Recent Comment
Share
Construction of renewable energy projects has revealed some serious environmental issues that will have to be dealt with as we speed toward a clean energy future. We recently wrote about the conflict between land conservation efforts and renewable energy projects in deserts out west. Land that is ideal for solar energy production is also pristine land in need of protection.
In California, a similar conflict is arising between solar projects and water conservation. Solar farms demand a lot of water, a resource that is stretched very thin in the arid areas where they're being developed. A large solar farm can use upwards of 500 million gallons of water a year for cooling purposes and there are currently 35 big projects slated for development in California desert.
A "dry cooling" technique exists that uses 90 percent less water than "wet cooling," but it's more expensive and reduces the efficiency of the solar plant. Even so, some plants are giving in and going the dry route.
Solar plants are fighting with state regulators to get the water they need. Some are succeeding, while others are failing. Just with land conservation, there doesn't seem to be one right side here. Ideally, a new technique for cooling will be developed that doesn't require large amounts of water or a dip in efficiency.
via Green Inc.
Hits: 5099
Comments (58)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by David, October 29, 2009
The contrast is that you idealy need water nearby, but economicly you can't put solar panels anywhere but desert, where the water leading to cloud formation is drained by the very air, else your not making full use of the panels.
There was development into storing water onsight for cooling the photovaultaics, and at night actualy using the panels as inverse solar panels, radiating the heat from the water via the panel, ready for reuse.
the issue with this is you have to pump negative efficiecy volumes of water around to stop the water evaporating and causing major pressure issues within an enclosed system.
Heavy cooling elements are only plausible in peak tempratures in the hottest sights, and cost far more than water.
Practical aplications of soultion aside, he cause of the issue is photovaulteic optimisation in the first place, a raw photovaulteic plane actualy skims only the 100% aligned 'photons' [light particles] from the air, the heat output caused by cramming [forcing light to rebound through a photovaulteic plane multiple times] is undetectable, but you only use about a ten thousandth of the light, which is inefficient and non aplicable.
The one soultion I have heard of, though Ive never seen any kind of a write up or any evidence of reaserch, is rematrixing light.
the idea being that you take light from the exposed layer, and, without wasting light or space efficiency, below cycle all the light through a micro mirror array that filters the light to a very uniform wave and direction, whilst supressing the doppler effect (cause of heat), this light is then put into photovaulteics, and can either use about one tenth of the light, with no heat, or cramm all the refined light, and still only produce thousandths of the full heat potential.
However I don't know if its possible, and it would invariably be very expensive!
woe is us, if only saving the world were as easy and profitable as the fuel burning that got us here!
There was development into storing water onsight for cooling the photovaultaics, and at night actualy using the panels as inverse solar panels, radiating the heat from the water via the panel, ready for reuse.
the issue with this is you have to pump negative efficiecy volumes of water around to stop the water evaporating and causing major pressure issues within an enclosed system.
Heavy cooling elements are only plausible in peak tempratures in the hottest sights, and cost far more than water.
Practical aplications of soultion aside, he cause of the issue is photovaulteic optimisation in the first place, a raw photovaulteic plane actualy skims only the 100% aligned 'photons' [light particles] from the air, the heat output caused by cramming [forcing light to rebound through a photovaulteic plane multiple times] is undetectable, but you only use about a ten thousandth of the light, which is inefficient and non aplicable.
The one soultion I have heard of, though Ive never seen any kind of a write up or any evidence of reaserch, is rematrixing light.
the idea being that you take light from the exposed layer, and, without wasting light or space efficiency, below cycle all the light through a micro mirror array that filters the light to a very uniform wave and direction, whilst supressing the doppler effect (cause of heat), this light is then put into photovaulteics, and can either use about one tenth of the light, with no heat, or cramm all the refined light, and still only produce thousandths of the full heat potential.
However I don't know if its possible, and it would invariably be very expensive!
woe is us, if only saving the world were as easy and profitable as the fuel burning that got us here!
-
- +0
-
-
written by David, October 29, 2009
I should probably add that its also extremely expensive to make the very inefficient unidirectional photovaultaics.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Chinese gifts, October 29, 2009
there doesn't seem to be one right side here. Ideally, a new technique for cooling will be developed that doesn't require large amounts of water or a dip in efficiency. I agreed.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Richard, October 29, 2009
I sure hope that they get this issue resolved and come to a compromise as soon as possible.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rom, October 29, 2009
Everyone seems to be thinking about photovoltaics needing water for cooling. They don't. You just need water to keep them clean. Solar thermal plants use large amounts of water to generate steam and turn turbines. That type is the problem. There have been advances in technology that should allow phasing out these types of plants.
