Concentrating solar

12 messages

Lance Christie () Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Attached is the newly-updated concentrating solar section from Chapter 4, Plank 1 of the Renewable Deal. It has all the current technologies explained and a catalogue of U.S. concentrating solar plant installations underway or existing. Later updates of this section will fold in the Scientific American article which demonstrates that a sizeable portion of the U.S. energy supply can be provided by concentrating solar plants in the SW deserts, with the juice bussed across the southern U.S. from the east to west coasts through use of high voltage, low-loss DC cable technology.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Concentrating solar.rtf (13K) Download Attachment

audrey Graham () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Lance Christie <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 8:54:48 AM
Subject: [CSS] Concentrating solar

Attached is the newly-updated concentrating solar section from Chapter 4, Plank 1 of the Renewable Deal. It has all the current technologies explained and a catalogue of U.S. concentrating solar plant installations underway or existing. Later updates of this section will fold in the Scientific American article which demonstrates that a sizeable portion of the U.S. energy supply can be provided by concentrating solar plants in the SW deserts, with the juice bussed across the southern U.S. from the east to west coasts through use of high voltage, low-loss DC cable technology.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Craig Hibberd () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

These solar systems don't use water. They are "closed loop" systems that circulate a heated fluid. The other day on CSS there was a good article about electric cars being developed in Israel. One of the problems with where we live is the inability to export solar generated electricity because there is little electric transmission here in Southeaster Utah. What a great combination - solar generated electricity that is stored locally in electric car batteries. We could become energy independent with a decentralized power system. Another piece to the puzzle is the "barefoot university" in India that is training people with no formal education to build and install solar systems. Just as there is a "local food" movement, we could also have a "local energy" movement. It's high-tech low-tech and sustainable.

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

audrey Graham () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Lance Christie

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Thanks. I have forwarded this info onto Drew Sitterud and Jeff Horrocks, Emery County Commissioners. I have had some luck in talking with them about looking at solar options rather than nuclear for their Green River Industrial Park. If we can keep feeding them leads we may not have to defeat nuclear, just support responsible alternatives. They really just want an industry and I'm trying to convince them that nuclear is NOT a good bet economically due to long licensing requirements etc. Let's give them an option! Thanks all, Audrey

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:40:03 AM
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

These solar systems don't use water. They are "closed loop" systems that circulate a heated fluid. The other day on CSS there was a good article about electric cars being developed in Israel. One of the problems with where we live is the inability to export solar generated electricity because there is little electric transmission here in Southeaster Utah. What a great combination - solar generated electricity that is stored locally in electric car batteries. We could become energy independent with a decentralized power system. Another piece to the puzzle is the "barefoot university" in India that is training people with no formal education to build and install solar systems. Just as there is a "local food" movement, we could also have a "local energy" movement. It's high-tech low-tech and sustainable.

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

Craig Hibberd () Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

We need energy solutions, no question.

The nuke option for Green River has many problems, any of which will kill it: (1) the amount of water needed, (2) lack of transmission lines, (3) public opposition, (4) the high cost, (5) lack of adequate nuke waste storage, and (6) transporting nuke waste. Once those minor issues are resolved, it will be clear sailing - yeah right.

The "Do Nothing" option continues the burning of coal, creation of greenhouse gases, and climate change. "Doing nothing" is a decision to keep doing what is not working all that well.

The central large scale solar alternative has it's share of problems too: (1) environmental impact on the desert, (2) transmission or storage, (3) cost, and (4) public opposition.

Distributed solar combined with energy efficiency, alternative transportation, smaller homes, and sustainable living is the best, least costly, lowest impact option. Unfortunately, it's easier to promote big, single solutions that solve everything - nukes, concentrating central solar, etc. As long as the problem is described as the need for big solutions, we will only have burning coal, nukes, and large scale concentrating solar as the solution. We really need to re-define the problem to get to the transformative, sustainable solutions.

- Craig Hibberd

On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Audrey Graham wrote:

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

Chris Baird-2 () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Craig Hibberd

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

The closed loop fluid feeds into a heat exchanger which then boils off water, producing steam, which turns a turbine. So, yes, they do use water in the same way that a coal fired power plant does.

