 | Time For A National Concentrating Solar Power Project |
Last night, as part of an ongoing discussion about nuclear energy, a visitor named Robert Palgrave gave me something to think about when it comes to issues of energy. He suggested that a technology called Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) could replace nuclear power plants and supply seven times the amount of electricity currently used by the United States, just from CSP plants put into the desert Southwest.
Well, that’s just too promising not to check out, isn’t it? So, I checked it out.
Here’s what I found. Concentrating Solar Power is that technology that you may have heard a lot about during the 1980s and 1990s where a whole bunch of mirrors all redirect sunlight to a single point to make that point very very very hot. The thermal energy then is converted to electromagnetic energy, which can be transmitted through wires, though much of the energy is lost in this transmission.
The Department of Energy has funded some research into CSP plants, and a few are online, but primarily as demonstrations of the technology, and not as a part of any major shift in energy production. The DoE says that one of the problems keeping CSP programs from being commercially implemented is that the energy created by CSP is much more expensive than energy created by the burning of fossil fuels. Well, that cost doesn’t count the consequences of pollution and global climate change, but in its blithering lack of wisdom, the free market doesn’t care much about such factors until after their effects cripple our society.
Congress has passed, and then extended, tax credits to encourage businesses to help develop CSP. The businesses involved in that development include:
Arizona Public Service Company
The Boeing Company
Industrial Solar Technology Corporation
Kearney & Associates
KJC Operating Company
Morse Associates, Inc.
Nagle Pumps, Inc.
Nextant, A Bechtel Technology and Consulting Company
Reflective Energies
Science Applications International Corporation
SOLARGENIX ENERGY, LLC
Spencer Management Associates
Stirling Energy Systems, Inc.
STM Corporation
Sunray Energy, Inc.
United Innovations, Inc.
WG Associates
Consider for a moment the complete failure of these businesses to get a system of Concentrating Solar Power plants up and running, and it becomes clear that tax incentives and market forces are dazzlingly inefficient in this area. They’re not anywhere close to getting CSP online as a major contributing factor to America’s energy infrastructure. Oh, they’re chipping in a bit on a few experiments, and talking about talking about talking about someday getting CSP plants constructed that they could make a profit from. How tedious. Business is not going to get the job done.
Government can, and can do it quickly. Government doesn’t have to wait for market forces to wake up to a disaster that’s already ruined us. Government is capable of conducting immense projects even when it’s extraordinarily stupid and costly to do so. Consider the way that the Bush Administration, following the three previous Presidents of the United States, is spending countless billions of dollars to build a missile defense system before its technology is at all proven.
Take, as another example, the monumentally expensive blunder of the Iraq War. By the time that 2007 is at an end, the United States will have spent half a trillion dollars on the Iraq War - and that’s just in the direct expenses.
I say that we end this ridiculous war, then take half the amoung of money that we’re spending on the war in Iraq, and create a five year program to construct CSP plants in the Southwest. The Department of Energy already knows how to make CSP plants, so put it in charge of the project, creating a National Solar Power Authority, with the EPA as a partner.
This is no time to dilly dally around with market incentives for sluggish corporations to sniff at. Our dependence on fossil fuels is a present danger. The US military acknowledges that global warming is a more serious threat than terrorism.
If Congress acted now, the United States could have the first round of CSP plants operational by the end of 2008, and we could begin to decomission carbon-emitting power plants. So, what are we waiting for?
Contact Us
How much land would be required to replace 1 nuclear power plant with a Concentrating Solar Power facility that would generate the same amount of electricity? You must also factor in the electricity lost in the transmission from the generating site to where people live. Few people live near the sites where these facilities would be located.
Even though most people think of desolate wastes when deserts are mentioned, the deserts of the US Southwest are rich and diverse ecosystems. I doubt much could survive underneath one of these solar power arrays.
Comment by Mark — 5/8/2007 @ 10:22 am
I used to live in the desert, and I agree that they are rich and diverse ecosystems. They are also HUGE. IMMENSE. GIGANTIC. Compared to the space taken up for WalMart parking lots in this nation, I don’t think it’s that much of a sacrifice.
