|
Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives).
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 06:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
the posted:Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives). One of the issues that you have to consider is the centralised power supply that most areas of the world contend with. A decentralised network of power suppliers could reduce more consumption via bypassed transmission loss than any measure I can think of (off the top of my head). If we want to continue our mass-communication lifestyle, I doubt consumption is the issue - merely the safety, sustainability and growth of our supply.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
the posted:Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives). There have been some ask/tell threads on exactly this topic, and there are a lot of resources online for DIY roof PV and commercial roof PV It depends greatly on where you live. States like Arizona and Hawaii provide huge subsidies for solar power systems, and there's also a federal subsidy that stacks on top of those, which gives you a total saving of around 50%. Depending on your usage and the size of your solar system, you can typically pay off the system in 5-10 years in a sunny climate. If you live in a cloudier region then it might take 10-15 years to pay it off and you probably don't have a state subsidy to work with, but that's with panels that typically have a lifespan of 30 years. But then that's one of the major drawbacks: you have to plan to stay in your home between 5 and 20 years. Most people don't feel comfortable making that sort of commitment for a cheaper electrical bill. But the real fact of the matter is that most people either rent or can't afford to put a bunch of money into a solar system. If you're barely scraping by then you certainly can't afford to buy a solar system even if it would save you money in the longrun. Subsidies are usually a tax rebate, so that makes them harder to access for people who might be on the borderline of being able to afford this kind of thing. I live in Hawaii, and rooftop solar systems are a common sight here. It's a sunny climate, and electricity is expensive as gently caress because fuel has to be shipped in, so it makes sense to use solar power for as much of your electricity as possible. Between the state/federal subsidies and the normal cost of electricity, these systems tend to pay for themselves in just a few years. The best solar systems, IMO, provide hot water and electricity whenever you need it but still keep you on the grid for those times that you need more juice. This is a pretty common setup among people who have roof PV systems. Living "off the grid" with PV really isn't necessary unless you want to be a crazy hermit or something. Solar water heating is also a pretty sweet gig if you live in a sunny climate. These tend to be a lot cheaper and pay themselves off a lot more quickly QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 07:50 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
Office Thug posted:There's a lot to talk about unfortunately. Layman understanding may vary. It's long Thanks for this post! I was wondering, is India also serious about Thorium? They have the only thorium power plant that I know of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 09:38
|
|
, so you can add parts you like to the OP if you want.
|
Rand alPaul posted:Thanks for this post! I was wondering, is India also serious about Thorium? They have the only thorium power plant that I know of. India "was" serious about developing thorium, specifically for use in solid fuel heavy water reactors very similar to the CANDU. Their major reason for doing this is that their access to uranium was limited. They used their CANDU reactors to produce weapons-usable plutonium by illegally cycling their fuel very quickly, and then used said plutonium to make a test bomb. Countries stopped selling uranium to them after that so they were forced to scrounge up what little uranium they had access too so far while shooting for thorium as an alternative. Their interest in thorium may have changed recently when the US decided it was going to start selling uranium to India again. I think they're still going to go for thorium but probably not as strongly as before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:02
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:There have been some ask/tell threads on exactly this topic, and there are a lot of resources online for DIY roof PV and commercial roof PV Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro. Solar water heating works like a charm, for much less. The main problem with PV is the real EROEI, which has to include the disposal of them - and since it's not just concrete and silicon, like thermal setups, it foots a substantial bill. The EROEI can be pushed easily beyond the expected lifetime, in non-optimal (sub-2000, which is still good) climates.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:06
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:One of the issues that you have to consider is the centralised power supply that most areas of the world contend with. A decentralised network of power suppliers could reduce more consumption via bypassed transmission loss than any measure I can think of (off the top of my head). I'd be careful with this line of reasoning: in most power systems, total transmission and distribution losses run around 7%. That's really not a killer. If you want to get power from solar PV or wind, you need to find really good sites with the best resources to get the economics even close to sane. When it comes to renewables, industrial-scale facilities in the right locations is the way to go. If people want to feel warm and fuzzy about saving the planet, they should plant a vegetable garden or something. If we're serious about renewables, we need economies of scale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
