# And who said solar thermal is dead?



## sesmith (Feb 17, 2014)

Ivanpah is up and running:

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10019575.html

Whether you agree with the project or not, it's pretty impressive.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 18, 2014)

sesmith said:


> Ivanpah is up and running:
> 
> http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10019575.html
> 
> Whether you agree with the project or not, it's pretty impressive.


and we paid for it? wouldn't be there if we didn't and continue to subsidize it each month.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 18, 2014)

Kudos to Ivanpah! Humans are the only species who dump their toxic wastes so they go into their food, air and water for themselves and other living things to eat, breathe and drink. Fossil fuels are engines of toxic waste.


----------



## bmblank (Feb 18, 2014)

jebatty said:


> Humans are the only species who dump their toxic wastes so they go into their food, air and water for themselves and other living things to eat, breathe and drink.


Have you ever seen mouse chit EVERYWHERE? Where they eat sleep and breath.. I understand its not "toxic", but to say that humans only leave waste around is false. In fact, humans probably do the best at segregating their waste from everything else and expend the most energy keeping everything clean.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 20, 2014)

1000 degree bird cooker, from what I've been reading.  I wonder what the equivelent area in PV would produce.


----------



## sesmith (Feb 20, 2014)

MarkW said:


> 1000 degree bird cooker, from what I've been reading.  I wonder what the equivelent area in PV would produce.



Less, according to Bright Source.  They say that the thermal steam generation at Ivanpah uses less land than equivalent amount of pv.  By my very rough calculations approx 1517 gWhr per year from Ivanpah vs 1250 gWhr per year for an equivalent number of acres of pv.  They also say less ground disturbance and grading is necessary for their system.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 21, 2014)

In the electric generation arena, utility scale implementation of new technology is very risky and challenging. Ivanpah received large federal loan guarantees to get the financing to prove the technology. Likely will be some wrinkles, but also likely it will work and be competitive. And if so, it will pay off the loans and the public investment will have been well placed. I listened to the Sec of Energy speak on radio and if I remember correctly, already another utility was proceeding with this solar mirror steam generation without federal guarantees. Ivanpah and what it learned has paved the way.

Same with nuclear. Dept of Energy has given large loan guarantees to the first new nuclear reactor construction in the US for a long time, also employing new technology. This is wise use of federal assistance: we need early starters, the cost is high, failure also is a real possibility, but successes can be huge, and then we all benefit, and that benefit comes from our willingness as a society to also bear the risk of failure. 

It's easy to point fingers at costly failures. And we probably should keep this in sight all the time, but we also need to celebrate huge successes from govt financing and loan guarantees of private industry venturing into extremely expensive new technology. Medicine, genetics, electronics are only a few of the areas where we have received great benefit because of federal assistance. And ultimately private industry also earns the profits of our investment in the early starters.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 21, 2014)

jebatty said:


> In the electric generation arena, utility scale implementation of new technology is very risky and challenging. Ivanpah received large federal loan guarantees to get the financing to prove the technology. Likely will be some wrinkles, but also likely it will work and be competitive. And if so, it will pay off the loans and the public investment will have been well placed. I listened to the Sec of Energy speak on radio and if I remember correctly, already another utility was proceeding with this solar mirror steam generation without federal guarantees. Ivanpah and what it learned has paved the way.
> 
> Same with nuclear. Dept of Energy has given large loan guarantees to the first new nuclear reactor construction in the US for a long time, also employing new technology. This is wise use of federal assistance: we need early starters, the cost is high, failure also is a real possibility, but successes can be huge, and then we all benefit, and that benefit comes from our willingness as a society to also bear the risk of failure.
> 
> It's easy to point fingers at costly failures. And we probably should keep this in sight all the time, but we also need to celebrate huge successes from govt financing and loan guarantees of private industry venturing into extremely expensive new technology. Medicine, genetics, electronics are only a few of the areas where we have received great benefit because of federal assistance. And ultimately private industry also earns the profits of our investment in the early starters.


glad your convinced 
"That means the private sector must fill the gap at a time when building a natural-gas fired power plant costs about $1,000 per megawatt, a fraction of the $5,500 per megawatt that Ivanpah cost.

"Our job was to kickstart the demonstration of these different technologies," Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. here is the rest http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/13/us-solar-ivanpah-idUKBREA1C20A20140213


----------



## jebatty (Feb 21, 2014)

I have to say that generally I am convinced. A good friend of mine is an astrophysicist with the USAF and does basic research, the kind of stuff the federal govt (sometimes) spends lots of money on, not knowing what the outcomes will be. New discoveries, new technologies, huge advances in many areas are the result. Yes, the short term cost is high, but the "new" that works has even greater benefits and knowledge builds on knowledge, and we all benefit greatly. 

