May 11, 2007 4:00 AM PDT
Shrinking the cost for solar power
- Related Stories
-
Green tech powers forward
January 16, 2008 -
Green-tech pros eye cash in carbon
May 9, 2007 -
Wal-Mart launches solar-power program
May 7, 2007 -
The next chain outlet concept: Energy experts
May 2, 2007 -
A fight over the future of solar
April 26, 2007 -
Keeping clean tech down-to-earth
April 16, 2007 -
Full steam ahead for Nevada solar project
March 12, 2007
A sufficiently large solar thermal power plant (also called concentrated solar power, or CSP) could potentially generate electricity at about the same cost as electricity from a conventional gas-burning power plant, experts say.
It's not easy. The plant would also have to come with a large energy storage system, be built next to others and be located close to users. To date, no one has completed a facility that comports to all of these parameters, said Fred Morse, an energy analyst who has studied the issue.
"Solar thermal is available at much more attractive prices than solar photovoltaic. The land mass isn't huge, but it does take a while to build these," said Stephan Dolezalek, a managing partner and co-head of the clean tech practice at venture firm Vantage Point Venture Partners, an investor in Bright Source Energy, which builds solar thermal plants and components.
Both Dolezalek and Jiang Lin, who heads up the China Energy Group at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, said that solar thermal is likely the most promising technology in the entire alternative-energy field right now.
When asked when solar thermal can hit parity, Lin responded "now."
Thermal by the numbers
Conventionally generated electricity ranges between 5 and 18 cents per kilowatt hour (the amount of money to get a kilowatt of power for an hour) but in most places it's below 10 cents, according to the Energy Information Agency. Solar thermal costs around 15 to 17 cents a kilowatt hour, according to statistics from Schott, a German company that makes solar thermal equipment.
A solar thermal plant would need a facility to store the heat harvested in the day by its sunlight-concentrating mirrors so that the heat could be used to generate electricity at night. "You need the kind of system that can run in the evening," Morse said. At some sites, such as Nevada Solar One, excess heat is stored in molten salt and released at night to run the turbine.
The plant, ideally, should be capable of generating about 300 megawatts of electricity. Those plants can churn out electricity at about 13 cents a kilowatt.
That's still a relatively high price, so utilities would need to group two, three or more 300-megawatt plants together to share operational resources, Morse said. "They could share control rooms or spare parts," he said. That would knock the price closer to 11 cents a kilowatt hour.
"Under 10 cents is sort of the magic line," he said.
Dolezalek puts it another way: the plants need to be around 500 megawatts in size. Most solar thermal plants right now aren't that big. The 22-year-old thermal plant in California's Mojave Desert is 354 megawatts. Utility company Southern California Edison is erecting a 500-megawatt plant scheduled to open in 2009.
By 2014, solar thermal plants located in the Southwest could crank out nearly 3 gigawatts of power, estimated Travis Bradford of the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development, a nonprofit based in Cambridge, Mass. That's enough for about 1 million homes.
Costs can then be reduced further by building the plants close to consumers. It costs about $1.5 million per mile for transmission lines, according to statistics from Acciona Solar Power, which owns solar thermal plants. Solar thermal plants work best in arid deserts that get little rainfall. Since some of the fastest-growing cities in the world are located in sun belts, that's less of a problem than it used to be.
But getting to that point isn't easy. Land-use hearings and permits can drag on for years while construction costs rise. The amount of land required can be an issue too: the 354-megawatt plant in California occupies 1,000 acres. Larger plants would need more land, while smaller plants result in higher costs per kilowatt hour.
Even if all of these factors could be completely optimized, solar thermal power plants would likely not produce electricity at a level that would compete with coal plants. Coal plants, however, will likely be hit with carbon taxes in the near future, which will make solar thermal more competitive. Still, at less than 10 cents a kilowatt, solar thermal would be competitive with electricity from gas-powered plants.
Utilities will also likely work hard to lower the costs of solar thermal in the coming decades, Morse added. Utilities are under mandates to increase their renewable energy sources. Citizen groups often complain about wind turbines and the wind doesn't blow at a constant, predictable rate. Several companies are intent on tapping heat from under the surface of the earth to generate power. Geothermal power, however, works best only in certain locations.
"There is an enough flat, unproductive land in the U.S. to power the U.S.," Morse said. "We just don't have the wires to get there. Eisenhower built the national highway system. Some president will build the national grid."
See more CNET content tagged:
solar energy,
plant,
electricity,
Morse Plc.,
facility
Business web hosting from Aplus.Net
knockdown dragout fights against power transmission lines. We're
probably not all going to move to the source, so we will still need
power lines to take major advantage of solar thermal electricity. For
all the talk about alternative energy sources, we still think locally
and act globally.
It is nice to see a solar electric design with a practical energy
storage system built in for the kwh costs cited in the story, though.