Chris

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Hibberd
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

Craig Hibberd () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Actually there are 4 or 5 ways to use concentrated solar to produce electricity. The ones that don't use water are concentrating solar on photovoltaics to directly produce electricity and the Stirling engine - basically a heat driven piston that spins a generator. There are also experiments with solar chimneys that are combined with greenhouses. The rising heat in the solar chimney generates electricity through a wind turbine.

As Chris has noted, the other concentrating solar systems create steam and require water for cooling just like a coal plant. Since water is an issue here in the desert, it seems the non-water using options are more viable.

On Oct 9, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Chris Baird wrote:

The closed loop fluid feeds into a heat exchanger which then boils off water, producing steam, which turns a turbine. So, yes, they do use water in the same way that a coal fired power plant does.

Chris

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Hibberd
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

Chris Baird-2 () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Last I heard Tim V. (the big-time alfalfa grower in Green River) was working with a company in Denver to power his pivot pumps with a solar power plant of some kind. He’s got plenty of water (on paper that is).

Chris

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Hibberd
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:17 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

On Oct 9, 2008, at 9:50 AM, Chris Baird wrote:

The closed loop fluid feeds into a heat exchanger which then boils off water, producing steam, which turns a turbine. So, yes, they do use water in the same way that a coal fired power plant does.

Chris

From: [hidden email] [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Craig Hibberd
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2008 10:40 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

audrey Graham () Re: Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Craig Hibberd

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

So we need to figure out a way for local governments to see the benefit of small, dispersed solar in terms of jobs and revenue. We need to restructure where and how subsidies are handed out....otherwise, with the set-up now, it is only the big centrallized facilities that generate tax revenue for local gov. And those taxes pay for the general infrastructure of everything from senior services to jails and courts to animal control and children's vacinations (ie "government" is not the greedy enemy here). We need a new plan!!

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:31:42 AM
Subject: [CSS] Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

We need energy solutions, no question.

The "Do Nothing" option continues the burning of coal, creation of greenhouse gases, and climate change. "Doing nothing" is a decision to keep doing what is not working all that well.

The central large scale solar alternative has it's share of problems too: (1) environmental impact on the desert, (2) transmission or storage, (3) cost, and (4) public opposition.

- Craig Hibberd

On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Audrey Graham wrote:

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

Craig Hibberd () Re: Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

Reply Threaded

Some javascript/style in this post has been disabled (why?)

Good idea to have a new plan! On the water issue, power plants are typically huge users of water. Here's an article over the water right fights for the IPP power plant in Delta, UT. It's a gigantic operation.

The Ely Times - elynews.com :: News: Generating as much controversy as power

As originally planned, the 3,000-megawatt Intermountain Power Project (IPP) would have needed up to 45,000 acre-feet of water per year. The fighting over water rights was bitter - farmer against farmer.

http://www.elynews.com/articles/2007/11/14/news/news01.txt

Green River Nuke Plant

TransitionPower Development LLC, signed a contract to secure the rights to nearly 10 billion gallons of water a year to be used in a nuclear power plant.

10 billion gallons is 30,689 acre-feet of water per year. One acre-feet per year is about what it takes to support a family in Utah, so that's enough water for over 30,000 families. Water rights will be bought from farmers in the region, so if anyone believes water is scarce now or it will be in the future, this will take away from the region's ability to farm and live. Moab and Grand County may be stakeholders in this proposal if there is an impact here.

Another issue is power transmission lines. We just don't have the capacity here to transmit power from 2 large nuke plants. No one is building new transmission because there are no profits in doing so. This happened as a result of deregulation. It could only be done with massive federal investments.

New World View

We need a new model for success, a new sustainable based world-view that has public support. To do that will take more democracy, more town meetings, more creativity, less gridlock, less polarization.

- Craig

-------------------------------------

Craig Hibberd

435.259.1610

On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:54 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

So we need to figure out a way for local governments to see the benefit of small, dispersed solar in terms of jobs and revenue. We need to restructure where and how subsidies are handed out....otherwise, with the set-up now, it is only the big centrallized facilities that generate tax revenue for local gov. And those taxes pay for the general infrastructure of everything from senior services to jails and courts to animal control and children's vacinations (ie "government" is not the greedy enemy here). We need a new plan!!