For the most part, gone are the days when a person with an ordinary microscope or a voltmeter can make an earth-shaking discovery. But the give the person an electron microscope or the Hadron Collider, at huge cost, and who knows what the outcome will be?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 21, 2014)

jebatty said:


> I have to say that generally I am convinced. A good friend of mine is an astrophysicist with the USAF and does basic research, the kind of stuff the federal govt (sometimes) spends lots of money on, not knowing what the outcomes will be. New discoveries, new technologies, huge advances in many areas are the result. Yes, the short term cost is high, but the "new" that works has even greater benefits and knowledge builds on knowledge, and we all benefit greatly.
> 
> For the most part, gone are the days when a person with an ordinary microscope or a voltmeter can make an earth-shaking discovery. But the give the person an electron microscope or the Hadron Collider, at huge cost, and who knows what the outcome will be?


you cite many good advancements, all good things  with advancements to different  businesses. in this case we involve everybody within it's service area giving people the same product at an inflated price. so they are now having to pay for it's development. if a new tannery started to produce leather at 30% more dollars than it's competitors they wouldn't find customer one, given that the product is equal to that which is currently being produced. now comes gov't and mandates that you have to by this "new technology produced leather". under your argument they are the next sliced bread and they are in business. never mind the consumer, it's for your own good. cape wind in my area is a great example, guaranteed $.185/kw couldn't get off the ground. enter State of Mass. and steps on Nat'l grid. they agree to buy. not good enough says cape wind, we have to have n-star too. long story short cape wind now exist due to gov't, not because of the utility and rate payers but gov't.

"Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. " from pres Eisenhower's farewell it says it all.

thanks for the discussion, have a day


----------



## jebatty (Feb 22, 2014)

Doug, I think you and I agree nearly completely. I focused on the positive outcomes, you brought in the factors that can and have resulted in less than positive outcomes. Ultimately, we as a people need to come to a consensus on things important for the long term stability of our nation, the world and our own freedom, rather than live in continuing fear, suspicion, and blaming others for our own failures. We all need to do better.


----------



## begreen (Feb 22, 2014)

Nat gas is better that coal, but Ivanpah now contributes how much CO and C02 vs an natural gas fired power plant?


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2014)

Doug - check your $$$ on NG construction cost, as the cost is about $1000/kw, not megawatt. Regardless, construction cost is only a part, and probably a small part, of the total cost equation for a power plant. Initial construction cost of a NG fired power plant certainly is less than building Ivanpah, but $1000/kw increases to more than $2000/kw with carbon capture and storage which are not part of that cost vs zero carbon for Ivanpah; also NG must be purchased at inflationary market prices over the life of the system (50 years or so) vs virtually no input energy cost for Ivanpah; NG infrastructure must be available or built vs no such infrastructure for Ivanpah; both systems need transmission line infrastructure; operating/maintenance costs for NG boilers probably are substantially higher than keeping the mirrors clean at Ivanpah. 

The simple fact already is that wind and solar electric already is life-cycle competitive with all fossil fuel energy sources and likely will become far more competitive in the future.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 23, 2014)

$$$$$$$  came from the reuters. the carbon costs will eventually be passed on which which falls right in eisenhower"s point. science claim that .04% of the atmosphere is the culprit. this and other stuff should always be watched. in the mean time a small fraction of the world saddles itself with costly stuff as we are doing under the this assumption. I like a lot of quality of life policies but as I've said ,but especially with this topic I think the gov't goes overboard in forcing it's hand. if there is 4 of a kind on the board does the gov't really have a straight flush or are they bluffing.


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2014)

Reuters is in error, think about it: $1000 per million watts = $0.001/watt! Nonsensical on its face. EIA reports about $1000/kw for NG, about $2000/kw for NG with carbon capture and storage, and about $5000/kw for solar thermal. Reuters error is a factor of 1000. My point doesn't change. Life cycle operating, maintenance, fuel purchase costs for NG are beat by solar thermal (and solar electric) now and more so in the future. 

Even at construction cost for NG of $1/watt ($1000/kw), the construction cost of my own solar voltaic system at $2500/kw beats NG all over the board: no fuel cost, near $0 maintenance/operating cost, equivalent life span. 

We have competitive solar alternatives to NG and other fossil fuels right now, they have just about none of the environmental/climate risk factors of fossil fuels, so we don't even need to argue over that. When 100 sq miles of sunny desert can supply all the electrical energy needs of the US (EIA), then the argument is over.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Feb 23, 2014)

just for argument sake construction cost confirmed http://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/basic-costs-for-generating-electricity/. also the article made your point on solar from pv side. ivanpah remains way behind the curve, going back to the op. just a side, battle brewing with the Chinese on tariffs on the panel business. http://www.slate.com/articles/techn...ar_solarworld_case_is_bad_for_green_jobs.html


----------



## jebatty (Feb 23, 2014)

Suspect the error is just being repeated. See Apr 2013 EIA, Table 1 in http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/ 

My panels are Suniva, US made, not Chinese imports.