Wait. I’ve got it! Put the solar arrays on top of all the WalMart parking lots in the American Southwest! That’ll do it. The people parking underneath them have their air conditioners blaring anyways.
Comment by Anonymous — 5/8/2007 @ 10:44 am
I had the same thoughts about ecosystems and land, Mark, and I agree that covering up the whole desert is not what should be done. However, there are places where deserts are indeed almost completely desolate wastes, and there are places that have been made desolate. I think that there’s enough space to get creative about this. What about, for example, solar plants where there are now military bases? What about placing these systems atop old strip mines where mountains have been destroyed?
I don’t have all the answers, but there are people who have been working at this for a while who do have a lot of answers, even if not everything is knowable yet. Lots of research has been done. Sure, there’s a lot that needs to be learned about how to do this right, but enough has already been learned to start.
The free market approach has not worked. Businesses lack the incentive to make the investment. We need to cut carbon emissions and pollution, however, and we need to start doing it fast. It’s time for the government to come in and get to work. Now. This year.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/8/2007 @ 11:25 am
Well, Green Man, i’ve been waiting since the 70’s for people to get the idea that we’d better start taking care of our environment. It’s only gotten worse over the years and, if the current administration is any indication of the stupidity of mankind, our species will be unable to rise to the occasion, come together, and solve this fundamental problem in time to seriously effect the chaotic outcome looming ahead. We can’t even live together or agree on anything substantial anymore, so don’t hold your breath that the masses will change our evolved greedy, reckless, and ignorant attitudes overnight and “see the light” on this issue. It’s lookin’ mighty bleak from where i’m sittin’.
Comment by Tom — 5/8/2007 @ 11:47 am
The tech already exits: Spain has launched a CSP plant.
Comment by John Stracke — 5/8/2007 @ 12:22 pm
Solar power doesn’t generate much at night. And unfortunately, it is very, very difficult to store electricity in large quantities for later use. This has been one of the major drawbacks with all of the intermittent power sources - like solar cells and windmills. The alternative at the moment is to keep enough of the traditional power plants around to supply the nighttime loads (50% - 90% of daytime.) But the economics bite back pretty hard when you only run a plant half the time. So if you’re looking for a new Manhattan project on the energy front, energy storage is a good place to start. Businesses and universities have been working on it for years without large scale success.
Comment by James Aach — 5/8/2007 @ 1:15 pm
And that, James, is why I say it’s time to get government on the job. The time for idle research is over. Business and pure research have failed to get the CSP plants up and contributing, even though the current technology is capable of significant contribution.
Enough with plans for additional research and tweaking over another ten years or twenty years.
The time for application is here. Let’s do it.
We already have enough traditional energy sources for temporary backup. Let’s get these plants built.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/8/2007 @ 2:14 pm
In related (sort of) story:
Here in South Carolina there is a lot of opposition to the local utility’s plans to build another coal-fired power plant. The local environmental community is working to prevent the construction of this facility. They say that not enough effort has gone into increasing conservation and alternative energy sources for our state.
Comment by Mark — 5/8/2007 @ 2:39 pm
I agree with your assessment of decommisioning the carbon-producing plants. CSP can definitely help in that arena, but I cannot stress enough:
CSP is no substitute for nuclear energy, or any other baseload energy for that matter! Robert Palgrave and Gerry Wolff have posted erroneous messages all over the Internet, which exaggerate the facts.
For instance, they claim that 500,000 Californians currently get their power from CSP. But according to the California Energy Commission web site, http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2005.XLS this is just not true.
CSP is inefficient, expensive, and has notable environmental impacts.
Inefficient
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html ), all of the utility-generated solar power in the state amounts to two-tenths of one percent of the state’s electricity production. Because of the limited availability of sunlight, these systems have notoriously low capacity factors and therefore cannot be relied upon for baseload power.
Expensive
According to the California Energy Commission ( http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html ), at 13 to 42 cents per kWhr, solar power is *the* most expensive way to generate electricity. In a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, few people can afford a large-scale conversion to solar power. What’s more, due to its low capacity factors, solar capacity must be backed up with additional stand-by power generation, which adds to the overall cost of solar.