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:31:42 AM
Subject: [CSS] Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

We need energy solutions, no question.

The nuke option for Green River has many problems, any of which will kill it: (1) the amount of water needed, (2) lack of transmission lines, (3) public opposition, (4) the high cost, (5) lack of adequate nuke waste storage, and (6) transporting nuke waste. Once those minor issues are resolved, it will be clear sailing - yeah right.

The "Do Nothing" option continues the burning of coal, creation of greenhouse gases, and climate change. "Doing nothing" is a decision to keep doing what is not working all that well.

The central large scale solar alternative has it's share of problems too: (1) environmental impact on the desert, (2) transmission or storage, (3) cost, and (4) public opposition.

Distributed solar combined with energy efficiency, alternative transportation, smaller homes, and sustainable living is the best, least costly, lowest impact option. Unfortunately, it's easier to promote big, single solutions that solve everything - nukes, concentrating central solar, etc. As long as the problem is described as the need for big solutions, we will only have burning coal, nukes, and large scale concentrating solar as the solution. We really need to re-define the problem to get to the transformative, sustainable solutions.

- Craig Hibberd

On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Audrey Graham wrote:

Thanks. I have forwarded this info onto Drew Sitterud and Jeff Horrocks, Emery County Commissioners. I have had some luck in talking with them about looking at solar options rather than nuclear for their Green River Industrial Park. If we can keep feeding them leads we may not have to defeat nuclear, just support responsible alternatives. They really just want an industry and I'm trying to convince them that nuclear is NOT a good bet economically due to long licensing requirements etc. Let's give them an option! Thanks all, Audrey

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:40:03 AM
Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar

These solar systems don't use water. They are "closed loop" systems that circulate a heated fluid. The other day on CSS there was a good article about electric cars being developed in Israel. One of the problems with where we live is the inability to export solar generated electricity because there is little electric transmission here in Southeaster Utah. What a great combination - solar generated electricity that is stored locally in electric car batteries. We could become energy independent with a decentralized power system. Another piece to the puzzle is the "barefoot university" in India that is training people with no formal education to build and install solar systems. Just as there is a "local food" movement, we could also have a "local energy" movement. It's high-tech low-tech and sustainable.

On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:

But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??

Audrey Graham
435-220-0185

----- Original Message ----
From: Lance Christie <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 8:54:48 AM
Subject: [CSS] Concentrating solar

Attached is the newly-updated concentrating solar section from Chapter 4, Plank 1 of the Renewable Deal. It has all the current technologies explained and a catalogue of U.S. concentrating solar plant installations underway or existing. Later updates of this section will fold in the Scientific American article which demonstrates that a sizeable portion of the U.S. energy supply can be provided by concentrating solar plants in the SW deserts, with the juice bussed across the southern U.S. from the east to west coasts through use of high voltage, low-loss DC cable technology.

ripple-2 () Re: Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by Craig Hibberd

That's plan with a capital P! Thanks Audrey. This is what I was getting at
in my comments on the waste pits; that Grand County needs to invoke a
General/Sustainability Plan that requires ALL land-use planning and
decisionmaking approvals to be filtered through. Proactive planning for
sustainability, based on real-world trends and a visioning process, would by
its nature inherently restructure the subsidy/revenue/infrastructure process,
and would further ensure a transition to local, revenue-turning economies that
protect community interests rather than cater to (or fall victim of) outside
developers and extractives. At present, we are still reactive, making
decisions on an ad hoc basis (or simply abdicating them), with little to no
applied standards for community sustainability, self-reliance, and long-term
health. Communities that fail to empower themselves (on a regional/watershed
basis) become industrial sacrifice areas.
Bob L.

>===== Original Message From Audrey Graham <[hidden email]> =====
>So we need to figure out a way for local governments to see the benefit of
small, dispersed solar in terms of jobs and revenue. We need to restructure
where and how subsidies are handed out....otherwise, with the set-up now, it
is only the big centrallized facilities that generate tax revenue for local
gov. And those taxes pay for the general infrastructure of everything from
senior services to jails and courts to animal control and
children's vacinations (ie "government" is not the greedy enemy here). We need
a new plan!!