We think we know why. In our opinion, it seems these days many are trying to look green even if it cost them. What good would it be if Al Gore put his panels in the Arizona or Nevada desert if no one could see them? He has run a noble race getting the word out about Global Warming. He should do the right thing now and convince himself, Google, and Walmart to use Solar Transfer logic with federal subsidies to put their money to the best use. This is the same federal subsidy that pays you to put panels on your roof in your home state. How can someone in Alaska, New York, or Maine take advantage of that subsidy? They can?t because the sun does not shine with enough power in their state but the federal government would still chip in our share for a losing situation. Now residential solar installers, BP, GE, Arnold Scharzenegger and others may get upset with this logic but it has to be put out there. Missing out on a 4-fold gain is too important. Yes, we calculate a 4-fold return in the power Al Gore and others could generate from the sun by following our logic with the same invested dollar amount. That means 4 times less coal or gas needs to be used to create the same amount of power. A mistake now would cost that much energy savings and GHG reduction over the next 30 year life of the panel investment. We have been trying to drive the solar community in the direction of this article for years. It comes close to our Solar Transfer solution but high-grade photovoltaic chips will still be part of the final mix. Our solution takes the concentrated solution one step further into the mobile fuel industry. Ask your Governor or Senator if they read the Solar Transfer report that was sent to them a year ago. President Bill Clinton sent us a nice letter to keep up the good work, but most other politicians seem to be hesitant on making real energy moves especially those with coal, gas, and oil interest within their state. That is only natural but if we are going to solve this GLOBAL issue they need to see the big picture. That is what we are good at at Solar Transfer, the final solution, the ultimate design. Send this text and ask all those running for office in an email how they feel about renewable energy and Solar Transfer. Solar Power will be the solution once we get enough people to understand our work.
land needed for solar panels. Why would the price of desert
land be so significant? Solar seems to be a means to put
inhospitable land to good use. The more arid the land, the less
it costs; not to mention the more efficient solar becomes.
Obviously, solar power can't be used everywhere in the US, but
for those regions near arid climates, it would be the best source
of power. Even if it is not the most cost-effective power, solar
energy is clean and would not require a nonrenewable fuel. Coal
and natural gas may be the best options today, but the costs of
all fossil fuels will only go up. Once solar becomes competitive
with those fuels, it's time to transfer to the more reliable power
for the future.
We hate to turn people off of solar because every little bit counts but look at it this way. If you are talking Photovoltaic solar panels keep them off roofs. The panels fixed to the roof can have a poor angle to the sun (relative to the southern exposure and pitch). The solar constant in Maine is lower than in Nevada or Arizona! (That?s the most important thing). Also Dual tracking for individual installations does not spread the cost.
Reduce cost by eliminating batteries that have to be replaced. Sell your power to Vegas. Vegas pays you for your panels energy production. That comes to about 3-4 fold improved return on your investment and more importantly reduced carbon emissions. It is all about Location, Location, Location and watts per dollar invested. We are not on something, we are onto something, I promise! Hopefully you will agree and email a copy of this posting to Al Gore, Google, and Wal-Mart. They are all planning local photovoltaic installations. It is a good start but they could be doing better! SolarTransfer.com
We'd be far better of investing the money into anything that has a potential to provide high amounts of energy and hopefully aim for displacing energy from fossil fuel altogether. This could be clean nuclear, geothermal,... but certainly not solar or wind.
- Let's make it even easier. Let's say Al Gore has 3 houses.
-
by Manhattan2
May 11, 2007 12:37 PM PDT
- Let's say Al Gore has 3 houses.
-
Reply to this comment
-
-
See all 21 Comments >>We truly do appreciate Mr. Gores efforts. We just use his name as a hypothetical because it gets people from both sides of the isle to read our logic. If he has not put the panels up yet please try to get this to him.
One of his houses is in Tennessee and is nestled into the woods and uses 15,000 kwh of power each month.
Let's say another house is in Arizona but his roof there does not have optimal angle to the sun and he only uses 2,000 kwh at that location.
Let's say his third house is a doublewide trailer in Nevada close to the grid and the town folk don?t mind him using his 2 acres for a solar installation. He only uses 1,000 kwh of power because he does not like the accommodations.
OK Let's say he has $50,000 to spend on photovoltaic panels. Does he put them in Tennessee were people will be able to see he is doing his part. Does he put them in Arizona were they are shaded from the sun most of the day? Or does he put $50,000 worth of solar panels around his trailer tilted toward peak sun?
The Political answer may be to put them in TN. The Global Warming solution / Solar Transfer solution is to put the panels or some form of a solar investment near the doublewide. He can back feed any extra power he doesn?t need and get a credit to help pay for the Tennessee electric bill. You see it is more significant to get every little bit of power we can get from that solar investment to help the planet, and for the republicans out there that are on the fence with this issue especially if it is going to change their way of life, he just made 4 times more money by placing his solar investment out in Nevada.
Now forget the fact that he might not have a house in Nevada. Solar Transfer will find a way to get someone else who does have a doublewide with 2 acres to grant us access to the land.
How do we sell this to the Federal government so they would still contribute $2500 toward the installation cost in Nevada even though Mr. Gore does not have a house there? Ask your Senator to make it happen!