Stirling Energy have designed a solar thermal system that is more advanced and efficient than any other so far. It needs no water to cool and the sterling engine does not produce emissions. IT sounds fake but it's not. It's a new twist on a design dating back to 1816. Have a read on their web page.
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/index.htm
Stirling Energy have designed a solar thermal system that is more advanced and efficient than any other so far. It needs no water to cool and the sterling engine does not produce emissions. IT sounds fake but it's not. It's a new twist on a design dating back to 1816. Have a read on their web page.
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/index.htm
-
- +5
-
-
written by Kat M, October 29, 2009
Rom - the article directly contradicts you. "A large solar farm can use upwards of 500 million gallons of water a year for cooling purposes..."
They probably need water for cleaning, too - but that's not what this article is about.
They probably need water for cleaning, too - but that's not what this article is about.
-
- +0
-
-
written by MD, October 29, 2009
Why not use eco friendly waterless radiator fluid?
Have a series of below ground thermal wells and radiators to cool the coolant.
Have a series of below ground thermal wells and radiators to cool the coolant.
-
- +0
-
-
written by JM, October 29, 2009
Rom-
Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to most people. We're not talking about water for photovoltaics, as water cooling is not required for PV. We're talking about solar THERMAL projects (as shown in the picture), which use mirrors to concentrate solar energy to heat water to run turbines and create electricity.
Kat-
You're wrong. The article does not contradict Rom. The article IS unclear, however. It should have specifically noted that it was talking about solar thermal projects and not PV.
Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to most people. We're not talking about water for photovoltaics, as water cooling is not required for PV. We're talking about solar THERMAL projects (as shown in the picture), which use mirrors to concentrate solar energy to heat water to run turbines and create electricity.
Kat-
You're wrong. The article does not contradict Rom. The article IS unclear, however. It should have specifically noted that it was talking about solar thermal projects and not PV.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Carl Hage, October 29, 2009
Q: can't the energy extracted from cooling the panels be used?
The energy extracted is based on the temperature difference, and also the efficiency is proportional to the difference. Not all of the heat energy can be converted (~60% theoretical max for steam), so the remainder must be moved away. [See "Heat Engine" in wikipedia.] That's the reason power plants have cooling towers or are built next to a lake/river.
For each kW of electric energy generated, a kW of extra unconverted heat must be carried away in order to maintain the temperature difference needed to extract power.
Evaporating water is the cheapest way to get rid of excess heat-- otherwise, you need large (thus relatively expensive) radiators.
The energy extracted is based on the temperature difference, and also the efficiency is proportional to the difference. Not all of the heat energy can be converted (~60% theoretical max for steam), so the remainder must be moved away. [See "Heat Engine" in wikipedia.] That's the reason power plants have cooling towers or are built next to a lake/river.
For each kW of electric energy generated, a kW of extra unconverted heat must be carried away in order to maintain the temperature difference needed to extract power.
Evaporating water is the cheapest way to get rid of excess heat-- otherwise, you need large (thus relatively expensive) radiators.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Susan Kraemer, October 29, 2009
1. Nuclear and coal plants use far more water, and they foul it.
2. The water to be used at the Abengoa Mojave project solar thermal for pg&e is negligible amt and is less than was used when Alfalfa was farmed there, and since it is already brackish water it is not depriving you and me of water.
pg 45 of their environmental application:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/abengoa/documents/applicant/afc/volume_01/5.17_Water_Resources/5.17_Water_Resources_final.pdf
...as I wrote up here:
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/27/abengoa-solar-to-supply-pge-from-250-mw-in-mojave-desert/
2. The water to be used at the Abengoa Mojave project solar thermal for pg&e is negligible amt and is less than was used when Alfalfa was farmed there, and since it is already brackish water it is not depriving you and me of water.
pg 45 of their environmental application:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/abengoa/documents/applicant/afc/volume_01/5.17_Water_Resources/5.17_Water_Resources_final.pdf
...as I wrote up here:
http://cleantechnica.com/2009/10/27/abengoa-solar-to-supply-pge-from-250-mw-in-mojave-desert/
-
- +0
-
-
written by steve, October 30, 2009
Megan one complaint about your article, you and almost every other environmental writer has latched onto the word pristine to describe the desert. In reality very little of it is actually that and it conjures up images that we are somehow trying to glass over the Grand Canyon or some other great monument. Most of the desert that is being considered has been used for mining, off road riding, power lines and a hundred other uses. I would really like to see some original reporting instead of the normal sheep like reporting most all of you do.