Is it likely that we'll ever get cheap near disposable PV tiles to slap on everything and everywhere? I'd imagine if you could buy PV like paper it would provide tons of energy to just about everything when combined with dense battery tech.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 13:36
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro. I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I see subsidies as an essential part of any DSM program. On a larger scale I think it's undeniable that massive subsidies for infrastructure have shaped the energy mix across the planet, including many places where as recently as the 70's oil was the primary source of electricity generation and massive subsidies enabled the switch to coal after the oil embargo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 14:47
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro. Sure they do. Subsidizing costs for early adopters increases production, which should lead to increased economies of scale for producers, spending on R&D, etc. The long run result should be a faster decrease in price than without the subsidy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
The scale of solar subsides, atleast in Italy, was for over ten years more than 100 times the total funding to solar energy research. I'm pretty dubious that subsides can overdo research funding, and the claim was simply that "consumer prices with subsides are not comparable to actual large-scale implementation", not that subsides do not help driving down prices (but i still hold the belief that direct research would fare much better); Perhaps the USA is more sane, but the subsides for Solar in Italy were so high they dwarfed the whole research budget (And 10 years later, the efficiency gain on rooftop PV is decent, but nowhere worth the investment - from 75% to 50% subsiding)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 15:26
|
|
|
Sylink posted:Is it likely that we'll ever get cheap near disposable PV tiles to slap on everything and everywhere? I'd imagine if you could buy PV like paper it would provide tons of energy to just about everything when combined with dense battery tech. The problem is the battery. Renewables would be a lot more viable if we could just store the energy in a practical and economical way. It doesn't matter if wind mills become 50% cheaper or solar panels 100% more efficient - as long as we don't have The Battery their use will not go beyond supplemental generation. This guy might be on to something but who knows: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfTAaeQfCts
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The problem is the battery. Renewables would be a lot more viable if we could just store the energy in a practical and economical way. It doesn't matter if wind mills become 50% cheaper or solar panels 100% more efficient - as long as we don't have The Battery their use will not go beyond supplemental generation. Why not? It seems people have a total phobia about spending money on generation plant that will be only used occasionally, but sinking money into storage for the exact same purpose is okay. In any study I've seen, the former option is economically preferable, even if that runs against intuition.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 17:29
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:Why not? It seems people have a total phobia about spending money on generation plant that will be only used occasionally, but sinking money into storage for the exact same purpose is okay. In any study I've seen, the former option is economically preferable, even if that runs against intuition. Because solar outage has a very high correlation. 0.4 uptime, with high correlation, get problematic quickly when it's your main workhorse. We'd have to have full power needs on Solar only, full power needs on Wind only, and we'd STILL need backup.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:Why not? It seems people have a total phobia about spending money on generation plant that will be only used occasionally, but sinking money into storage for the exact same purpose is okay. In any study I've seen, the former option is economically preferable, even if that runs against intuition. Because supposedly this is supposed to replace Coal/et all for baseline power, which for obvious reasons needs to be consistently on.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 17:59
|
|
|
the posted:Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives). Some great ways to reduce consumption are: 1) Ensuring every building and home is properly insulated. Subsidize retrofitting ones that aren't. This includes simple things like, if you have a large sliding glass door, putting a curtain in front of it to reduce heat coming in during summer days, or heat going out during winter nights. 2) Discounting/subsidizing or even giving away CFL bulbs and LED bulbs to replace incandescent lights. Some places have already done this on a number of occasions. And of course not only do they use less electricity, but a CFL bulb can last quite a long time, and LED bulbs can theoretically last 2 decades. 