forcing the utilities to pay 10 times more for home produced power?!? They would not do that if the utilities were still in public hands. You can always rip off private industry. If you legislate this way, you are cutting into the profit margin of the utilities and they will jack up the price of the power they produce and sell or they will not have the funds to renew old plant. You end up with a Soviet-style rust belt.


In contrast, when the power plants were still in German state hands, they paid such a piddly little amount for the surplus power private industry produced, that the factories dumped the excess power and did not bother to sell it. Source of info: "Der Spiegel" from many years back.


The German government is in a fix as the nuclear power plants in Germany are all going to be decommissioned soon as the Greens demanded it.  Where is all the power then coming from?? Think of the huge amount of power that is required if you or I go and have an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) scan performed!


When governments interfere with the market, there is a danger that things collapse. In Vienna (Austria) rents were deliberately kept low thru laws with the result that no landlord did any renovations and in our flat you can still see the shrapnel hits from WWII. In East Germany I have seen miles upon miles of rusting freight trains. Why? As soon as the wall fell, carrying freight by rail became too expensive and trucks took over. Now the roads are choked but the goods would have been dearer had they been transported by rail.


dominic

 

« Last Edit: January 02, 2005, 09:04:58 PM by domwild »

skravlinge

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #14 on: January 03, 2005, 09:41:09 AM »
Do you know the energy tax in Germany. You just sell without tax, A rapid way to use politics to change. Germany is dependet on the bad brown coal, and they want fresh air, and live up to Kyoto. I agrre with the fact oil can not be disposed in a about 40 years, rapid changes can make problems with getting things to the best tax-rated things rather than the best for the future energy.Fast movment, but not to fast, as any womanl may think of their husband. (The last comment will hardly be welcomed here, but it has a point)
« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 09:41:09 AM by skravlinge »

Ungrounded Lightning Rod

  • SuperHero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2865
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #15 on: January 03, 2005, 02:29:38 PM »
I think we're mostly on the same page.


I note that the ozone hole and the greenhouse effect are two separate issues that appear to be completely unrelated (although since both involve atmospheric gasses there may be some connection).


The ozone hole is claimed to have a contribution from Chlorine in the upper atmosphere, which accellerates the breakdown of ozone back to oxygen.  It occurs at the south pole because the continuously dark winter night prevents the formation of new ozone, and if it breaks down faster than it is replenished from illuminated areas you get a hole.  Accellerated breakdown expands the hole somewhat - but don't expect to see the ozone disappear over the temperate zone.  B-)


The human component is claimed to be, not from burning fossil fuels, but from manufacturing and eventually releasing chlorofluorocarbons (like Freon refrigerants), which are so stable that they don't break down under normal conditions anywhere below the ozone layer, which they eventually reach by diffusion and where the ozone breaks them down and releases the chlorine.  However, volcanoes kick much more chlorine up there than humanity.  (And on a planet covered with sodium-chloride laden oceans I have no doubt that salt spray gets some up there as well, despite the stratification of the "stratosphere".  B-)  )


But the research indicating Freon contributes to the ozone hole, leading to the global panic, banning of Freon, its mandated replacement with newer and more expensive refrigerants, and increased food poisoning in the third world through lack of refrigeration, was funded by the company with the patent on Freon, just before the patent expired (meaning ANYBODY could make the stuff without paying them a cent).  Another reason to take it with a grain of sodium chloride.  B-)


The greenhouse effect has two halves:

 1) A surface that absorbs light in the far-infrared and above and re-radiates it as "black-body radiation" in the near infrared.

 2) A covering that reflects, scatters, or absorbs near infrared while passing far infrared and/or bands above it.


A greenhouse does it big-time because glass does a marvelous job at 2), bouncing near-infrared and passing about everything else short of hard ultraviolet.  The plants and other stuff inside absorb enough of the light (thus converting it to near-infrared) to keep the place warm on winter days.  Solar collectors, with glass covers, black linings, and good insulation can trap most of the energy from sunlight as heat.


