FARK.com: (7002172) Spain's solar energy plant keeps working at night due to the addition of a buffer, which is apparently a totally new and unique concept never before attempted in any intermittent system anywhere

If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

		Spain's solar energy plant keeps working at night due to the addition of a buffer, which is apparently a totally new and unique concept never before attempted in any intermittent system anywhere (physorg.com)		157
		More: Obvious, buffering agent, Spain, energy storage, King Juan Carlos, Cordoba, Seville, power stations, solar energy

• • •

5406 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Mar 2012 at 11:23 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7002172

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

157 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

fickle floridian		2012-03-19 05:16:42 AM

I can't post a comment right now because my power is out. Sorry.

Teknowaffle		2012-03-19 05:24:10 AM

200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

doglover		2012-03-19 05:55:56 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

You ever check the price of the first computers?

The first satellites?

The first date?

CamelToe		2012-03-19 06:35:13 AM

Was it un chien buffer?

xenophon10k		2012-03-19 08:47:12 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

That's not that bad for solar. We spend 4 times that over here for a new coal plant that powers 5 times as many homes

Shakespeare's Monkey		2012-03-19 09:02:01 AM

Buffer, I hardly knew her!

Sybarite		2012-03-19 09:18:28 AM

I knew Real Player was good for something.

chimp_ninja		2012-03-19 09:32:44 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

The state of Arizona recently paid $1B (760M euros) for a coal plant that powers 80,000 homes. (Note that the 100,000 homes cited in the bottom of the article includes a 1/5 contribution from an existing plant.) This cost doesn't include the rail infrastructure that supports the plant and was largely paid for decades ago, or any of the externalities (health care costs, pollution, etc.) associated with burning coal.

So, apparently the choice is:
1) 9,500 euros per home for a plant that burns 60 rail cars of coal per day, and "Unit 4 also has a $2 million silo that will use a carbon-injection system to clean mercury emissions from the plant, but it is not used yet because it is not required."

2) 6,700 euros per home for a solar thermal plant with zero emissions.

Gee, tough choice. Those silly Spaniards sure don't have the down-home country folk sense of us 'Murkans. I mean, they get 16% of their power from wind, and every good patriot knows those things will never work.

America: Trying our best to return to the glory days of 1930.

chimp_ninja		2012-03-19 09:39:44 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes?

Also, according to NREL, solar thermal plants should have a 25 to 30 year lifetime before you need to start replacing the heavy equipment. (Even then, big chunks of that cost come from buying the land, burying wires, etc., and you shouldn't have to pay them again.)

That works out to $292-$351 (US) per year per home, even if you assume the plant is worth $0 at the end of its service lifetime. Does that still sound expensive?

Ed Finnerty		2012-03-19 10:03:54 AM

Sybarite: I knew Real Player was good for something.

Well played!

gameshowhost		2012-03-19 10:38:35 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

Fantastic analysis. I'm sure you "took things into consideration".

/if we only took on projects based on roi of initial rollout, we'd still be reliant on water wheels and commuting on horses

rocky_howard		2012-03-19 11:29:30 AM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

And they don't have to pay another dime for fuel for the next 25-30 years, dumbass.

cgraves67		2012-03-19 11:31:34 AM

Do they have a fluffer to keep them primed during off-peak hours?

factoryconnection		2012-03-19 11:41:08 AM

The initial investment may be quite large, but the fuel is literally free and meanwhile doesn't even have the drawbacks of wind power (exposed moving parts, hurricanes, affects on downwind environment). There is no future worrying about "so and so is threatening to cut off the supply of sun" (CM Burns excepted) or "BigMoFoCo is cutting off mountaintops and poisoning drinking water for their newest sun venture." Such things are the necessary evils of our current system... the fuel must be extracted and shipped, and the byproducts of combustion then end up in our environment.

I'm a green-weenie, I'll admit, but I just seriously think the protection of drinking water alone is worth the investment in clean energy. Water will be THE critical resource in the future; it is already so hotly contested even in the US, and yet half of our country is saying "Who needs environmental regulation?"

nyseattitude		2012-03-19 11:41:14 AM

chimp_ninja: Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

The state of Arizona recently paid $1B (760M euros) for a coal plant that powers 80,000 homes. (Note that the 100,000 homes cited in the bottom of the article includes a 1/5 contribution from an existing plant.) This cost doesn't include the rail infrastructure that supports the plant and was largely paid for decades ago, or any of the externalities (health care costs, pollution, etc.) associated with burning coal.