>
> Audrey Graham
>435-220-0185
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2008 8:31:42 AM
>Subject: [CSS] Concentrating Solar & Nukes for Green River
>
>
>We need energy solutions, no question.
>
>The nuke option for Green River has many problems, any of which will kill it:

(1) the amount of water needed, (2) lack of transmission lines, (3) public
opposition, (4) the high cost, (5) lack of adequate nuke waste storage, and
(6) transporting nuke waste. Once those minor issues are resolved, it will be
clear sailing - yeah right.
>
>The "Do Nothing" option continues the burning of coal, creation of greenhouse
gases, and climate change. "Doing nothing" is a decision to keep doing what
is not working all that well.
>
>The central large scale solar alternative has it's share of problems too: (1)
environmental impact on the desert, (2) transmission or storage, (3) cost, and
(4) public opposition.
>
>Distributed solar combined with energy efficiency, alternative
transportation, smaller homes, and sustainable living is the best, least
costly, lowest impact option. Unfortunately, it's easier to promote big,
single solutions that solve everything - nukes, concentrating central solar,
etc. As long as the problem is described as the need for big solutions, we
will only have burning coal, nukes, and large scale concentrating solar as the
solution. We really need to re-define the problem to get to the
transformative, sustainable solutions.
>- Craig Hibberd
>
>
>
>On Oct 8, 2008, at 1:27 PM, Audrey Graham wrote:
>Thanks. I have forwarded this info onto Drew Sitterud and Jeff Horrocks,
Emery County Commissioners. I have had some luck in talking with them about
looking at solar options rather than nuclear for their Green River Industrial
Park. If we can keep feeding them leads we may not have to defeat nuclear,
just support responsible alternatives. They really just want an industry and
I'm trying to convince them that nuclear is NOT a good bet economically due to
long licensing requirements etc. Let's give them an option! Thanks all, Audrey

>
>Audrey Graham
>435-220-0185
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Craig Hibberd <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 10:40:03 AM
>Subject: [CSS] Re: Concentrating solar
>
>These solar systems don't use water. They are "closed loop" systems that

circulate a heated fluid. The other day on CSS there was a good article about
electric cars being developed in Israel. One of the problems with where we
live is the inability to export solar generated electricity because there is
little electric transmission here in Southeaster Utah. What a great
combination - solar generated electricity that is stored locally in electric
car batteries. We could become energy independent with a decentralized power
system. Another piece to the puzzle is the "barefoot university" in India
that is training people with no formal education to build and install solar
systems. Just as there is a "local food" movement, we could also have a
"local energy" movement. It's high-tech low-tech and sustainable.

>
>
>On Oct 8, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Audrey Graham wrote:
>But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??
>
>Audrey Graham
>435-220-0185
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: Lance Christie <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 8, 2008 8:54:48 AM
>Subject: [CSS] Concentrating solar
>
>Attached is the newly-updated concentrating solar section from Chapter 4,

Plank 1 of the Renewable Deal. It has all the current technologies explained
and a catalogue of U.S. concentrating solar plant installations underway or
existing. Later updates of this section will fold in the Scientific
American article which demonstrates that a sizeable portion of the U.S. energy
supply can be provided by concentrating solar plants in the SW deserts, with
the juice bussed across the southern U.S. from the east to west coasts through
use of high voltage, low-loss DC cable technology.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Lance Christie () Re: Concentrating solar

Reply Threaded

In reply to this post by audrey Graham

The only water used in the concentrating solar generating system is
in the secondary turbine loop, which can be designed as a closed loop
system. Thus, the amount of water required to operate the power
plant is the amount needed to fill the secondary steam turbine
loop. This water is then used over and over again, as it circulates
through the hot salt tank to be flashed into steam, thence through
the generating turbine, thence through the cooling tower which you
can think of as a giant automobile radiator where the steam is cooled
back into liquid state water which then flows back into the hot salt
tank to be turned into steam again. The only loss of water from the
system would occur if the system blew a gasket and leaked. The
circulating fluid in the solar collector primary loop system in the
plant is high temperature oil, not water. -Lance

At 09:03 AM 10/8/2008, you wrote:
>But doesn't this type of solar power require huge amounts of water??
>
>Audrey Graham
>435-220-0185

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Canyonlands Sustainable Solutions" group.
To post to this group, send email to [hidden email]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [hidden email]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/canyonlandssustainable?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---