As far as the Stirling Dishes, to say they are the most efficient is highly misleading. They take almost twice the amount of land as some other forms of solar thermal. They do nothing to solve the problem of energy storage and are almost certainly underestimating the amount of maintenance costs it will take to run them.
Susan you are distorting the facts also. Coal and Nuclear do not take far more water, nor do they foul it, at least not anymore than any other steam power plant, including solar thermal. It is true a 250 MW coal plant will use far more water than a 250 MW solar plant but that is only because it will produce far more electricity. They are also far easier to place near sites with adequate water. It is misleading to say that the plant will use less water than it did when it was an alfalfa farm. Really there is very little alfalfa being grown now at Harper Lake. You are correct that the water is not great but it could be treated for residential use. On the up side the land is far from pristine.
Now I know most of my post so far has been pretty negative but I am very excited about all the solar thermal projects that are being planned. Water use is a huge issue and it is not certain how well dry cooling will work. There is another option called hybrid cooling that is basically an air cooled condenser (dry cooling) that has the ability to use evaporative cooling to assist during extremely hot times. Problem is it is still expensive and needs demineralized water for evaporation. If dry cooling is able to prove cost effective then all of the water worries will basically be a non issue if not then we are going to have problems ever using solar thermal for more than a tiny amount of our energy needs.
As far as the Stirling Dishes, to say they are the most efficient is highly misleading. They take almost twice the amount of land as some other forms of solar thermal. They do nothing to solve the problem of energy storage and are almost certainly underestimating the amount of maintenance costs it will take to run them.
Susan you are distorting the facts also. Coal and Nuclear do not take far more water, nor do they foul it, at least not anymore than any other steam power plant, including solar thermal. It is true a 250 MW coal plant will use far more water than a 250 MW solar plant but that is only because it will produce far more electricity. They are also far easier to place near sites with adequate water. It is misleading to say that the plant will use less water than it did when it was an alfalfa farm. Really there is very little alfalfa being grown now at Harper Lake. You are correct that the water is not great but it could be treated for residential use. On the up side the land is far from pristine.
Now I know most of my post so far has been pretty negative but I am very excited about all the solar thermal projects that are being planned. Water use is a huge issue and it is not certain how well dry cooling will work. There is another option called hybrid cooling that is basically an air cooled condenser (dry cooling) that has the ability to use evaporative cooling to assist during extremely hot times. Problem is it is still expensive and needs demineralized water for evaporation. If dry cooling is able to prove cost effective then all of the water worries will basically be a non issue if not then we are going to have problems ever using solar thermal for more than a tiny amount of our energy needs.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ball valves, October 30, 2009
Yes, It's very important, worth to batting, not like a sanitary fittings,don't need any batting!
-
- +0
-
-
written by David, October 30, 2009
Now I'm pretty hot on how Pv works, and I'm vaugely certain of how solar water heating works, and theres a debate right about now in the comments on weather the article is about Pv farms, or solar thermal farms.
If it is Pv, you can stick with everything in my massive last post, if its solar thermal, you should probs ignore me and ask Rom...
I do know that Pv does require cooling to prevent damage to the silicon that, even with over adequate cooling, is the main cause of deteriation of Pv cell efficiency over time.
furthermore the other comment debate seems to be asking weather solar is realy the way to go, to which I have to say, its not the topic on hand, there are benifits to using solar, whats why were using solar, the issue here is water!
If it is Pv, you can stick with everything in my massive last post, if its solar thermal, you should probs ignore me and ask Rom...
I do know that Pv does require cooling to prevent damage to the silicon that, even with over adequate cooling, is the main cause of deteriation of Pv cell efficiency over time.
furthermore the other comment debate seems to be asking weather solar is realy the way to go, to which I have to say, its not the topic on hand, there are benifits to using solar, whats why were using solar, the issue here is water!
-
- +0
-
-
written by francis, October 31, 2009
GUESS WHAT!!??? You can now not only heat and cool your home the clean , earth friendly geothermal way, but also your POOL!! This is information well worth looking into-Francis http://www.geothermalquestions.net
-
- -2
-
-
written by Rocketman, October 31, 2009
You state that nuclear power generators foul their cooling water. This is a complete nonsense. The cooling water is completely separated from the radioactive cores and the only transfer which takes place is heat.
People like you discredit your cause.
People like you discredit your cause.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Tim Plemmons, November 01, 2009
To Rocketman straight from epa website. I don't believe the poster specified radioactive waste.