3) Subsidizing the cost of replacing old heating and air conditioning units with modern ones, which will generally be a lot more efficient. Especially important for buildings and homes that are poorly insulated or otherwise inefficient 4) Subsidizing the cost of replacing old appliances in general. Everything really. Replace an old CRT TV with an LCD one of a similar size or even larger and it'll use a lot less power. Same goes for fridges, washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, water heaters. Beyond that, you can get more complicated with things like solar panels, or solar thermal systems to heat your water for you (which is useful for both having hot water for normal uses, and supplemental home heating). But the preceding list is things that work in any climate, in any place in the world practically. Like with the TV example, I replaced an old 30 inch CRT set for a 32 inch LCD set back in 2010. I watch a lot of TV, and my power bill dropped like $10 a month once I did that. Because the CRT set simply used that much more electricity, and also put out more heat so during the summer the air conditioning was running a bit more. Also, all of these suggestions? They don't require anyone to give up the "luxuries" they have or live a different lifestyle in any way. They're nothing but good changes for everyone involved. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Sep 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:The problem is the battery. Renewables would be a lot more viable if we could just store the energy in a practical and economical way. It doesn't matter if wind mills become 50% cheaper or solar panels 100% more efficient - as long as we don't have The Battery their use will not go beyond supplemental generation. This is one of the big things, yeah. Look at say, Star Wars technology. Pretty sci-fi, but... a lot of the tech in that fictional universe would be possible in the real world if we had equivalent power storage capabilities. Hell, we have ion engine vehicles in space now. That's why gasoline is still king, though - it has superior energy density versus batteries that we have in wide use right now. Ideally, we need to become much more efficient in our consumption of energy while waiting for energy storage tech to catch up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
the posted:Cool, thanks for the info. I was just wondering if there was any possible way that families could possibly provide their own power, or if there were any simple initiatives that could be provided on a citywide level to reduce consumption. I know that painting roofs a certain color was famously suggested by our President (and mocked by Conservatives). One thing people can do if they're building a new home is to install a geothermal heat pump system. This is quite expensive after-the-fact to tear up your yard and install, so it has a long payback time in that circumstance... But when the home is first built, everyone should be installing them, really. In areas where it makes sense, I would support a law that makes it a requirement for any yard over _____ size.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Because solar outage has a very high correlation. 0.4 uptime, with high correlation, get problematic quickly when it's your main workhorse. Oh I understand it's a problem, and I used to think that storage is the heir apparent as a solution. After looking into it, though, it turns out that procuring more flexible generation is nearly always a cheaper solution than some magical giant battery. That's just the way the numbers run: I'll dig out a few papers if people would be interested.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
Bob Nudd posted:Oh I understand it's a problem, and I used to think that storage is the heir apparent as a solution. After looking into it, though, it turns out that procuring more flexible generation is nearly always a cheaper solution than some magical giant battery. That's just the way the numbers run: I'll dig out a few papers if people would be interested. Of course: But "a more flexible generation" means no wind and no solar, for backups. And most backups are horribly inefficient, and if you've got a nuclear plant built as backup (coal has start-up times of 12h, nuclear more.. gets worse and worse) - what's the point in building the wind/solar? Remember, safety has to be guaranteed against once-in-500-years screw ups (since it's what we're requiring of nuclear), since a sudden loss of power can cause widespread damage in the grid. If not using batteries, you're using backup. And if you've built backup, and it's not fossil fuel, why aren't you running the backup 24/7?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2012 23:38
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Of course: But "a more flexible generation" means no wind and no solar, for backups. Hydro works well as a back up for these reasons I think. Turn it on, turn it off, in a matter of minutes. And as has been mentioned in the thread, water can be pumped up hill during times of surplus generation to be used when it's needed. Also can I use the 100th post to ask if a Mod can fix the thread title so it's Megathread.. sorry.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Hobo Erotica posted:Hydro works well as a back up for these reasons I think. Turn it on, turn it off, in a matter of minutes. And as has been mentioned in the thread, water can be pumped up hill during times of surplus generation to be used when it's needed. Hydro is incredibly limited in where it can be used, and all the good spots have already been used.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 03:32
|
|
|
Piell posted:Hydro is incredibly limited in where it can be used, and all the good spots have already been used. I know, but those spots that are being used are still good for that turn on/turn off back up. ---- Hey look, my state may have just said they're going to do something good: quote:Pledge to triple wind and solar power in NSW http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/pledge-to-triple-wind-and-solar-power-in-nsw-20120907-25ik3.html Different to actually doing something of course, but it's a good sign. We have a liberal (generally conservative) government, so this makes a pleasant change. I found out about it through a climate-denialist facebook page, who posted it saying "Lets hope that communities in NSW stand up and say NO to the prospect of thousands of new wind turbines blighting our beautiful state."