----------



## ihookem (Apr 18, 2014)

Did anyone ever think of the 5.4 square miles ofland it takes up???? Ya could grow grass, cut it, and burn it in a furnace to make the electricity and come out ahead. ( I think)  I think that is uglier than any wind mill farm. At least on windmill farms the deer and animals can go about and the farmers can still hay the fields right under the windmills. I don't think you can do anything with this land now.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 18, 2014)

ihookem said:


> Ya could grow grass, cut it, and burn it in a furnace to make the electricity and come out ahead. ( I think)



Ivanpah is expected to generate ~1 trillion Whr per year. That's the equivalent of 3.4 trillion BTU per year assuming 100% efficiency. Let's see what that would be in terms of excellent firewood like osage orange with 33 million BTU per cord. That would equate to roughly 100,000 cord of osage orange burned. You can grow about 20 cords of wood per acre. With 3500 acres in 5.4 sq. miles we get 70,000 cords. Now please show me how you grow a full forest of osage orange every year on that lot and achieve 100% efficiency while burning it.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 18, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> "That means the private sector must fill the gap at a time when building a natural-gas fired power plant costs about $1,000 per megawatt, a fraction of the $5,500 per megawatt that Ivanpah cost.



Awesome, I will just take out a second mortgage of $250K to build a 250 MW natural gas power plant in my backyard. Where do I need to sign?


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> science claim that .04% of the atmosphere is the culprit. this and other stuff should always be watched.



Actually it was this fellow, John Tyndall:







had it all worked out using laboratory measurements on CO2....in 1860.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 19, 2014)

> You can grow about 20 cords of wood per acre.


This likely varies by species and location, but in our area a rough estimate is that 1 acre of land will sustainably produce about 1 cord per year.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2014)

I think its a cool, at scale demonstration of concentrating solar power, CSP.  PV is still going to eat its lunch, as it is cheaper (already at utility scale), more flexible (rooftops) and does better in locations with lots of partly cloudy weather (outside of the desert SW).

Thermal storage to deliver juice at night is a nice feature, roughly doubles the cost per kWh, but cheaper than existing battery technology.  In a high solar penetration ecotopic future, CSP may be the cheapest solar baseload.  Until we get past 20% solar penetration, though, such storage doesn't pay.  And in the future cheap batteries and EVs might undercut the need.

Future viability will depend on operating/maintenance costs, which are TBD.  We knew it would work on day 1.  The experiment is to see how costly it is to keep it running.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 19, 2014)

jebatty said:


> This likely varies by species and location, but in our area a rough estimate is that 1 acre of land will sustainably produce about 1 cord per year.



Indeed.  Photosynthesis is <1% efficient at turning solar energy into food or fuel calories.  A solar plant gives 10-100x more energy per land area than a farm.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 19, 2014)

One cord of seasoned red oak weighs about 3300 lbs and has about 6050 btu's/lb of available energy in a wood gasification boiler. 3300 x 6050 / 3414 = 5850 kwh of available energy content per year on a sustainable basis on one acre of land.

My 6500 kwh solar system covers 400 square feet of land and has average annual production of 9000 kwh. One acre of land has 43,560 square feet, divided by 400 = 109 solar systems like mine, or 109 * 9000 = 981,000 kwh of energy, 168 times the energy potential of that same land growing trees.

Looked at differently, 1 cord of css seasoned red oak sells for about $225 in my area. 981,000 kwh at the retail rate charged by my utility sells for $105,948.

Another different look. 9000 kwh at my retail rate = $972 with $0 labor cost and 0 risk of physical energy or death from cutting down several trees and css for retail sale.

And yet one more different look. My solar system cost $30,000 before any tax credits, incentives. For growing and processing wood: cost of one acre of land: $_____; equipment to process wood: chainsaw, chains, chaps, helmet, gloves, and boots: $_____; splitter: $_____; tractor/equipment to haul the wood out: $_____; value of time invested: $_____; replacement and maintenance costs: $_____; add your extras: $_____.

Based on these numbers, one acre of land for solar electric produces 168x the usable energy per acre than using land to grow trees for energy.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 19, 2014)

jebatty said:


> One cord of seasoned red oak weighs about 3300 lbs and has about 6050 btu's/lb of available energy in a wood gasification boiler. 3300 x 6050 / 3414 = 5850 kwh of available energy content per year on a sustainable basis on one acre of land.
> 
> My 6500 kwh solar system covers 400 square feet of land and has average annual production of 9000 kwh. One acre of land has 43,560 square feet, divided by 400 = 109 solar systems like mine, or 109 * 9000 = 981,000 kwh of energy, 168 times the energy potential of that same land growing trees.
> 
> ...



