2GreenEnergy at the Intersolar Show

July 12, 2010

PhotobucketI’m headed up to San Francisco to the Intersolar show tomorrow morning for a couple of days of meetings, and, of course, checking out the show itself. 

I just realized that I’m entering my fourth decade of attending trade shows now.  I remember seeing a gawky kid with glasses at a show in the early 80s, and someone said, “Oh, that’s Bill Gates. He has a software company.  I wonder if it will go anywhere?” Since then, I can’t count how many events I’m traipsed through in Europe and North America, on some mission or another. 

One thing I find interesting is what I call the “tone” of the show.  Of course, the promoters of all shows represent that theirs is the most exciting event in the universe — even in subject matter areas that most people find dull as dishwater.  But beneath the loud music and the flashing lights, I try to read the true feelings that underlie the show. 

A good example is the auto shows, which I often attend to see the alternate fuel vehicles and to meet the people associated with them.  The car shows in Los Angeles and Detroit these last couple of years still have the glitz and the pretty girls — but there is something palpably wrong: people aren’t buying cars, and the OEMs are obviously scaling way back — on everything: promotions — even entire product annoucements. People still wear smiles — because it’s their job to do so — but you can almost hear them thinking, “Wow, this is terrible.”

It will be interesting to see what Intersolar is like.  Obviously, the solar industry is under some real pressure, with precipitous drops in PV prices with the attendent distressed margins, and a horrible environment for capital formation. Then you have what could be called the recalcitrance of the traditional energy industry. As I’ve often said, these fossil fuel people aren’t going away anytime soon — ecological disaster or no. I would think that this, combined with the overall economic climate, would tend to cast a kind of pallor over the place.

On the other hand, the solar thermal industry — far less mature than PV — boasts some terrific breakthroughs in technologies that are very interesting indeed.

We’ll see what happens — and what that “tone” will be like. I’ll update you on my travels. If you happen to be there and want to say hello, please hit “contact.”

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , | Comments (0)

Concentrated Solar Power in the Sahara Desert

June 21, 2010

Part of the reason that Bill Paul is so bullish on Northern Africa as a financial center for rrenewable energy is obvious: the Sahara Desert. Especially ripe for concentrated solar power, the desert is the solution to Europe’s thirst for electric power. The challenge, obviously, is transmitting that power under the Mediterranean.

But according to this Reuters report, a solution could be in place in the next five years.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , | Comments (0)

Concentrated Solar Power (CSP)

May 16, 2010

PhotobucketThe other day, I wrote a short post on Renewable Energy World extolling the virtues of concentrated solar power, and predicting that CSP would someday (probably in my grandchildren’s lifetimes) dominate the landscape of world energy production. Almost immediately, someone asked me why I held that belief, and I realized that I should have provided a bit of my reasoning. In brief, here it is:

1) The ultimate winner in energy will be safe, scalable, reliable, and inexpensive. This kills most energy technologies more or less immediately. Fossil fuels aren’t scalable, nuclear is neither safe nor inexpensive, etc.  And a great number of green energy technologies, e.g., run-of-river-hydro, don’t scale well. 

2) With a few exceptions, the sun’s radiation is the ultimate source of all energy on Earth. Thus, the most obvious line of investigation for energy policy is determining the most direct way to convert the warmth of the sun into useful energy.

3) Most of the dozens of renewable technologies attempt to capitalize on this fact. The sun makes the wind blow, the rivers run, and builds the chemical bonds that are broken down when we convert complex organic molecules back into simpler ones (e.g., burning wood in our fireplaces, explode gasoline in our cars, or gasify waste in processing plants). But the most direct, efficient way to harness the sun’s energy is transferring those photons as directly as possible into electricity. This leaves us with solar photovoltaics and CSP.

4) It could be argued that PV is even more direct than CSP. And, if it weren’t for the problems in building large volumes of semiconductors for PV, I believe it would have won. But PV is ultimately doomed to significant manufacturing issues and materials shortages that, I believe, will limit scalability.

5) CSP, by contrast, uses low-cost and abundant materials, which can be deployed in areas that are relatively unimportant to plant and animal habitat (deserts). Of course, all energy-related technologies — even the dozens of breakthroughs in extracting coal, oil, and natural gas — are improving day by day. But CSP is still in its infancy. The gains in efficiency, the way in which solar thermal heat is stored to produce reliable baseload power, and the way in which that energy is effectively transmitted via high-voltage direct current to population centers — is improving every day.

I know there are people who disagree, but CSP is my pick for the late 21st Century. I only hope we still have a planet that supports life by that point.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , | Comments (2)

Solar Thermal – Ausra Sold! – More Discussion

February 12, 2010

PhotobucketMore on my coversation with John Hugo on solar thermal, who writes:

Craig: I agree, could not have said it better re: nukes.

Re: the capital intensity of solar thermal, I don’t have a cost estimate on the power block from them and turbine procurement appears to be a problem according to them. But the cost of the mirrors etc. is $99 million for 50 MW pls the power block costs. This compares to $4/watt for PV, or $200 million.

Their system also allows for a gas assist that can run after the sun goes down or during low sun periods. That can add another 25% to capacity and which has the fuel costs of gas, but that’s the same as other gas systems in place now. Better than coal or nukes?

To which I replied:

Dr. Mills, Ausra’s founder, declined to talk (to me, at least) about the cost per Watt, even though I fairly well grilled him on the subject. Perhaps he was just being coy, but according to what he said, the price of steel is incredibly important in making this determination, and that this fluctuates greatly.