So, apparently the choice is:
1) 9,500 euros per home for a plant that burns 60 rail cars of coal per day, and "Unit 4 also has a $2 million silo that will use a carbon-injection system to clean mercury emissions from the plant, but it is not used yet because it is not required."

2) 6,700 euros per home for a solar thermal plant with zero emissions.

Gee, tough choice. Those silly Spaniards sure don't have the down-home country folk sense of us 'Murkans. I mean, they get 16% of their power from wind, and every good patriot knows those things will never work.

America: Trying our best to return to the glory days of 1930.

Oh yeah?! Everyone knows it takes coal to run Solar plants!

Typical of a brainwashed, libtard, fartbongo, troll plant to believe the Main Stream MSM Media propaganda.

thecpt		2012-03-19 11:47:47 AM

kudos to Spain, I like that the article mentioned the cost factor is purely sticker shock... which means the US will never get it. reinvesting in actual infrastructure is something that i guess doesn't get you re-elected or something.

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-03-19 11:48:00 AM

My people call it a "battery bank."

HotIgneous Intruder		2012-03-19 11:50:45 AM

nyseattitude: Typical of a brainwashed, libtard, fartbongo, troll plant to believe the Main Stream MSM Media propaganda.

When it comes to heating, cooling, light, refrigeration, and hot water, technology that half works is much better than technology that doesn't work at all.

/Nobody likes warm beer.

dryknife		2012-03-19 11:53:06 AM

And if the rain in Spain mainly remains on the plains?

Honest Bender		2012-03-19 11:57:30 AM

HotIgneous Intruder: /Nobody likes warm beer.

Don't the English like warm beer? Bunch of fruit cakes if you ask me.

The Why Not Guy		2012-03-19 11:59:11 AM

Add my name to the "Teknowaffle is a retard" list.

SevenizGud		2012-03-19 12:06:35 PM

Solar is clearly better. This is why companies are forming left and right to provide residential and commercial power at a better price, undercutting the oil companies and making their founders billionaires in the process, amirite? This is why companies like BP and Exxon-Mobil have files Ch11, nestcafe?

It's all over for big oil.

Lego_Addict		2012-03-19 12:09:30 PM

The Iberian Peninsula is a leader in renewable energy. Mainly Solar and Wind. Both Spain and Portugal have invested a lot in these two forms of renewable energy and more is on the way. Spain has built some good Solar plants and are exporting their technology.

These countries have no oil of their own, so naturally the move to renewable energy proceeds a lot quicker than it would in the U.S.

It's good to see these socialist states actually do something for their people. No, 14 month pensions and pay cycles were not doing something good for the people.

royone		2012-03-19 12:12:18 PM

FTFA: 2,600 solar mirrors, each 120 square metres (28,500 square feet)

There are roughly 10 square feet in a square meter. Good work. I'm sure all the other figures in the article are equally accurate.

chimp_ninja		2012-03-19 12:14:24 PM

SevenizGud: Solar is clearly better. This is why companies are forming left and right to provide residential and commercial power at a better price, undercutting the oil companies and making their founders billionaires in the process, amirite? This is why companies like BP and Exxon-Mobil have files Ch11, nestcafe?

That's awesome that we have an energy economy that is entirely data-driven, and not at all distorted by the inertia of a paralyzed Congress, laden by thousands of cash-bloated lobbyists. I mean, that's how we solved OPEC's extortion of the US economy-- we immediately analyzed the long-term interests of the country, and got us off of petroleum post haste.

And yes, over a 30-year plan, you can check the numbers above. I know that's harder than just doing your usual trolling song-and-dance, but Spain put this thing up about 30% cheaper than Arizona could do for their coal plant, on a MW-to-MW basis, and that doesn't include the improvements in air quality.

you have pee hands		2012-03-19 12:18:24 PM

lewismarktwo		2012-03-19 12:27:32 PM

It's all solar power. Some was just made a few million years ago, that's all. Might as well cut out the middle man.

theorellior		2012-03-19 12:34:41 PM

lewismarktwo: It's all solar power. Some was just made a few million years ago, that's all.

