backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 136 comment(s) - last by dever.. on Mar 4 at 1:34 PM


Abegnoa Solar just announced a stunning new 280 MW plant design implementing advanced tracking mirrors, and molten salt thermal storage.  (Source: Abegnoa Solar, ASP)
A new trough-based solar power plant is being constructed in the Arizona desert, which will blow away past designs

There is an estimated 175 petawatts of solar energy absorbed in the upper atmosphere at any time, around 8,000 times the worldwide energy usage in 2004.  This massive unharnessed power has motivated many to study solar power in its various forms as a promising source of alternative energy. 

While moderate adoption of solar power has occurred over the course of the last 40 years, with solar power currently accounting for 0.04% of the world's total energy consumption, there is still a long way to go to fully tap this massive energy source.  Currently, there are three main means of solar power production.  One method is the use of solar troughs or solar power towers which focus solar energy on water or another evaporant, turning it into steam.  This steam then drives turbines and is recondensed to liquid.  One disadvantage, however, is that most current trough plants cannot produce power at night.

Another method is photovoltaics, but these plants tend to be more expensive.  Photovoltaics can have the advantage of no moving parts, though some have motors to allow them to track the sun.  By featuring a smaller number of moving parts, photovoltaics have a slight advantage over troughs, as the extra mechanical components in troughs can easily break and require maintenance.  Troughs, towers, and non-concentrated solar voltaics have approximately the same efficiency -- around 15%.   More advanced solar cell designs promise even higher efficiencies, but are not yet commercially producible. Concentrated photovoltaics have a higher efficiency, but require more infrastructure and more mechanical components. 

Finally, a relatively new approach is to use concentrated solar energy, typically from a parabolic disk, to run a Stirling engine.  This type of production is more expensive and not as extensively researched, but it has efficiency unmatched by anything except concentrated photovoltaics.  

The current record for solar plants is held by a nine-plant 350 MW collective, named Solar Energy Generating Systems, located in the Mojave Desert.  The plant utilizes chiefly trough designs.  The U.S. also holds the record for the third largest plant, also implementing the trough design, the 64 MW Nevada Solar One plant.  The largest photovoltaic plant is far behind, the Beneixama photovoltaic power plant in Spain, at 20 MW.  The largest U.S. photovoltaic plant is the 14 MW Nellis Solar Plant.

Now a new 280 MW trough plant project looks to far surpass past capacities and maximize the potential of this type of solar power.  The new commercial endeavor, launched by Abengoa Solar aims to build what would today be the world's largest solar plant, operating in the Arizona desert.  Abegnoa Solar signed a contract with Arizona Public Service Co. (APS), one of Arizonas leading energy utilities, to build and operate the plant.

The plant will cover a total of 1,900 acres, almost 3 square miles of desert.  The plant itself will consist of two 140-megawatt steam generators.  The plant will be capable of powering 70,000 homes, while saving 400,000 tons of greenhouse gases.  The plant also eliminates a host of other emissions typical with gas and coal plants.

The plant's name, Solana, was selected as it means "a sunny place" in Spanish.  The plant will implement tracking mirrors on its troughs to track the sun from east to west.  The troughs will concentrate the sun's rays, known as concentrated solar power (CSP) technology, as the sun travels from east to west.  The receiver pipes mounted in the center of the troughs will receive this energy and use it to heat water to over 700 degrees F.  The water is then sent to a heat exchanger to produce steam and generate power.  The troughs will be arrayed in long, massive rows, all feeding in to the two central generators.

As previously mentioned, one key disadvantage of many trough plants is that they cannot produce power at night.  Most current U.S. trough plants switch to burning fossil fuels to keep up with power needs at night.  As long as they only provide 27% of their output from fossil fuels, they are still entitled to alternative energy status.  The new Solana plant looks to do away with fossil fuels entirely, though.  Large tanks of molten salt will store solar energy by day, and by night the plant will maintain a steady production as this thermal energy is drained.  This storage will also help alleviate power problems on cloudy days.

The plant will come online in 2011.  It is located 70 miles southwest of Phoenix, near Gila Bend, Arizona.  APS plans to run the plant for thirty years or more, generating at least $4B USD in revenue, and making $1B USD in economic benefits for the state of Arizona.  The construction will bring in 1,500 jobs, which will help to counteract local effects of the national economic slump.  When the plant comes online, it will employ 85 skilled full-time workers.

Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano lauded both Abengoa Solar and APS.  She said of their efforts, "This is a major milestone for Arizona in our efforts to increase the amount of renewable energy available in the United States."

Santiago Seage, CEO of Abengoa Solar said, "This project not only shows leadership in Arizona and the southwest, but for America. This project will help usher in a new era of large clean and efficient solar power plants. Our commitment to solar energy is global and we will work with utilities, regulators and companies worldwide to make plants like this happen by leveraging the technologies we have been developing over two decades."