Personally, here is what I suspect. An extremely important aspect to keep in mind is that, unlike say wind, the efficiencies of solar thermal are improving every month. As you’ll see in my book’s chapter on the subject (scheduled to be published in March), there are four essentially different technologies here. Dr. Mills declined to say too much about exactly what he’s doing, but it was clear that he was pretty excited by it. The only hint he gave me was that it had to do with bringing a high-temperature (thus high-efficiency, per the principles of thermodynamics) solution to a technology that had previously been thought of as low-temperature.

I’m quite confident that Dr. Mills and his colleagues will be continue to be extremely active in the business; his passion for it is obviously sincere. And I, for one, believe he’s barking up the right tree in terms of a true and comprehensive solution for the world’s energy needs.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , | Comment (1)

Solar Thermal Leader Ausra — Sold!

February 11, 2010

PhotobucketI’m sure many readers are aware of the incredible development in solar thermal / CSP (concentrated solar power). French energy giant Areva, which has a large nuclear portfolio, bought Ausra, and says it will use the acquisition to become “the world leader in concentrated solar power.” Here is a discussion I just had with my colleague John Hugo:

John writes:

It’s interesting that they were able to sell with little installed base and no real history of operation. The water cooling operation uses quite a bit of water and the dry version still uses water but much less and output is reduced. They have good people but they are not professional salespeople. …. I think it’s a hedge vs. nuclear which I don’t think will cut it due to the storage issue which has not been solved.

But despite recent political support re: nuclear why do it if you can do solar at less cost?

… and I reply

John:

Yes, this is quite a development, for sure. Here’s my take for what it’s worth:

CSP is extremely capital intensive. Projects require huge piles of cash, and happen only when the underwriting company is strong enough to present a meaningful warranty. I happen to know (based on my interview with the company’s founder David Mills) that Ausra was hungry to partner with (or, apparently, sell to) a company that could make all this happen.

Everything else you write about CSP is correct, if perhaps overstated. It DOES use water for cooling, and there IS a storage issue. There’s also a transmission issue, as the power is generated in the desert. But IMO, these are challenges that can be — and are being — overcome. First and most obviously, there is a good correlation between the sun’s shining and human activity. But more importantly, advancements that are being made constantly in smart grid, high voltage DC, and molten salt energy storage, in my mind at least, make CSP the top bet for our energy future.

On the other hand, I believe that there is no future whatsoever for the nuclear industry. I know there are people who disagree (and that I’ll be hearing from them any minute). But to me, no amount of money and the lobbying, subterfuge, and disinformation it buys will get that industry past the incredible dangers, outrageous costs overruns, and decade-long delays that are intrinsic to the very nature of what they do.

With all their financial (and thus political) strength, I don’t doubt that you’ll continue to hear claptrap about supporting nuclear. There is a word for this: corruption; it’s a regrettable but deeply entrenched part of our daily lives — whether we recognize it or not. But having said this, I very much doubt that you’ll live to see another new nuke actually put into operation in the US.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , , , | Comments (7)

Solar Thermal Pioneer – Dr. David Mills

January 4, 2010

PhotobucketDr. David Mills, founder and chief scientist of solar thermal leader Ausra, was generous enough with his time to help me with the chapter on concentrated solar power in my upcoming book on renewables. I happened to be watching this lecture he gave recently in his homeland (Australia) which I heartily recommend. It is entirely non-technical and accessible to anyone, while providing a worthy history of renewable energy – as well as a solid, well-reasoned direction for the future.

In it, he speaks about the safety and overall viability of nuclear energy, and provides essentially the same one that I always do: we already have a huge fusion reactor with an endless supply of fuel, no problems with operational safety, no million-year hazard associated with storing spent fuel, and no open invitations for terrorists or rogue states to attack, or use the technology to build bombs. It’s called the sun. Best of all, it’s separated from the Earth’s surface by a distance of 93 million miles – which is perfect; it’s far enough away to be safe, while close enough to provide us with more than enough clear power — insofar as we need to harvest only one out of every 6000 photons that is received at the Earth’s surface in order to address all the needs of all 7 billion of us.

This may sound like a flippant answer, but I don’t believe it to be. The cost of reaping this power is coming down every month. If we retain our focus on perfecting a few technologies for capturing that energy; we’ll be there very shortly. I urge readers to learn about solar thermal; I know you’ll share in my optimism.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , , , | Comments (3)

Molten Salt Energy Storage

November 23, 2009

PhotobucketPeter Buzzard comments on my post “Molten Salt Energy Storage” as follows:

“That was an interesting article. I didn’t know a combined cycle could be made to be that efficient… What about simply heating water with molten salt in a heat exchanger, and running that through a turbine, then recovering left over heat from the condensate? I know that all conventional plants can only convert 30 to 33% of the thermal energy to electric. In fact each of my units produce about 3600MW Thermal but we only generate about 1200MW. Of course these were built between 1971 and 1986, but even the new nukes are only claiming a maximum of 36% efficiency.”

This molten salt technology is actually far simpler that what you’re describing, and the efficiency of the storage itself is huge – up to 99%, according to this report by Sandia Laboratories. Obviously, the process of concentrating the sunlight, generating steam, turning the turbine, etc. is far less efficient, but the issue doesn’t lie with the storage medium/system.

Overall, solar thermal has about 17% total conversion efficiency in terms of incident solar energy to electricity. Of course, the industry is working hard to improve this, but still, a solar thermal farm that would occupy 3% of the Moroccan desert would generate more than enough power for the entire continent of Europe. This really IS the answer, it seems to me.

By Craig Shields | Posted in Solar Thermal | Tagged , , | Comment (1)