Nuclear Energy produces water pollutants such as heavy metals and salts. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life. Also waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
Nuclear Energy produces water pollutants such as heavy metals and salts. These water pollutants, as well as the higher temperature of the water discharged from the power plant, can negatively affect water quality and aquatic life. Also waste generated from uranium mining operations and rainwater runoff can contaminate groundwater and surface water resources with heavy metals and traces of radioactive uranium.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Rocketman, November 01, 2009
Nuclear energy cooling systems do not produce heavy metal contaminants. This is an absolute nonsense. You are confusing coal fired plants, which do produce significant heavy metal contaminants (as well as tons of radioactive gases).
Mining of all kinds results in environmental damage. Mining is necessary for your precious green consumer electronic devices too.
The production of silicon semiconductors creates damaging pollution too. The ground water aquifers in Santa Clara are evidence of this.
Mining of all kinds results in environmental damage. Mining is necessary for your precious green consumer electronic devices too.
The production of silicon semiconductors creates damaging pollution too. The ground water aquifers in Santa Clara are evidence of this.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Paul Bernal, November 01, 2009
In the run up to the Copenhagen climate change conference, it is vital the following information be disseminated to the public as well as to our political leaders.
Â
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!
Â
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf
Â
The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.
Â
Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.
Â
Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say "This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
Â
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are attributable to livestock….however recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change" in the latest issue of World Watch magazine found that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions!
Â
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock and Climate Change.pdf
Â
The main sources of GHGs from animal agriculture are: (1) Deforestation of the rainforests to grow feed for livestock. (2) Methane from manure waste. – Methane is 72 times more potent as a global warming gas than CO2 (3) Refrigeration and transport of meat around the world. (4) Raising, processing and slaughtering of the animal.
Â
Meat production also uses a massive amount of water and other resources which would be better used to feed the world’s hungry and provide water to those in need.
Â
Based on their research, Goodland and Anhang conclude that replacing livestock products with soy-based and other alternatives would be the best strategy for reversing climate change. They say "This approach would have far more rapid effects on GHG emissions and their atmospheric concentrations-and thus on the rate the climate is warming-than actions to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."
-
- +1
-
-
written by solid wood furniture, November 02, 2009
One day, water is going to be very expensive and rare. Big problem!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Richard, November 02, 2009
I think that if we don't straighten things out, water would really be a new oil.
-
- -1
-
-
written by Richard, November 03, 2009
well, at any rate, there'll be a lot of water if we don't stop and think about turning to earth-healthier ways and alternative sources of energy. The ice caps are melting, so, there. Lots and lots of water.
-
- -1
-
-
written by true religion jeans, November 03, 2009
Nice work guys!
this is just Amazing!
Thanks
this is just Amazing!
Thanks
-
- -1
-
-
written by VeruTEK Green Technologies, November 03, 2009
Both in the sense of cleaning and cooling. However I don't see how there should be a shortage of water considering the resources available to them. There is also other forms of cooling. I am quite positive this is not the only one.
Still it is ironic that water us the problem that faces Solar Panel farms.
Still it is ironic that water us the problem that faces Solar Panel farms.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Natalie, November 03, 2009
Nice post. I'll keep visiting this blog as it is genuine source to gain knowledge.. thanks
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, November 03, 2009
“I can see how water can be a problem, but not a huge set back. Both in the sense of cleaning and cooling. However I don't see how there should be a shortage of water considering the resources available to them. There is also other forms of cooling. I am quite positive this is not the only one.â€
Water use is definitely a problem. Water for power cooling (coal, natural gas, nuclear) is the one of the largest consumers of water, second only to agricultural irrigation. Water cooled power plants in the dessert will not scale up to a large fraction our total generation. Air cooling can be used but capital costs are higher and efficiency is lower. Unfortunately under the very hot midday temperature prevailing in the dessert the efficiency penalty may be very substantial. One can imagine a hybrid system where PV or possibly solar Stirling systems which do not require water provide generation during peak insolation while steam generation using stored thermal energy provides generation at cooler times of the day when air cooling is more efficiency.
“2. The water to be used at the Abengoa Mojave project solar thermal for pg&e is negligible amt and is less than was used when Alfalfa was farmed there, and since it is already brackish water it is not depriving you and me of water.â€
What matters is water consumption per kWh delivered. The fact that one relatively small CSP power plant is not making a significant dent in water supplies does not mean that this technology is scalable. Air cooling is required if CSP is going to scale up to significant fraction of the total electricity supply.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Carrie, November 03, 2009
A more effective soler plant and even a cost effective way to have small off grid home energy plants
Use a Binary solar cycle plants. Moderately hot (heated to above 68 degrees Fahrenheit) water is passed through a heat exchanger, where its heat is transferred to a liquid (such as isobutene or R134a boiling point of -15f) that boils at a lower temperature than water. When that fluid is heated it turns to steam, which spins the turbines Moderately hot water can be recycled in a closed loop system running through a simple solar water heater, made with a glass cover a parabolic mirror or mylar. Using a pump to cycle the water or gravity Adding a salt core would increase efficient even more. Or a well placed mirror to heat a salt core in in a heat exchanger. Similar to the moderate temp geothermal plants at chena hot springs, with out the drilling.