Abegnoa Solar is no newcomer to the solar industry.  It built large solar plants in Spain, Morocco, and Algeria.  With this new plant it seeks to expand in the American Midwest.  It hopes to develop gigawatts of capacity in the sun-rich southwest, powering millions.

The plant will receive a long term extension of the solar investment tax credit passed by the U.S. Congress.  For a video on the new plant, provided by Abegnoa Solar, please look here.  For more of the latest developments in solar technologies, please refer to additional stories found here at DailyTech



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

More research, less tax breaks
By Entropy42 on 2/28/2008 11:22:50 AM , Rating: 4
I wish the government would just put up research money for technologies it wants to see developed, rather than tax breaks and subsidies that make it harder to evaluate the true cost of an energy source. I love seeing progress on the development of solar cells, but I always worry when I see something like this being built, because I wonder if it truly a cost effective way of producing energy, or if the rest of the US is just paying for Arizona. <I am NOT saying that is definitely what is happening here, I don't know enough about this project to say that, but I hear a lot about credits and subsidies for solar power>




RE: More research, less tax breaks
By Cygni on 2/28/2008 11:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. Pushing these absurdly expensive unprofitable plants covering thousands of acres is not the right path. The technology is simply not there for large scale solar power plants yet. Instead of tax breaks for massive unprofitable green power production (both solar and wind), that money should be spent on smaller, more experimental power production.

Wind and solar is just not advanced enough to be spending government money on huge construction projects like this. More money for the innovators, less money for the construction companies.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By Chimpie on 2/28/2008 11:59:22 AM , Rating: 5
But by building these plants they are not only providing energy but doing research as well. It's not like they are going to build this and not learn anything at the same time.

I say build it and build it well. Learn from it.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By Cygni on 2/28/2008 6:23:16 PM , Rating: 3
In this era of cad-cam, there isn't a lot a facility like this is going to teach us. Its fundamental processes and design are identical to those already in use elsewhere around the world... its just bigger. The inherent problems in solar power aren't making arrays BIG enough, its making arrays EFFICIENT enough.

Other than 'How to build big arrays,' there is much more actual research possibility on a smaller, more experimental array.


By animedude on 2/29/2008 2:12:52 AM , Rating: 2
Money better spend on how to harness hydrogen fuel.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By BansheeX on 2/28/2008 12:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wish the government would just put up research money for technologies it wants to see developed,


You mean taxpayer money or money borrowed from abroad? What the hell would politicians know where to spend our money or how much goes to what? What's to stop them from dumping it into some idiotic misadventure like, say, ethanol from corn, instead of building nuclear plants like we should? These people are influenced by domestic lobbies, good and bad. I say we free up the money to the people and let the free market decide. If the government stops dicking with things, oil prices will rise and demand will naturally generate for fuel efficient cars and alternative energy sources. If bad idea companies can't lobby for taxpayer subsidies, companies in general will be compelled to seek out the best solution through competition in order to profit from the new demand. THEY will fund the research, and people will pay directly for the successful product of their own volition, not through taxes to fund the research according to what politicians have been influenced to favor. Why the hell do people want the government to decide all these things given their track record?


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2008 1:40:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I say we free up the money to the people


If you let the common people decide they'll just vote to spend it all on themselves. People take things for granted. The power that comes into their homes most don't even have a clue how its generated. They just know when they flick the switch it comes on. They think the gas they buy, while expensive, just should be available at the station when they want to fill up.

The average person doesn't have a clue how things actually happen. They live in their own little world watching American Idol and bitching about how the government needs to do more to make their life easy.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By BansheeX on 2/28/2008 2:27:11 PM , Rating: 1
But if that lifestyle of entertainment is threatened by rising oil prices, they will naturally become interested in more energy efficient products, nuclear, etc, on a personal and community level. This is already starting to happen regardless of subsidies because the market is ultimately more powerful than government manipulation, but people are finding it difficult to afford the new technologies considering the economic environment in which they are now being introduced. Progress in this field could have happened a long time ago if politicians didn't promise policies of cheaper oil. I know that if I had been allowed to keep the tax money that goes to government waste and bad research, I would use it to outfit my house with geothermal, solar, wind, whatever, to become more self-sufficient. Those are products that companies offer that are becoming better and cheaper every day due to demand and competition. But that demand and competition can't exist without the consumer being able to afford it, and the government's taxes, waste, and inflationary policies are making people poorer every day.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By dever on 2/28/2008 2:38:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
people are finding it difficult to afford the new technologies considering the economic environment in which they are now being introduced
Over the last 150 years, the real income of individuals in the US has increased 1.5% to 2.0% annually. The rate is actually increasing over time. Before this period in history, there was no real growth in income over time, just random fluctuations. Most people over the span of human history were relagated to subsistence living, making approximately $600/year in today's US dollars.