The "greenhouse gasses" do a bit of 2) in the atmosphere, absorbing or scattering-back the near infrared from the ground.  Increasing them increases the effect.  These gasses are the ones that are a concern from fossil fuel production and consumption:  Carbon dioxide and methane both have significant greenhouse activity.


But lowering the albedo of the surface, absorbing more of the light energy (thus converting it to near-infrared for its first trip back toward space and reducing its chance to escape) also increases the effect - since the effect is the PRODUCT of the amount of conversion of light energy from high-band to low-band/local-heating with the amount of increased recapture of low-band (realtve to hight-band) light.  Thus, painting the surface of the planet black, whether by paving it with asphalt, covering it with dense urban structures that require light to bounce back-and-forth (partially absorbed each bounce) before making it back upward, or covering it with dark-colored photovoltaic panels, increases the greenhouse effect heat trapping and the resulting "thermal pollution".


On the 11 cents per KW I don't know, I have no idea how much it costs the electric company to monitor/re-distribute that power, but I do believe in a fair share, and I think they should return a fair ammount, at least as much as they would pay an outside company supplying their power needs (whether they buy from a Hydro plant or a coal plant etc.).  I think they should treat any RE source from private individual the same as they would treat a business supplying them power, and give them the same payment.


Can we agree it would be fair for them to pay for any excess fed them at a wholesale rate appropriate for the times of day when the RE system would typically have an excess?  (That would be a pretty good deal for both sides, since PV and wind both tend to be most available when the cost of power is highest.)


For the big guys they'd want to meter it explicitly, with time-sensitive meters, just as they do for other commercial suppliers.  For the little guys a single meter and assuming the surplus is at the typical times would be a close model and give the power companies a slight benefit (since the part that canceled out represents drain at a typical residential mix of times and generation at a mix biased somewhat more toward high-price times.)


Next I just wanted to mention about the recycling of copper and iron of any type. [...]


I note that within the last couple days I saw an article referenced on the board giving an analysis of the costs of tearout and restoration of commercial windpower sites.  The prices paid for the scrap was figured in.  As I recall it was a significant component but typically didn't cover the whole thing - sometimes by a long shot.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 02:29:38 PM by Ungrounded Lightning Rod »

Aelric

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 73
Re: 10 MW from the Sun
« Reply #16 on: January 03, 2005, 04:20:16 PM »
I agree completely, as to the Iron/Copper recycling, I don't know how much you get back, verses cost you put in, but I would think that if the Wind Generator provides power for any extended length of time the cost would outway the payout to wreck it out.  I don't have a wind turbine (one of these days when I get some property I would love to set one up though)  but I would imagine that the pad for the base of the tower is very small.  I used to work in the cable industry and we had towers as high as 500 feet and the concrete pad was only slightly larger in size than what you would use for a normal size shed, I have no idea how deep it went though.  The anchors for the guy wires didn't have any concrete pads at all.  If the tower was still in good condition when you wanted to tear it down (build a bigger one or whatever) I know lots of Ham operators in my area that would love to take it off their hands, some of them would even go as far as to pay you for it and then do all the work of taking it up.  Assuming of course it is below 200 feet tall (our local limit on maximum height without a permit)  


    I do apologize if I have stepped on any one's toes, that was never my intent, I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in.  I also admit that I don't know much about setting up towers, or taking them down.  The only tower I have ever setup was a small 50 foot tower for wireless internet access to a remote school.  It had no guy wires, just a 3 legged tower with interlocking 10 foot segments.  I have climbed a couple of towers, and a lot of telephone poles as a Cable Technician.  But as I said before I never meant to step on anybody's toes.  I do greatly enjoy this board, a lot of really good and very informative conversations here.  More so than any other place I have found.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2005, 04:20:16 PM by Aelric »