A more elegant way of looking at the numbers. And yes, I was not looking at sustainably harvested wood just to show how outlandish that initial "thinking" was. Let us also not forget that Ivanpah is located in the Mojave desert. You won't grow that much biomass there without massive irrigation.


----------



## ihookem (Apr 19, 2014)

OK, I stand corrected. I still think it is darn ugly , and I'm not ripping anyone, but all these liberals ( not saying any posters are ) but we get these people in the biggest hissy fit anytime a northern spotted owl , or the long nosed teat mouse, or the desert turtle on the Bundy farm, or the Gile trout in New Mexico, we cant even put cows there, and some of it is completely closed for much of anything for recreation. Why is this ok? So Las Vegas can has lights on 24/7? Or Las Angeles can too? Still ugly and if there was any recreation value there, or anything scenic it is now off limits. 5.4 Sq. mi. is a lot of space and it's not green space anymore neither. If there is that much sun there let the residents and companies put their own solar on their walls and roofs.


----------



## begreen (Apr 19, 2014)

This is desert land, not farming land. The reflectors look to be about 10 ft above the land which should allow for grazing animals or critters looking for shade in the desert one would think. However, they are investigating bird kill numbers. For comparison, so far they match about what my neighbor reports his big plate glass windows kill per month during migration season. And that is only one house.


----------



## Grisu (Apr 19, 2014)

ihookem said:


> OK, I stand corrected. I still think it is darn ugly , and I'm not ripping anyone, but all these liberals ( not saying any posters are ) but we get these people in the biggest hissy fit anytime a northern spotted owl , or the long nosed teat mouse, or the desert turtle on the Bundy farm, or the Gile trout in New Mexico, we cant even put cows there, and some of it is completely closed for much of anything for recreation. Why is this ok? So Las Vegas can has lights on 24/7? Or Las Angeles can too? Still ugly and if there was any recreation value there, or anything scenic it is now off limits. 5.4 Sq. mi. is a lot of space and it's not green space anymore neither. If there is that much sun there let the residents and companies put their own solar on their walls and roofs.



Please tell me which of these options look aesthetically more appealing:

coal power plant: http://i2.wp.com/www.greenoptimisti.../07/Coal-Fired-Power-Plant.jpg?resize=300,161
coal mining mountaintop removal: http://www.washtenawvoice.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/images_1013/mountain-top.jpg
Alberta tar sand removal: http://rabble.ca/sites/rabble/files/imagecache/350px-width-scale-PREVIEW/node-images/tarsands3.jpg
Dakota fracked oil wells: http://ecowatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/aerialFracking.jpg
Uranium mining (Australia): http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/d...australia-nuclear-uranium-mining-ranger_0.jpg
Hydroelectric dam: http://peakwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/hydropower1-300x241.jpg
German Windfarm: http://images.nationalgeographic.co...en-fish-wind-farms-turbines_18081_990x742.jpg

In the end, we all want the cheap labor that those energy sources provide. As long as we value that more than the biosphere we live in, we will keep building such "monstrosities".


----------



## sesmith (Apr 21, 2014)

jebatty said:


> One cord of seasoned red oak weighs about 3300 lbs and has about 6050 btu's/lb of available energy in a wood gasification boiler. 3300 x 6050 / 3414 = 5850 kwh of available energy content per year on a sustainable basis on one acre of land.
> 
> My 6500 kwh solar system covers 400 square feet of land and has average annual production of 9000 kwh. One acre of land has 43,560 square feet, divided by 400 = 109 solar systems like mine, or 109 * 9000 = 981,000 kwh of energy, 168 times the energy potential of that same land growing trees.
> 
> ...




Your numbers look convincing until you realize the amount of energy that is needed to heat a house in the northeast.  Except in a very tight modern, small house, solar pv is an expensive choice to use for heat.

Take my old farmhouse as an example.  When we heated it with an oil forced air furnace, it took about 800 gallons of oil to do that.  Convert that 800 gallons burned in a 78% efficient furnace into electric resistance heat, and you're looking at about 25360 kwh of electricity.  Divide that by the 9000 kwh per year your 30k system produces and you would need about an $84500 system to supply that much electricity per year. This would save approx $3200 / yr in oil at $4 per gallon and take about 26 years to pay back the solar cost with fuel savings.

When we heated our home with wood, we used approx 6.5 full cords of wood (which I cut myself).  However, if I bought that wood at $200 per cord it would cost $1300 to heat the house, saving $1900 per year with no outlay of cash.

When I no longer was able to cut wood, we decided to put in a ground source heat pump.  Some would say that a ground source heat pump is excessively expensive.  The heat pump was 24k before incentives.  The initial calculations I had, was that the system would cost me $647 per year to heat at $0.12 kwh electricity.  FWIW, it has yet to cost us that much to heat with it (even after last winter), but at $647 per year, that is a $2553 savings over oil.  That equates to a 9.4 year payback before incentives (6.6 years with the federal incentive).