Geothermal, tidal and nuclear laugh at your shenanigans.

Animatronik		2012-03-19 12:39:11 PM

chimp_ninja: Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

The state of Arizona recently paid $1B (760M euros) for a coal plant that powers 80,000 homes. (Note that the 100,000 homes cited in the bottom of the article includes a 1/5 contribution from an existing plant.) This cost doesn't include the rail infrastructure that supports the plant and was largely paid for decades ago, or any of the externalities (health care costs, pollution, etc.) associated with burning coal.

So, apparently the choice is:
1) 9,500 euros per home for a plant that burns 60 rail cars of coal per day, and "Unit 4 also has a $2 million silo that will use a carbon-injection system to clean mercury emissions from the plant, but it is not used yet because it is not required."

2) 6,700 euros per home for a solar thermal plant with zero emissions.

Gee, tough choice. Those silly Spaniards sure don't have the down-home country folk sense of us 'Murkans. I mean, they get 16% of their power from wind, and every good patriot knows those things will never work.

America: Trying our best to return to the glory days of 1930.

Seems like Arizona would be the perfect choice too, for this type of plant.

Animatronik		2012-03-19 12:43:15 PM

Lego_Addict: The Iberian Peninsula is a leader in renewable energy. Mainly Solar and Wind. Both Spain and Portugal have invested a lot in these two forms of renewable energy and more is on the way. Spain has built some good Solar plants and are exporting their technology.

These countries have no oil of their own, so naturally the move to renewable energy proceeds a lot quicker than it would in the U.S.

It's good to see these socialist states actually do something for their people. No, 14 month pensions and pay cycles were not doing something good for the people.

Seems like Arizona would be the perfect choice too, for this type of plant.

You might want to check on their economic healtg while praisng them. Not so hot.

Teknowaffle		2012-03-19 12:45:28 PM

rocky_howard: Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

And they don't have to pay another dime for fuel for the next 25-30 years, dumbass.

Yeah, well at least they figured out what to do when the sun goes away at night and doesn't tell anyone where it goes.

StanleyPuff		2012-03-19 12:51:57 PM

Very cool idea...using a salt based liquid to keep the steam a-producin'.

Besides the obvious space limitations, are these types of plants only available in areas that have predictable climates? Other renewable resources require very specific weather criteria to be viable as a primary power resource instead of some fancy toy in the towns' backyard. Essentially, I'm wondering if anyone knows how finicky these types of plants are, especially considering that the article is worded to make the reader believe that this system is (or the beginning of) the answer to the problems that typical green energy producers face.

The reason it is hard to get away from coal is that coal only requires a nearby coal mine and a water source. In the continental U.S., this pair of resources is abundant.

OhioKnight		2012-03-19 12:54:39 PM

The key point I'm taking from this is that they've ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED the molten-salt idea energy storage system suggested for intermittent power systems that I first heard suggested back in the 70's.

The system that ACTUALLY MAKES a solar plant USABLE. (yeesh, way to bury/miss the headline)

born_yesterday		2012-03-19 12:57:20 PM

Stupid socialists! Wait till the first eclipse and their society collapses!

GO CLEAN COAL!

soopey		2012-03-19 01:02:00 PM

StanleyPuff: Very cool idea...using a salt based liquid to keep the steam a-producin'.

Besides the obvious space limitations, are these types of plants only available in areas that have predictable climates? Other renewable resources require very specific weather criteria to be viable as a primary power resource instead of some fancy toy in the towns' backyard. Essentially, I'm wondering if anyone knows how finicky these types of plants are, especially considering that the article is worded to make the reader believe that this system is (or the beginning of) the answer to the problems that typical green energy producers face.

The reason it is hard to get away from coal is that coal only requires a nearby coal mine and a water source. In the continental U.S., this pair of resources is abundant.

Yes and no. They do require an area with a favorable weather forecast for number of cloudless days and should be not be a certain distance away from the equator to give a good watt/m density otherwise you have to add more heliostats.

Lego_Addict		2012-03-19 01:03:09 PM

Animatronik: Lego_Addict: The Iberian Peninsula is a leader in renewable energy. Mainly Solar and Wind. Both Spain and Portugal have invested a lot in these two forms of renewable energy and more is on the way. Spain has built some good Solar plants and are exporting their technology.