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:09
|
|
|
Piell posted:Hydro is incredibly limited in where it can be used, and all the good spots have already been used. Right. I think the idea is that we never use it for regular generation, we charge batteries with it all day or what have you and when night comes we use it and the batteries and the batteries we charged with our extra solar stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Subsides are a solution in the micro, but change absolutely nothing in the macro. Coal and Oil got huge subsidies in their infancy (and still get huge subsidies today, for that matter), so really the PV subsidies are just leveling the playing field. And as others have already pointed out, subsidies increase adoption rates and hurry along development of cheaper, better products. Subsidies have a huge long-term effect
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
 The counter to this is that they're not on the roads... doesn't hold much weight to me though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 07:02
|
|
|
It's because the mining industry lobbies the hell out of the Australian government for favorable tax status. I work in renewables and our process is nothing short of amazing, but it's still not going to be competitive with domestic oil until 2017-ish without the RFS2 mandates unless the middle east shits itself or carbon taxes start becoming a global thing. It is really really hard to beat the energy density of gasoline and the economy of natural gas. The real problem is hoping the climate doesn't falter between now and when they stop being economical against renewables.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 08:53
|
|
|
I don't see an issue with the mining situation in Australia (Being a Kiwi) since it's not like metals are a renewable source. Baring recycling and asteroids, anyway. The China/America political maneuvering about it, however... Either way, it's not so much an energy issue as a resource issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 10:03
|
|
|
Hydro as a backup is a terrible idea, unless you mean basin pumping. Hydro is active 24/7, it's completely free and has no running costs, why would you turn it off to build solar? For something to be a backup, it needs to be on-demand power, with low build costs and not necessarily low activity costs. Having something with an uptime higher than 0.95 as a "backup" is kind of ridiculous if there's nothing preventing it from running full time free of charge. ps: to be honest, not being on road makes sense. Are they getting subsides on top of it, like in the USA?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 12:25
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Hydro as a backup is a terrible idea, unless you mean basin pumping. 95% uptime and being cheap are both amazing reasons to use hydro as a backup, especially combined with it's ability to wind up and down extremely quickly. If we run it full time it isn't actually 'free of charge' because it would mean we need to build additional storage to ween ourselves off non renewable energy sources.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 12:54
|
|
|
Turks posted:95% uptime and being cheap are both amazing reasons to use hydro as a backup, especially combined with it's ability to wind up and down extremely quickly. If we run it full time it isn't actually 'free of charge' because it would mean we need to build additional storage to ween ourselves off non renewable energy sources. .. Ok, again. You've got 1GW of Solar. Due to possibility of cyclones and large nubes, there's a real possibility it all can be down at the same time. So you need 1GW of backup. This backup is made in the form of 1GW of Hydro, which can run continuously. The question is: If you've got 1GW of hydro running continuously, and you need 1GW of power at all times; why have you built 1GW of something else, since you already have all the power you need?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
Aureon posted:.. Ok, again. Let's say you have a 1GW nominal capacity (hydro generators), but only 0.8GW continuous power from actual water piling up in your reservoir. You can temporarily generate more electricity by letting more water out, except you need to fill up before you can do that again. This way you can backup 0.2GW of peak power that wind may not be generating when you need it most. In fact, if you have too much wind power at night, you can start pumping water back up in the reservoir. In Holland we use our electricity at night to power Norway (!), which lets them save their water levels for the next day, when they give it back to us. No actual pumping yet, but there are plans for it. Unrelated, I work as an engineer on offshore wind parks so I know a fair amount about them. If anyone has any questions I'll be happy to answer. e: There's a name for it: Pumped Storage Hydroelectricity Knitting Beetles fucked around with this message at 17:04 on Sep 7, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Hydro as a backup is a terrible idea, unless you mean basin pumping. it's also known as basin pumping. It's also very limited in scope, unless you build reservoirs for it especially, and not terribly efficient (around 40% if memory serves)
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Aureon posted:it's also known as basin pumping. It doesn't need to have massive storage, just enough to run for a couple of days. Plans for national (or even international) renewable energy grids call for large scales such that the whole thing will not go down at once. Australia is great for this since it is always sunny/windy somewhere, and because of this your backup at most would only have to reach some proportion of the minimum energy requirements for those few occasions where it is both cloudy and still over large parts of the country. 40% efficiency for storage is also exceptionally good, especially for a system that won't lose energy over time unlike thermal or chemical systems. Edit: this article mentions that pumped hydro has an efficiency of 70-75% Turks fucked around with this message at 08:48 on Sep 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 08:41
|
|
|
Searched a bit, nowhere mentions the time for which this is available, but they can run over 8 hours. Likely depends on the type of dam. I see this making a part, but like all hydro, it's hardly scalable. It's capped already. Another mean is needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
Aureon posted:Another mean is needed. A few concerns have been raised in this thread (e.g. hybrid solar/biomass has not been proven on a commercial scale; biomass should not be considered a carbon-neutral energy source; it would be infeasible for most nations because they lack Australia's extremely consistent insolation). I'm wondering if you have some fundamental objection to this approach, or a reason why you think it would be unworkable in practice? Or is the biomass backup scheme irrelevant because you don't believe in the feasibility (and/or economics) of their proposed CST tech?