So while it's easy to say that solar pv can produce more energy per acre than wood, that's not the whole story.  6-10 acres of wood will sustainably heat my house with no financial outlay (other than the land), and will take some carbon out of the air as well.  Less than a third of an acre of my back yard will accomplish the same heating of my house (with the heat pump) at a greater cost, and more of a carbon impact (though I do buy my electricity as wind power, FWIW).  It would take a very large solar array to accomplish the same, though it would use less acreage than the 6-10 acres of woods that would be required to heat with wood.

As far as Ivanpah goes, that's a different animal, and a very efficient use of land.  In the desert, there's no real biomass to compare with either.


----------



## jebatty (Apr 22, 2014)

For assumed equivalent btu need, your ground source heat pump produces about 5x the btu/kwh as resistance heating, for a COP of about 5, extremely good. I wasn't aware that such high COP units were available. Now, what about using solar for the electric needs for heat pump? Carbon neutral for home heating is a good goal to achieve.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 22, 2014)

Yeah.  COP=5 is not commercially available in geos, when pump power is taken into account.  Typical values are 3-4 in the field.  ASHPs run 2-3 these days, but prob on the lower end in central NY.

Merely beating oil to calculate payback is not that useful.  A hutch of rabbits eating organic microgreens can make BTUs cheaper than an oil boiler.

Nowadays, PV+ASHP is usually the best net present value, NPV, for a low-carbon heating system.  Your geo incentive is what changed that equation.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 22, 2014)

COP not 5.  It was predicted to be on average to be 3.9 by the installer.  Any time I've measured it, I've found it to be around 4 or a little over, so the predicted average should be pretty close.  The mistake in my math is due to the fact that our old oil furnace was probably not anywhere near 78% efficient, especially with the old leaky duct work that we replaced when we put the new system in.  I pulled the 78% out of the NREL heatcalc spreadsheet (default).

Agreed that if house construction is open enough and a central system is not needed, that mini split heat pump plus solar with incentives (especially as prices per watt drop) might make the most sense.  Unfortunately, with my house design, as with many existing houses, life without a central system is not an option (if we want to be warm, at least).   We survived quite a few years using a wood stove primarily for heat, but that didn't mean it was always that comfortable.  With the heat pump, all rooms are within about a degree of each other and always at the tstat set point...how boring.  I'm now spoiled.

My only point was to say that to extrapolate pv production of a panel out to say that pv makes more energy sense than biomass (my interpretation), ignores economics.  Many people who heat with wood out in the country (myself included for many years) do so because it is the most affordable way to heat.  Solar PV (in my estimation) only makes sense on a homeowner basis after everything else has been done and the home's energy use is brought way down.  Once it's insulated, sealed, heated with some form of heat pump, etc, then the argument for pv makes much more sense.

I really am a solar advocate where it makes sense.  I do think moving the grid toward renewables can be done and has to be done because that's where the majority of homes and businesses will continue to get most of their power from.  The Ivanpah project is really cool, and I hope it helps prove that solar can be done on a large scale for a cost that is reasonable compared with business as usual, when all the costs of our energy are considered.


----------



## woodgeek (Apr 22, 2014)

All very sensible, sesmith.  

Ducted ASHPs with variable speed, inverter driven compressors are now available ("greenspeed"), should get Seasonal average COP close to that of a mini, like 2.5 or 3, in many climates, with central distribution.

The conventional wisdom about PV is a moving target...the old bit about doing everything else before PV is falling apart.  The case has been made that passive house levels of insulation are not optimal, because about half that level of insulation (still 2-3x better than current best codes) with PV paid for with the savings on insulation results in a home that uses less energy than the passive house or is net zero.

Of course, if country folks find wood burning preferable, so be it.


----------



## sesmith (Apr 22, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> All very sensible, sesmith.
> 
> Ducted ASHPs with variable speed, inverter driven compressors are now available ("greenspeed"), should get Seasonal average COP close to that of a mini, like 2.5 or 3, in many climates, with central distribution.
> .



Good to know.  I'm patiently waiting for the variable technology in the minisplits to hit the hit the standard air source split units and become common place.  We recently bought a house in South Carolina to retire to in a few years, and are renting it out in the mean time.  It has an older 10 seer split system sporting many new parts (air handler, outside coil and compressor) so no need to replace it yet.  But when the time comes, I'm sure it will be a new variable speed compressor unit.  (No, we won't be investing in a geo system down there


----------



## Dune (May 3, 2014)

ihookem said:


> Did anyone ever think of the 5.4 square miles ofland it takes up???? Ya could grow grass, cut it, and burn it in a furnace to make the electricity and come out ahead. ( I think)  I think that is uglier than any wind mill farm. At least on windmill farms the deer and animals can go about and the farmers can still hay the fields right under the windmills. I don't think you can do anything with this land now.