Use a Binary solar cycle plants. Moderately hot (heated to above 68 degrees Fahrenheit) water is passed through a heat exchanger, where its heat is transferred to a liquid (such as isobutene or R134a boiling point of -15f) that boils at a lower temperature than water. When that fluid is heated it turns to steam, which spins the turbines Moderately hot water can be recycled in a closed loop system running through a simple solar water heater, made with a glass cover a parabolic mirror or mylar. Using a pump to cycle the water or gravity Adding a salt core would increase efficient even more. Or a well placed mirror to heat a salt core in in a heat exchanger. Similar to the moderate temp geothermal plants at chena hot springs, with out the drilling.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Harriet, November 03, 2009
Carrie,
I've only seen this article, and it's a big plant, and the temps are much higher than you said. Where are you getting your info?
http://www.gizmag.com/raser-low-temperature-binary-geothermal-plant-goes-online/11612/
I've only seen this article, and it's a big plant, and the temps are much higher than you said. Where are you getting your info?
http://www.gizmag.com/raser-low-temperature-binary-geothermal-plant-goes-online/11612/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Chris, November 03, 2009
This is unfortunate how there are no easy solutions and how a solution for one thing is a problem for another. California having had so many issues all points to dollars. That is ultimately the problem. Otherwise renew, refurbish, recycle are just words.
-
- +0
-
-
written by tjm99, November 04, 2009
Families for a Clean Tennessee Video Hits the Streets!
VIEW THE VIDEO NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4AfA2_fNMM
Families for a Clean Tennessee released a video reinforcing a poll conducted
by Insider Advantage. The poll uncovered that more than 80% of voters
oppose dumping nuclear waste in ordinary commercial landfills.
The poll also uncovered the following:
* 90% believe nuclear waste should be disposed of in long-term isolation
facilities.
* More than 75% of likely voters-both Democrats and Republicans-- are more
likely to support a candidate for Governor that is opposed to nuclear
dumping and the BSFR program.
* Nearly 60% are more likely to support a legislative candidate that is
opposed to nuclear dumping and the BSFR program.
* More than 50% have stated they would actively work for the election of any
candidate from either party that opposes the dumping of nuclear waste in
Tennessee landfills.
* More than 50% support Senate Bill 687, and more than 60% are more likely
to vote for candidates that support Senate Bill 687.
* 63.5% believe that under no circumstance should nuclear waste be dumped in
Tennessee.
A copy of the poll has been sent to every legislator in Tennessee along with
a pledge asking them to support ending the practice of Bulk Survey for
Release.
VIEW THE VIDEO NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4AfA2_fNMM
Open Attachment Tennessee Environmental Blogs.xls
VIEW THE VIDEO NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4AfA2_fNMM
Families for a Clean Tennessee released a video reinforcing a poll conducted
by Insider Advantage. The poll uncovered that more than 80% of voters
oppose dumping nuclear waste in ordinary commercial landfills.
The poll also uncovered the following:
* 90% believe nuclear waste should be disposed of in long-term isolation
facilities.
* More than 75% of likely voters-both Democrats and Republicans-- are more
likely to support a candidate for Governor that is opposed to nuclear
dumping and the BSFR program.
* Nearly 60% are more likely to support a legislative candidate that is
opposed to nuclear dumping and the BSFR program.
* More than 50% have stated they would actively work for the election of any
candidate from either party that opposes the dumping of nuclear waste in
Tennessee landfills.
* More than 50% support Senate Bill 687, and more than 60% are more likely
to vote for candidates that support Senate Bill 687.
* 63.5% believe that under no circumstance should nuclear waste be dumped in
Tennessee.
A copy of the poll has been sent to every legislator in Tennessee along with
a pledge asking them to support ending the practice of Bulk Survey for
Release.
VIEW THE VIDEO NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4AfA2_fNMM
Open Attachment Tennessee Environmental Blogs.xls
-
- +0
-
-
written by ugg uk, November 04, 2009
I have read your article, I think very popular with this article.