These countries have no oil of their own, so naturally the move to renewable energy proceeds a lot quicker than it would in the U.S.

It's good to see these socialist states actually do something for their people. No, 14 month pensions and pay cycles were not doing something good for the people.

Seems like Arizona would be the perfect choice too, for this type of plant.

You might want to check on their economic healtg while praisng them. Not so hot.

That's exactly what I meant, they spent so much on providing and funding inadequate and innefficient social services that they are now in financial trouble. It's not entierly their fault but the crazy pensions and vacation subsidies the governments were handing contributed. These are purchases that will help in the long run.

nyseattitude		2012-03-19 01:03:49 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: nyseattitude: Typical of a brainwashed, libtard, fartbongo, troll plant to believe the Main Stream MSM Media propaganda.

When it comes to heating, cooling, light, refrigeration, and hot water, technology that half works is much better than technology that doesn't work at all.

/Nobody likes warm beer.

Mmmmmm Beer!! I was completely joking in my post, I'm all for alternative energy and the science to provide it.

RoxtarRyan		2012-03-19 01:05:10 PM

Teknowaffle: Yeah, well at least they figured out what to do when the sun goes away at night and doesn't tell anyone where it goes.

I smell Lewis Black coming from this post.

/loves me some LB

MindStalker		2012-03-19 01:08:38 PM

ThreadSinger		2012-03-19 01:08:58 PM

RoxtarRyan: Teknowaffle: Yeah, well at least they figured out what to do when the sun goes away at night and doesn't tell anyone where it goes.

I smell Lewis Black coming from this post.

/loves me some LB

Dammit, now I just read that in his voice.

SpectroBoy		2012-03-19 01:20:43 PM

Teknowaffle: 200 million euro to power 30k homes? Christ.

www.ausbcomp.com

Gadzooks!!!

This horseless carriage of yours cost more than the average man earns in a year!

Why it's slower than a horse at a fast walk you fool!

You are wasting your time and money good Sir!

jaggspb		2012-03-19 01:22:42 PM

ThreadSinger: RoxtarRyan: Teknowaffle: Yeah, well at least they figured out what to do when the sun goes away at night and doesn't tell anyone where it goes.

I smell Lewis Black coming from this post.

/loves me some LB

Dammit, now I just read that in his voice.

if it weren't for my horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.

SpectroBoy		2012-03-19 01:24:30 PM

Animatronik: Seems like Arizona would be the perfect choice too, for this type of plant.

Exactly. Lots of sun and plenty of cheap illegal labor to polish the mirrors.

RDixon		2012-03-19 01:37:21 PM

Could be useful for fighting

cdn.screenrant.com

GeneralJim		2012-03-19 01:39:24 PM

This is useful technology for desert areas, but it sure isn't anything like a solution for the energy needs of a nation. It's a way for everyone to feel better, mostly.

The plant produces less than 20 MW. It's all nice to assume that the power from it is going to homes, but, businesses use more power. I worked at the phone company recently, and one of my duties was to maintain the power plant in each office. There are "central offices," also called "wire offices" every couple of miles in a city. Most of the ones I serviced used about a half of a megawatt, 24/7. They have battery systems that will last 18 hours without outside power. After about 15 minutes without power, locomotive-sized generators to supply power are automatically started. The Spanish power plant would run right around 40 of these buildings.

Let's keep it in perspective: This plant would probably power the telephone system for Seville, the nearest city. Maybe. And, it cost an "investment" of $260 M. Which means? Minus government subsidies?

Anyway, the plant is close to pointless. From TFA, the plant runs 6400 hours a year. Difficulty: there are 8760 hours in 365 days. So, the plant is supplying NO power more than a quarter of the time, and probably in multiple day stretches. So, unless the folks are going to be satisfied being in the dark a quarter of the time, plants like this can only be used to reduce the ongoing cost of fuel at other plants -- they cannot replace the other plants.