Environmental impact
Solar collectors also require a huge area of land, which must be dedicated to solar generation. Even in the desert, this could disrupt the delicate ecology. Additionally, in order for the salts to remain molten at night, CSP requires fossil fuels to be burned for heat. According to a US Department of Energy study ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf ), these systems are “hybridized” with up to 25% natural gas. Ironically, this renewable technology is a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions!
Comment by Michael Stuart — 5/9/2007 @ 3:47 pm
Michael, what you just wrote is a distortion. Hybrid CSP plants do indeed require burning fossil fuels, but non-hybrid CSP plants do not.
Pro-nuclear propaganda is just as unwelcome as anti-nuclear propaganda.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/9/2007 @ 4:13 pm
Could you please tell me where the “pro-nuclear propaganda” was in my post? Just because I’m pro-nuclear doesn’t mean everything I say about it is propaganda! Sheesh!
Oh, and I didn’t mention that the solar cells in calculators don’t emit CO2 either. My bad!
Comment by Michael Stuart — 5/11/2007 @ 4:14 pm
My point being that California is *extremely* progressive in alternative energy technologies. They have been investing in renewables for decades - including concentrating solar technology, and what does solar contribute? Two-tenths of one percent.
All I’m saying is that solar is no replacement for nuclear, and I’ve shown real, live, actual facts to prove it. All that Palgrave and Wolff can show are some projects that amount to fractions of a percent of actual electrical production and an optimistic forecast of what *can* be someday.
But if you really believe that climate change is something to be dealth with, the only technology that is ready today to cover the demand is nuclear energy.
Don’t believe me, check it out for yourself:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/gross_system_power.html
Comment by Michael Stuart — 5/11/2007 @ 4:20 pm
Michael, you’ve decided to pretend that only hybrid fossil-fuel-solar plants are possible. That’s a distortion, and the achilles heel in your argument.
Comment by The Green Man — 5/11/2007 @ 5:25 pm
Green Man, You’ve decided to pretend that although you disagree with one minor point in my argument, you’ll overlook the rest of the overwhelming evidence I have provided to support my claim that solar power is no substitute for baseload power sources such as nuclear energy.
You *still* have not provided an answer to my question - where is the pro-nuclear propaganda in my post?
It seems the only thing unwelcome here are well-researched and supported data pertaining to real-world energy solutions.
Again, solar is no substitute for baseload power supplies - like nuclear energy. Here is twenty years worth of evidence:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/ELECTRICITY_GEN_1983-2005.XLS
Where’s your evidence?
Comment by Michael Stuart — 5/14/2007 @ 12:38 pm
Michael, I’m not overlooking the rest of your argument, I’m talking about one very important weakness in your argument, which is the claim that only hybrid fossil-fuel-solar plants are possible. I’ve called it a distortion, and I’ve called it propaganda, not in the sense that you’re Big Brother or anything, but in the sense that it’s part of a purposeful attempt to persuade on a political issue in favor of the nuclear industry. Isn’t it?
Comment by The Green Man — 5/14/2007 @ 12:53 pm
No it isn’t.
And where did I say that “only hybrid fossil-fuel-solar plants are possible”? Certainly the solar PV rooftop project that Gov. Swarzenegger is promoting is not “hybridized”.
I simply refer to the large scale *CSP* solar projects and the hybridization that is referred to in the following document:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy98/24496.pdf
If I am mistaken, then that’s all it is. It’s not meant as pro-nuclear propaganda.
What I hope you realize is that I am in favor or solar energy, as well as most all renewables. What I also hope that you realize is that any failure or success in renewable projects will either offset or be offset by fossil fuels, specifically natural gas and coal.
Solar is not in direct competition with nuclear, and Palgrave and Wolff are wrong to suggest that it is. Fossil fuels currently make up over 80% of our energy resources, so any renewable project that comes online should be considered a pathway for less reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels, NOT a replacement for nuclear.
When it comes to solar vs. nuclear there’s no contest. It’s solar + nuclear + hydro + wind + other renewables = less reliance on carbon-emitting fuels. Diversity is the solution.
Comment by Michael Stuart — 5/15/2007 @ 4:38 pm