-
- +0
-
-
written by windandsolar, November 04, 2009
Un-interrupted supply of power is the first thing in your mind, then the Wind & Solar Energy products is your only choice. The hassle free supply of power produced by the use of Solar panels and Wind turbines. The best part about having solar or wind energy products is that they won’t go off if the power goes off. They do not need any electricity to run. For more details on Wind & Solar Powered products please go to - http://www.windandsolarenergystore.com/
-
- -1
-
-
written by CIWAInc, November 04, 2009
Very informative post. I really hope California and other states can deal with these conflicts and move forward with Green Energy future.
-
- +0
-
-
written by gico, November 04, 2009
Is this page still alive? I read it every day, but in last two or three months, the number of posts has drastically decreased.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ds, November 04, 2009
the best way is to build a saltwater pipeline to the site and use vacuum evaporation for cooling and destilled water.
you'd get cattle grazing between the mirrors.
plant some forest.
some lakes to estinguish bush-fires
and of course a nice pond with fountain.
:-)
you'd get cattle grazing between the mirrors.
plant some forest.
some lakes to estinguish bush-fires
and of course a nice pond with fountain.
:-)
-
- +0
-
-
written by Pete, November 04, 2009
ds's idea of using salt water is great. 500 mil.G/year is only about 30 RR tankcars a day. Use an electric engine pulling a couple of boxcars full of batteries that get charged at the solar farm. Install a group of rankin cycle generators on the main turbine's exhaust. Use the seawater to chill the rankin engines, which need 125 deg. temperature difference to work, then send it through the main turbine. You should be able to recover about 80% of the desalinated water and sell the salt as carbon neutral organic sea salt for locavores.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Richard, November 05, 2009
hey, nice idea. that way we get something else to sell. Good job!
-
- +0
-
-
written by Smart Solar, November 05, 2009
Solar energy is very clean and is a good alternative for traditional electricity. The energy comes from the sun's rays and is known to be very environmentally friendly. It is a clean form of energy. To produce electricity or heat you only need the sun rays. You just need a solar energy collector or solar power panels in order to convert the energy into electricity. It is cheaper than to use traditional electricity . For more details on solar powered products please visit http://www.smartsolarshopping.com
-
- -1
-
-
written by Steven F, November 05, 2009
I did a news search for information and found nothing indicating serious problems with power plants finding cooling water. In fact the first article I found was about a proposed power plant that plans to use air cooling instead of water cooling. In fact it has been illegal for some time for power plants in California to use drinking water (California Water Code Section 13550). The only water that can be used for cooling in California is waste water which is not fit for human consumption.
The only real problem that I found in the news search is that it is taking too long for the state to issue permits for building the plants. According to PG&E Corp. (PCG) Chief Executive Peter Darbee "The biggest issue is the roadblocks of government, and they are incomprehensible. It's taking eight years to bring a clean, renewable project to market. The government has to get out of the way and start helping, rather than standing in the way."
The only real problem that I found in the news search is that it is taking too long for the state to issue permits for building the plants. According to PG&E Corp. (PCG) Chief Executive Peter Darbee "The biggest issue is the roadblocks of government, and they are incomprehensible. It's taking eight years to bring a clean, renewable project to market. The government has to get out of the way and start helping, rather than standing in the way."
-
- +0
-
-
written by Derrick Gibson, November 05, 2009
http://saharaforestproject.com/
ds idea above is remarkable similar to the seawater greenhouse concept, that was first explored back in the 1990s and is now the driving force behind the Sahara Forest project and a few other demonstration efforts.
ds idea above is remarkable similar to the seawater greenhouse concept, that was first explored back in the 1990s and is now the driving force behind the Sahara Forest project and a few other demonstration efforts.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, November 05, 2009
"I did a news search for information and found nothing indicating serious problems with power plants finding cooling water. In fact the first article I found was about a proposed power plant that plans to use air cooling instead of water cooling.In fact it has been illegal for some time for power plants in California to use drinking water (California Water Code Section 13550)."
So which is it? Is air cooling a slam dunk from a capital cost and performance point of view so that cooling water is not needed, or is there a sufficient supply of water to support a large expansion of CSP in the American southwest? The fact that you are arguing both sides of the issue at once indicates that you are indulging in wishful thinking rather than logical thinking.
There is no doubt that air cooling works; At a cost. Air cooling will work for coal fired plants too, but water is preferred since the utilities get more bang for their buck out of water cooling.
The water use issues are real. Here is a excerpt from the Electric Power Institute's paper entitled "Advanced Water-Conserving Cooling Technologies Development and Demonstration (http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/pu...018028.pdf)"
"Pressures to reduce overall water withdrawal and consumption are no longer limited to arid parts of the world such as the Western United States. More temperate climates are experiencing water constraints due to population growth, precipitation fluctuations, and changing demand patterns. These pressures and associated operating challenges are expected to grow significantly as utilities seek to permit and build new generation facilities to meet growing electricity demand.