Only if that was what was already going on there and is now displaced and no, you are totally incorrect. The efficiency of direct conversion of light into heat far surpasses the cost of the fertilizer alone, never mind the fuel used to harvest and transport. Sorry, not even close. 

Out of curiosity, why are you opposed to clean renewable energy?


----------



## Dune (May 3, 2014)

sesmith said:


> Your numbers look convincing until you realize the amount of energy that is needed to heat a house in the northeast.  Except in a very tight modern, small house, solar pv is an expensive choice to use for heat.
> 
> Take my old farmhouse as an example.  When we heated it with an oil forced air furnace, it took about 800 gallons of oil to do that.  Convert that 800 gallons burned in a 78% efficient furnace into electric resistance heat, and you're looking at about 25360 kwh of electricity.  Divide that by the 9000 kwh per year your 30k system produces and you would need about an $84500 system to supply that much electricity per year. This would save approx $3200 / yr in oil at $4 per gallon and take about 26 years to pay back the solar cost with fuel savings.
> 
> ...



Yet none of this disproves Jebatty's math. When did we decide to discuss resistance heating with photovoltaic?

If you want to talk ideals you should have torn down your old farmhouse and built a super insulated passive solar heated house and had no heating cost at all. 
0 cost x 1000 (projected lifespan of house based on houses still standing in Europe and taking into account more modern building materials). Now that is some savings worth talking about.


----------



## Dune (May 3, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> and we paid for it? wouldn't be there if we didn't and continue to subsidize it each month.


Nor would Nuclear, coal or oil, all of which are heavily subsidised. You do realize that right?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Jul 12, 2014)

learning curve? enough gas to light how many homes, still a net gain, I guess.http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/sol...ners-want-to-burn-a-lot-more-natural-gas.html. maybe storage solution needed to make this work better? here is kcet link on all their ivanpah stuff http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jul 14, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/sol...ners-want-to-burn-a-lot-more-natural-gas.html.



Wow, I'm grinning ear to ear reading this.

Steam Turbine operators work diligently to make sure no water droplets enter the turbine with the super heated steam, then condense it back to liquid after the turbine to reheat it into steam again. I just assumed that they used a few hours of morning sun to reheat the boiler, and then they'd be good. Now the details come out that they burn Nat Gas all night long to keep the boiler water hot for a quick morning start.

Is that so they can claim greater daily solar production levels?

These guys have great futures in the used car business.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 14, 2014)

Seem cost effective to use the turbine/genny/grid connection 100% of the time rather than 25% of the time.  Provided the nat gas rate makes the kWh cost effective.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Jul 15, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Seem cost effective to use the turbine/genny/grid connection 100% of the time rather than 25% of the time.  Provided the nat gas rate makes the kWh cost effective.


That would be great in concept, but I don't read it that way in the KCET article. Looks like they simply under estimated the bas burn needs to keep the water hot during "solar lows".


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 15, 2014)

Sure, sounds like a significant design problem.....too high parasitic losses, or efficiency losses at low feed water temps.  They can either fix the plant, which takes time and money (they might not have) or change their operating procedures to compensate, perhaps indefinitely.

For those keeping score, solar thermal still looks pretty dead.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 7, 2014)

report on fox that ivanpah coming back for another 500Mil can't find  anyother links, producing 1/2 the power promised. oh. moneywell? ps @7:12pm only link I could find


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 7, 2014)

updated kcet link http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 7, 2014)

Sounds like they are having some unit downtime...hardly surprising in such a complicated plumbing system.  If it get's shaken out in a couple years, great.  If not, its a lemon.

Too soon to tell.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 7, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Sounds like they are having some unit downtime...hardly surprising in such a complicated plumbing system.  If it get's shaken out in a couple years, great.  If not, its a lemon.
> 
> Too soon to tell.


don't smaller protos usually proof out the larger ones, not in this case.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 7, 2014)

Not if the prototypes were made by a different entity, using different parts and materials.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 7, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> Not if the prototypes were made by a different entity, using different parts and materials.


from one design group, one engineering group, back by many investors. what you are telling me that proto wasn't produced by the final  engineers and  builder? not a start to finish deal? using different specs. I don't know but that is what your statement says to me.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 8, 2014)

A lot of this stuff doesn't scale trivially.  You can build a heliostat and see that it works, but you don't know how much light it will deliver to your receiver when its a half mile away (without help from a computer model), you've got a high temp receiver on a tower, whose efficiency will depend on final operating temp, wind (and this height) and input power in a non-trivial way.

Y'know I'm not really a fan of this technology, I think it will get creamed by PV+grid battery technology and be a white elephant even if they get it working as hoped.