And, while the plant is a cool toy, let's look at scale. Let's assume that Americans were willing to put up with power only 75% of the time (work with me here). Okay, Over the course of a year, the plant is claimed to supply 128000 MWH. The United States uses 4.114 Billion MWH a year. That means to run on this kind of power ALONE, we would need to have more than 32 MILLION of these plants. According to TFA, this plant takes up 480 acres. At that rate, the U.S. would have to cover over 15 and a half billion acres with mirrors to meet our energy needs. That's a problem. That's a problem, especially since the U.S.A. only covers about 2.2 billion acres TOTAL. That means we would need to cover almost SEVEN TIMES the area of the United States with mirrors to meet our energy needs using this kind of plant, and even THAT would mean we'd be in the dark a quarter of the time. Actually, given the SIZE of this damned thing, there would be SOME electricity all the time, because the sun shines every day SOMEWHERE in the U.S.A. -- and presumably in those six other copies of it.

So, yeah, it's a wonderful thing. On a remote island, it might even be the way to go. For the United States, though, by the time the fossil fuel runs out, we had better have a good nuclear infrastructure. Either that, or a buttload fewer people. Projects like this are mostly good for giving greenies that "feel good" feeling, and let them point out to those meanies (that is, folks who can do arithmetic) that solar power can meet all our needs.

The Why Not Guy		2012-03-19 01:45:43 PM

royone: FTFA: 2,600 solar mirrors, each 120 square metres (28,500 square feet) There are roughly 10 square feet in a square meter. Good work. I'm sure all the other figures in the article are equally accurate.

Multiply your "roughly 10 square feet" per mirror by 2,600 mirrors and you get the 28,500 figure, which is the total square footage, not the amount per mirror.

Good work. I'm sure all your other opinions are equally accurate.

Seriously, are you people even trying anymore?

you have pee hands		2012-03-19 01:49:05 PM

GeneralJim: Okay, Over the course of a year, the plant is claimed to supply 128000 MWH. The United States uses 4.114 Billion MWH a year. That means to run on this kind of power ALONE, we would need to have more than 32 MILLION of these plants

You're off by a factor of 1000 in here somewhere.

4.114 x 10^9 / 1.28 x 10^5 = 32,900.

GeneralJim		2012-03-19 01:59:17 PM

SpectroBoy:

This horseless carriage of yours cost more than the average man earns in a year!

Why it's slower than a horse at a fast walk you fool!

You are wasting your time and money good Sir!

You make a point. Perhaps not the one you intended, but, by making a point you put yourself in the top 10%.

Yes, the "horseless carriage" you picture was just a first, feeble attempt at a machine which would become essential. Yes, it DID cost more than an average year's wages, and yes, it was a pain in the butt, what with tires that blew out every couple dozen miles, and so on. But, it DID get better -- MUCH better.

So, should the government have forced everyone to buy THAT first-generation Crapmobile by making subsidies so that everyone's taxes bought them? Or, was it better to let the rich people play with them until they got efficient enough that the average person could buy a better car for much less money?

We are in about the efficiency range of that Crapmobile now for solar power, wind power, etc. The government is wanking around with the market by paying for a good portion of the cost of these clunky versions. The government left automobiles to private companies selling products to individuals, and the progress in autos was amazing -- partly because not everybody bought the original Crapmoblies.

lewismarktwo		2012-03-19 02:01:21 PM

theorellior: lewismarktwo: It's all solar power. Some was just made a few million years ago, that's all.

Geothermal, tidal and nuclear laugh at your shenanigans.

Even that is solar. Just took a 'little' longer.

dehehn		2012-03-19 02:02:34 PM

GeneralJim: This is useful technology for desert areas, but it sure isn't anything like a solution for the energy needs of a nation. It's a way for everyone to feel better, mostly.

Um, wow, no. This is just one of many forms of solar power generation, a field which is improving every day. No one is suggesting this single type of plant will supply all the world's power. Solar Panels are much more efficient than they were 10 years ago and will be orders of magnitude more efficient and cheaper in another 10 years. There are a lot of labs creating clear flexible panels that can be put on almost any surface from roofs to walls to windows. We could soon have all of our skyscrapers absorbing energy from every window.

There will come a tipping point in the near future where solar power will be cheaper and more powerful than coal and oil. China realizes this, Europe realizes this, the Sauds realize this. Then we have Americans who think the whole thing is just a novelty to make liberals feel better than conservatives. So thank you for contributing to the future where we have to meet our energy needs from foreign solar companies when the oil runs out.

Displayed 50 of 157 comments