The electric power industry requires reliable access to large amounts of water, primarily for cooling. Growing demand for electric power, coupled with growing water demand in agricultural, municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, could strain water supplies in the future. Facing increasing pressures to improve water conservation and reduce water consumption at power generation stations, the electricity industry is investigating new and innovative technologies. These technologies may be plantand location-specific.
Power plant water use is under intense scrutiny as public and regulatory concerns increase around water availability. To reduce company exposure to future water- related risks, this work will:
• Develop planning and evaluation tools to analyze water impacts for new plant siting
• Develop innovative, cost-efficient technologies to increase power plant water use efficiency and reduce total water use
• Provide solutions for operating plants facing evolving water constraints, including availability and thermal discharge
• Analyze the effects of advanced cooling technologies on overall plant costs, performance, reliability and safety"
I am not opposed to CSP plants or claiming that they are worthless, but I am in favor of realistic estimates of cost.
So which is it? Is air cooling a slam dunk from a capital cost and performance point of view so that cooling water is not needed, or is there a sufficient supply of water to support a large expansion of CSP in the American southwest? The fact that you are arguing both sides of the issue at once indicates that you are indulging in wishful thinking rather than logical thinking.
There is no doubt that air cooling works; At a cost. Air cooling will work for coal fired plants too, but water is preferred since the utilities get more bang for their buck out of water cooling.
The water use issues are real. Here is a excerpt from the Electric Power Institute's paper entitled "Advanced Water-Conserving Cooling Technologies Development and Demonstration (http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/pu...018028.pdf)"
"Pressures to reduce overall water withdrawal and consumption are no longer limited to arid parts of the world such as the Western United States. More temperate climates are experiencing water constraints due to population growth, precipitation fluctuations, and changing demand patterns. These pressures and associated operating challenges are expected to grow significantly as utilities seek to permit and build new generation facilities to meet growing electricity demand.
The electric power industry requires reliable access to large amounts of water, primarily for cooling. Growing demand for electric power, coupled with growing water demand in agricultural, municipal, residential, commercial, and industrial sectors, could strain water supplies in the future. Facing increasing pressures to improve water conservation and reduce water consumption at power generation stations, the electricity industry is investigating new and innovative technologies. These technologies may be plantand location-specific.
Power plant water use is under intense scrutiny as public and regulatory concerns increase around water availability. To reduce company exposure to future water- related risks, this work will:
• Develop planning and evaluation tools to analyze water impacts for new plant siting
• Develop innovative, cost-efficient technologies to increase power plant water use efficiency and reduce total water use
• Provide solutions for operating plants facing evolving water constraints, including availability and thermal discharge
• Analyze the effects of advanced cooling technologies on overall plant costs, performance, reliability and safety"
I am not opposed to CSP plants or claiming that they are worthless, but I am in favor of realistic estimates of cost.
-
- +0
-
-
written by John, November 05, 2009
The picture shown is for a concentrated solar thermal power plant. These use liquid salts as the medium to be heated allowing them to be heated to a much higher temperature (this also allows for underground storage for night power generation). Forgive me if I'm thick, but can't the water that is heated to super-heated steam to drive the turbines be kept in a closed system? Why is there a need to "use" water - the water could be super-heated by the molten salts, drive the turbines, cool down in an enclosed pondage (maybe scavenging waste heat as it goes) and be re-used again and again. Why the need for 'new' fresh water?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Carrie, November 06, 2009
how many more years is it going to be researched moderate binary geothermal already works well but we still only have 1 in the country, it is using water that is 165f almost half the boiling point passed through a heat transfer to heat R-134a boiling point
-15F to spin the turbine. Same thing can be done using a soler water heater and skip the expensive drilling.
chena hot springs geothermal uses water at 165f not boiling
-15F to spin the turbine. Same thing can be done using a soler water heater and skip the expensive drilling.
chena hot springs geothermal uses water at 165f not boiling
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, November 06, 2009
"Forgive me if I'm thick, but can't the water that is heated to super-heated steam to drive the turbines be kept in a closed system?"
The steam is kept in a closed system. External water is used to re-condense the steam after it has passed through the turbine. This function can also be fulfilled by radiative fins in an air cooled system, but the capital costs are higher and the overall generator efficiency is reduced.