I'm just saying that a lot of things you can't simply build a smaller scale prototype, work out all the kinks and then scale up.  Can you do that for nuke plants?  At some level, you test everything you can test in a prototype (like material compatibility), and there is still engineering risk when you scale up.  And my previous point was that while there have been other CSP plants at that scale that might be 'prototypes', if they used other configurations, materials, etc, then the risk remains.


----------



## Dune (Nov 8, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> updated kcet link http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/



The first year of the Tesla car was fraught with learning trials as well. Now it is paying massive dividends. 
I suggest a tad bit of patience. 
Get back to us after a month of normal weather for the area and the bugs worked out of the system. 
By the way, your KCET site is so obviously anti-green energy that it is embarrassing. Shilling for fossil fuels;always a profitable (though morally questionable) business.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 8, 2014)

I agree, but they have 8 mos of operation, not one.  I'd still give then 2-3 years to work out the kinks.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 8, 2014)

kcet one of the few places I could find any mention of what are serious problems and on going updates as to what is going on. obviously green friendly sites would be objective on reporting such info? one of the few times I've ever heard that a former PBS member ( wiki says they left in 2010) is right handed?


----------



## Dune (Nov 8, 2014)

woodgeek said:


> I agree, but they have 8 mos of operation, not one.  I'd still give then 2-3 years to work out the kinks.


As you yourself pointed out, this is a massively complex system. 
8 months is nothing in terms of the magnitude involved. 
I am saying let's see the results after 1 month of normal weather and all 3 towers in full operation before making judgements.


----------



## Dune (Nov 8, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> kcet one of the few places I could find any mention of what are serious problems and on going updates as to what is going on. obviously green friendly sites would be objective on reporting such info? one of the few times I've ever heard that a former PBS member ( wiki says they left in 2010) is right handed?


Just pointing out the obvious. ]
What say you about my other point?


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 8, 2014)

Dune said:


> Just pointing out the obvious. ]
> What say you about my other point?


if I remember the fox report  correctly, they'll be coming after another 1/2 bil. tesla dumped gov't loans long before due as I guess the ceo doesn't like them. green electric sector lives off them.


----------



## Dune (Nov 8, 2014)

Doug MacIVER said:


> if I remember the fox report  correctly, they'll be coming after another 1/2 bil. tesla dumped gov't loans long before due as I guess the ceo doesn't like them. green electric sector lives off them.


Do you realize that the vast majority of the technology we enjoy and take for granted today was developed with government funding?


----------



## TMonter (Nov 18, 2014)

Dune said:


> Do you realize that the vast majority of the technology we enjoy and take for granted today was developed with government funding?



Actually the majority of technology out there was not developed with government funding. Most of the technology was developed to fix problems in industry or make money.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 18, 2014)

Actually, for decades almost all of the really innovative stuff (transistors, integrated circuits, polymers and nanotechnology) was developed at large industrial labs in the US (Bell Labs, IBM, Exxon) and taken as a _tax write-off_ back when corporate tax rates were higher....in essence gov't subsidized.  When the corp tax rates were slashed in the 80's (to improve US competitiveness) all those labs were gutted, and US innovation ground to a halt.

The EU, Japan and Korea still incentivize their corps to have those big labs (via grants, tariffs and tax breaks) and so most of the major innovations in the last 20 years have occurred overseas.  Think hard-drives, flash memory, Li-ion batteries, flat-panel displays, blu-ray players, LED lightbulbs, EV batteries, poly-crystal PV panels, etc.  All overseas, and each required a multi-billion investment in fundamental science and R&D from places like Panasonic, LG, Phillips, Sony, Siemens, etc.

In comparison, Silicon Valley is a design school funded with VC's fun money.


----------



## Dune (Nov 28, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Actually the majority of technology out there was not developed with government funding. Most of the technology was developed to fix problems in industry or make money.


http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinhist.html


----------



## TMonter (Dec 4, 2014)

Dune said:


> http://spinoff.nasa.gov/spinhist.html



Which is little proof of anything. Of course a government organization is going to make all sorts of claims to boost its budget. My point remains true, most of the technology innovations have been developed outside of government funding.


----------



## Dune (Dec 5, 2014)

TMonter said:


> Which is little proof of anything. Of course a government organization is going to make all sorts of claims to boost its budget. My point remains true, most of the technology innovations have been developed outside of government funding.


Yet I actually provided a  proof whether you accept it or not.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 5, 2014)

Dune said:


> Yet I actually provided a  proof whether you accept it or not.



No Dune, you provided a government website with no data and no examination of technology advances between the private market and government funded research. That is not "proof" or even evidence.


----------



## DBoon (Dec 5, 2014)

TMonter said:


> My point remains true


Tmonter, your point is your unsupported opinion, yet you require others to provide far more information than you have provided to rebut your opinion.  

Why not provide others here with some links to support your opinion so that the proper discussion can take place?