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Biomass is a a smokescreened fossil fuel. Or perhaps worse. It takes a crop location (which is co2 negative) and gets it to co2 neutrality. If we wanna do that, we may aswell burn gas. It also drives up food prices, which has a substantial death toll in itself. Using only organic waste to fill the needed power, to deliver a substantial amount of the nation's power, has no precedent, and no numerical base, as i could find (the study itself seems to present none at all) I'm also having more than one grudge with the methodology used in the study: It suffers from a lot of "different scales" used for Solar/Wind and Nuclear, handwaves problems, and assures "statistics show that.." and points to research tangentially related/theoretical only. I'm not really against CST, i fundamentally think that it works, just not at the prices and and quantity the plan tries to pass for "world-tested". I also have to admit that I'm trying to understand if molten salt really produces power during the night, or just stores it: Spain's plants (which have insolation coefficients of 80-100% Australia's, as the study reports), and Spain's plants have uptimes of around 0.35-0.42. To make the plan work, the needed uptimes are somewhere around 0.55, which is already unprecedented, and then correlation kicks in. [Remember that Australia has a very sunny climate, but it's also pretty far from the equator, making solar less efficient: Equator nets about 1350w/m^2, while it's about 800w/m^2 at the tropics) The plan also says MS can store energy for 17 hours, which is more than double andasol's 7.5 hours. It also talks extensively of a Solar Multiple, which boils down to "injecting more energy than the turbine can take out, for later use": But a 50MW plant with a multiplier of 2.6 is a 130MW plant, in land use and costs. Not in turbine costs, but that's not the bulk. And this is completely handwaved, as far as real-world built things go. Oh, and the modelling is not sourced anywhere. It cites an actuary who has done it, but it seems he's not very proud of that (can't find his site nor anything) It warrants further analysis, but biomass is shown to get fired (albeit barely) on a daily basis in the first graphics, and then it goes on to tell that it'd be barely needed (15GW) in the absolute worse case in two-years. I have some doubts on that (But could perfectly be wrong). It also seems to ignore any and all transmission power losses, which could be very significant if power has to run through half the continent. (Atleast, i can't find any explicit mentions: There's a "transport" indicator in some graphs, but seems inconsistent with pre-plan and post-plan) I've also found a gem hidden in the pages: The plan assumes a 30% power need reduction due to more-efficient technologies getting implemented. The price argument comes in, too. It is undoubtedly true that it would benefit from economies of scale, but wouldn't mass-producing mirrors for 50MW of power do that already? And how much "scale" you can reap from a project in which the factories producing the needed components would have to basically shut down on plan completion, in ten years? Again, if unproved economies of scale are magically applied unto mass-producing solar, why aren't they applied to mass-implementing nuclear (Which actually has a benefit in reducing bureaucracy needed for mass-production, and not just raw cost reduction)? All in all, it's not completely undoable: if the real-world cost of it, today, is about x3 the stated, x2-2.5 is probable. Using the same methods warranted for Solar/Wind, though, an equivalent plan using nuclear would cost (as i posted above) around one fifth (albeit having a longer deploy time.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Aureon posted:I also have to admit that I'm trying to understand if molten salt really produces power during the night, or just stores it Molten salt (as it pertains to solar power) is just an energy storage system. It produces power at night by releasing energy that was given to it during the day
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 10:39
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Molten salt (as it pertains to solar power) is just an energy storage system. It produces power at night by releasing energy that was given to it during the day Yes, obviously. The question was about semantics: Those plants (seem) to be capable to input more power than they can output, and store the excess. That's the "Solar Multiplier", as stated by the project. If the project talks about a solar multiplier of 2.6, this is actually talking about building 2.6 times the said power (In receiving, so 2.6 more times mirrors/towers, but not 2.6 more times inverters and converters), and the cost of it doesn't seem to have been factored. Since the way to build bigger solar plants (bigger than 50mw) seems "put more of them side-by-side", i doubt the cost could go down that much. Since Andasol has 7.5h storage, and the solar CST proposed has 17.5h, with a solar multiplier of 2.6 (1.6 surplus) i would suppose the solar multiplier of Andasol is 1.6 (0.6 surplus), leading to 80MW real installed for the cost of $380m. By pure scaling, a plant of 220MW (572MW real absorption), should cost.. 2700m.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2012 11:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:30 |
|
|
It's dated (2008) and Photovoltaic is considered expensive but it is a decent link to have unless there is a better one http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solar-cells-prove-cleaner-way-to-produce-powerquote:But a new analysis finds that even accounting for all the energy and waste involved, PV power would cut air pollution—including the greenhouse gases that cause climate change—by nearly 90 percent if it replaced fossil fuels.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2012 02:13
|
|