The steam is kept in a closed system. External water is used to re-condense the steam after it has passed through the turbine. This function can also be fulfilled by radiative fins in an air cooled system, but the capital costs are higher and the overall generator efficiency is reduced.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Kirk, November 08, 2009
Solar Systems in Ausralia eliminates the need for cooling water.
www.solarsystems.com.au
www.solarsystems.com.au
-
- +0
-
-
written by Green Ninja, November 09, 2009
Maybe this is just evidence that we should focus more time and energy into geothermal projects rather than solar thermal. Creating one for of renewable energy that's only going to require a strain on an the most important, and already depleting, natural resource we need as humans to survive seems contradictory to say the least.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Roger Brown, November 09, 2009
"Solar Systems in Australia eliminates the need for cooling water."
No one disputes that solar PV generation (concentrated or otherwise) eliminates the need for cooling water. But PV may be more expensive than steam generation and it eliminates the possibility of thermal energy storage for load shifting.
No one disputes that solar PV generation (concentrated or otherwise) eliminates the need for cooling water. But PV may be more expensive than steam generation and it eliminates the possibility of thermal energy storage for load shifting.
-
- +0
-
-
written by mark spencer, November 10, 2009
Logically sea-water should be used as a coolant,as plenty of energy will be generated to pump this inland and then fresh water will be a by product ,for use in desert irrigation to grow crops,biofuels,
reafforestation and co2 sinks. The salt produced can be used as a heat store for use after sunset, and salt water can be electrolysed to generate Hydrogen for fuel storage and transportation and a chemical industry from the other products.Their are plenty of huge hot desert areas around the world,such as the Sahara,Sahell, Southern USA and central Australia. The projects should easliy self fund and the energy from CSP's can be used to smelt the glass and metals required for the collectors/reflectors,etc required. The profits from energy,food,co2 sinks,jobs and new markets thus generated, will then boost the world economy.
reafforestation and co2 sinks. The salt produced can be used as a heat store for use after sunset, and salt water can be electrolysed to generate Hydrogen for fuel storage and transportation and a chemical industry from the other products.Their are plenty of huge hot desert areas around the world,such as the Sahara,Sahell, Southern USA and central Australia. The projects should easliy self fund and the energy from CSP's can be used to smelt the glass and metals required for the collectors/reflectors,etc required. The profits from energy,food,co2 sinks,jobs and new markets thus generated, will then boost the world economy.
-
- +0
-
-
written by steve, November 10, 2009
Mark I keep reading about how we can solve all of our water problems by using ocean water for cooling and we will magically get all of this fresh water as a byproduct. In fact by using ocean water for cooling the only thing you will get is saltier water as a byproduct. There are very few acceptable solar sites near the ocean. Most good solar sites are well above sea level or far inland and the cost to pump the water to the site would quickly exceed the output of the plant.
About the only place I can think you might have a chance of economically using ocean water for cooling would be around the Salton Sea in California. They have talked for years about the possibility of running water from the Gulf of California to help replenish the water in the Salton Sea. As it is below sea level you would not have to pump the water. You could use it in single pass cooling system. Problem is there would be huge obstacles dealing with two countries and I have no idea if the areas near the Salton Sea are actually suited for solar.
Now you could use the heat from the solar plants to desalinate water but then you would not be producing electricity. I know it sound great that we can solve all of our problems using the free energy of the sun but we are a very long way from it.
About the only place I can think you might have a chance of economically using ocean water for cooling would be around the Salton Sea in California. They have talked for years about the possibility of running water from the Gulf of California to help replenish the water in the Salton Sea. As it is below sea level you would not have to pump the water. You could use it in single pass cooling system. Problem is there would be huge obstacles dealing with two countries and I have no idea if the areas near the Salton Sea are actually suited for solar.
Now you could use the heat from the solar plants to desalinate water but then you would not be producing electricity. I know it sound great that we can solve all of our problems using the free energy of the sun but we are a very long way from it.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Derrick, November 11, 2009
We should have listened to Nikola Tesla. Maybe one magnet pushing another will help make electricity and slove one problem in hopes to not create another. Its simple natural force that drives the shaft that makes a spark. Someone has already developed a magnetic wheel on a small scale that produces electricity I just wonder is politics his holding this guy down from mass producing the product.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Brian, November 12, 2009
If its for cooling...cool the unit in question in an enclosed area with an evaporator which can recycle the water 
but maybe thats just too easy
but maybe thats just too easy
-
- +0
-
-
written by solar power systems, November 12, 2009
i just think that's pretty ironic. But i'm pretty sure there is an economical way to cool those. it just hasn't been thought of yet.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Supra Vaider, November 13, 2009
Your website has very good infos. I learned very a lot from reading these.
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
If anyone makes this I aceept royalties in any currency!