----------



## TMonter (Dec 6, 2014)

DBoon said:


> Tmonter, your point is your unsupported opinion, yet you require others to provide far more information than you have provided to rebut your opinion.
> 
> Why not provide others here with some links to support your opinion so that the proper discussion can take place?



Unsupported opinion? No, solid fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science

Look at the major technology innovations in the past 150 years, almost all were privately developed.

steel production
Oil production
The IC engine
Boilers
Steam turbines
Antibiotics
Vaccines (the initial design and development)
Transistors
Integrated circuits

Really the base technology for most of modern day life was developed privately. There seem to be a lot of people here who forget that government wasn't  the primary driver of the advancements. More government funding of research isn't the answer to technology development.


----------



## Grisu (Dec 6, 2014)

The goal of government-funded/academic research is not (or I should better say: was not) to directly lead to technological innovations but to expand human knowledge. Technological advancements are built on the basic research performed predominantly by academic researchers. Any application using nuclear technology would not be possible without the studies undertaken by Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, and Ernest Rutherford to name just a few. Our understanding and use of electricity would not be possible without the likes of Faraday, Maxwell, and Hans Christian Ørsted. Laser-technology is based on the work of Planck, Einstein, and Alfred Kastler among others. Almost as an aside, antibiotics were actually discovered due to academic research by Fleming, lecturer at St. Mary's Hospital and Professor at the University of London. Similarly, the first modern day vaccines were developed by Enders and colleagues, and owe a great deal to the discoveries made by Pasteur, Ehrlich, Koch and, of course, Jenner. 

Many of our current technologies would not be possible by the knowledge gained through academic research which lays the foundation on which innovative products are built upon. Government-funded research has the advantage that it works without a profit motive thereby enabling researchers to explore new paths without knowing where those will take them. I am sure when Henry Dale discovered histamine he would have never thought that antihistamines will become one of the most widely used drugs at least in the western world. In addition, government-funded research can actually enable more rapid innovation. Just assume a physicist would describe the theoretical design of an actually possible nuclear fusion reactor and publish it. Now dozens of companies can put their engineers to work to build the most efficient, safe, and cost-effective reactor and bring that to the market as fast as possible. We could choose which unit would best serve our needs for safe, reliable, and clean energy. Contrast that to the possibility that an industrial lab made that discovery, patents it and there would only be one choice for us. 

Within the last 20 years, there has been an increasing push on academics to do more "applicable" research, to patent findings, and to "spin-off" their own companies, all in the name of efficiency and profitability. We need to be careful to not undermine our long-term benefit due to our quest for short-term gains. We may just stifle true innovative research that goes beyond our current knowledge.


----------



## TMonter (Dec 7, 2014)

Grisu said:


> The goal of government-funded/academic research is not (or I should better say: was not) to directly lead to technological innovations but to expand human knowledge. Technological advancements are built on the basic research performed predominantly by academic researchers. Any application using nuclear technology would not be possible without the studies undertaken by Marie Curie, Lise Meitner, Otto Hahn, and Ernest Rutherford to name just a few. Our understanding and use of electricity would not be possible without the likes of Faraday, Maxwell, and Hans Christian Ørsted. Laser-technology is based on the work of Planck, Einstein, and Alfred Kastler among others. Almost as an aside, antibiotics were actually discovered due to academic research by Fleming, lecturer at St. Mary's Hospital and Professor at the University of London. Similarly, the first modern day vaccines were developed by Enders and colleagues, and owe a great deal to the discoveries made by Pasteur, Ehrlich, Koch and, of course, Jenner.
> 
> Many of our current technologies would not be possible by the knowledge gained through academic research which lays the foundation on which innovative products are built upon. Government-funded research has the advantage that it works without a profit motive thereby enabling researchers to explore new paths without knowing where those will take them. I am sure when Henry Dale discovered histamine he would have never thought that antihistamines will become one of the most widely used drugs at least in the western world. In addition, government-funded research can actually enable more rapid innovation. Just assume a physicist would describe the theoretical design of an actually possible nuclear fusion reactor and publish it. Now dozens of companies can put their engineers to work to build the most efficient, safe, and cost-effective reactor and bring that to the market as fast as possible. We could choose which unit would best serve our needs for safe, reliable, and clean energy. Contrast that to the possibility that an industrial lab made that discovery, patents it and there would only be one choice for us.
> 
> Within the last 20 years, there has been an increasing push on academics to do more "applicable" research, to patent findings, and to "spin-off" their own companies, all in the name of efficiency and profitability. We need to be careful to not undermine our long-term benefit due to our quest for short-term gains. We may just stifle true innovative research that goes beyond our current knowledge.



Patents are a separate issue however. The way the current patent system works is inherently flawed and needs to be changed. It would be much better to change the way patents work than to just throw more money at government funded research.


----------