In this economic system, there are, of course, fluctuations like any system, but on average, people are becoming richer. It's hard for me to take anyone seriously who states that it's harder for individuals to afford technology than before. What technology is more expensive today?

Stating that, you're completely on target about government interference. Without this interference, real wealth increases would most certainly be much higher.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By BansheeX on 2/28/2008 3:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over the last 150 years, the real income of individuals in the US has increased 1.5% to 2.0% annually. The rate is actually increasing over time. Before this period in history, there was no real growth in income over time, just random fluctuations. Most people over the span of human history were relagated to subsistence living, making approximately $600/year in today's US dollars.


I'd like sources and calculations for this. When you say $600/year compared to today's dollars, how are you measuring today's dollar? If you're adjusting inflation using government measurements of inflation, your logic is flawed. Also, consider the illusory nature of today's wealth: this is easy to understand if you simply imagine us sliding into a second depression because much of our current "wealth" is purely credit subsidized by foreign central banks. If that happens, suddenly your current numbers are toast, so your claim relies on its being made during the phony boom periods of said Keynesian policies. For the people who grow up or suffer in the bust periods, your contention that fiat has improved the average person's economic life is not so palatable.

What really tricks people is technological progress, and how that relates to standard of living comparisons. Televisions and cars may not have been invented yet in the 19th century, but people had a better sustained income relative to other goods that was not at risk of collapsing and in which you could afford to raise as many as seven kids on a single income. You can't do that today. You need two incomes at least to raise even one child. But the better technology has deceived you into thinking that you're better off economically than any previous point in history.

quote:
The rate is actually increasing over time.


Nominal increases mean nothing if inflation is debasing those nominal gains. The only value that matters is the value of dollars relative to that which you buy with them. People's incomes didn't have to "increase" nominally by 3% every year because the gold or silver which backed their currency couldn't be churned out and debased by the government, thus there was far less inflation to have to catch up with.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By Ringold on 2/29/2008 1:16:04 AM , Rating: 3
The gold standard ultimately fails for a couple reasons.

Add gold to the world, and you have inflation.

Have a steady level of gold, and you have deflation as more goods and services are produced (and more consumers are born).

Inflation from gold brought back to Spain from the New World was devastating. Economists don't really know how to handle deflation; Japan's situation is.. bizzare. Yes, we managed to grow with deflation earlier in our national history, but we were also in a stage similar to China; I think hell could've been unleashed and we'd of still managed to grow.

I find your lack of faith in orthodox economic theory to be disturbing, to paraphrase Vader. ;)


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/29/2008 1:49:29 AM , Rating: 4
> "Add gold to the world, and you have inflation."

We add gold to the world every year, by mining more of it. In this respect, the only difference a gold standard would make is that some of that additional gold would be purchased by the government, if it wished to issue new bank notes.

And remember, there's nothing magical about "gold" in a gold standard. Bimetallism works even better, or even a basket of weighted goods. The issue is fiat currency, not gold itself.


By PhantomRogue on 2/29/2008 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
>The issue is fiat currency, not gold itself.

I wish more people understood that fact. It's not about GOLD being the standard, its about creating a standard that is tangible. One that is based in reality, not made out of nothing.


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By dever on 3/3/2008 2:29:59 PM , Rating: 2
My statement was based on a "popular" economics by called "More Sex Is Safer Sex" by Steven E. Landsburg. I don't have it in front of me, so my numbers were from memory.

quote:
You need two incomes at least to raise even one child
I think this statement reveals your perspective. Perhaps you have some unrecognized "standard" of living that you feel is necessary (maybe a new ipod every year minimum?) that comes before having additional children.

I know someone who works construction, his wife stays at home and raises their 8 kids, plus one on the way. They home school, can vegetables from their garden, etc. But by any measure I can come up with, their standard of living is many, many, many times greater than pre-industrialized America or any third world nation.

They live in a two-story home, have plenty of food (huge home-cooked meals), many changes of clothes per person, heating and air conditioning, washer and dryer, dish washer, cars (airport van if you were wondering, plus another truck and car), fridge & freezers, stereos, computer, cell phones, video games, cameras, power tools, stove(s), etc, etc etc. They've even sent some of their kids to private schools... and some to public when they wanted to.

They also live within their means. They work extremely hard and are very frugal. However, they would have to have worked much, much harder in the pre-industrial world to have a fraction of the goods and lifestyle they enjoy. They probably would have been considered well off even 50 years ago.

While this is just an anecdote, it is in direct conflict with your statement. You can, in fact, raise a large family, or do any of the other things that were possible earlier, and have many more conveniences.

Standards of living increase, and are continuing to increase. Is it possible you are taking for granted the huge abundance of wealth we enjoy every day? Is this a great country or what? (my apologies to non-US citizens, but I can only speak from experience.)


RE: More research, less tax breaks
By Spuke on 2/29/08, Rating: 0