Comments on: Salt-Based Solar Thermal Power Plant Takes Shape In Nevada

By: Clyde

Clyde — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 13:13:00 +0000

the second word in the article, notorious, is biased. also, the camp arguing against switching fuels from limited resources (known to cause health and environmental damage) to renewable resources are biased, mouth-breathing sell outs. every argument made opposed to switching is garbage:

– some eagles get killed: that’s a wash because animals get killed when use ff
– ff is cheaper: is it? are energy wars factored into the price of a barrel of oil? health care costs?

– windmills are ugly and noisy: oh, right, and not being able to see more than 2 miles across a major city because of the yellow smog is a lot more pretty

the bottom line is that even if the 3 arguments above and any infinite number of other ones actually are true (i concede i can’t really argue someone’s opinion about how wind mills look), there is one truth that cannot be argued and requires finding alternative fuels: fossil fuels will run out and on the way they’ll only get more expensive.

By: Bill_Woods

Bill_Woods — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:33:00 +0000

DOE says 504 GW-h/yr. https://lpo.energy.gov/?projects=solarreserve-llc-crescent-dunes
NREL says 485 GW-h/yr. http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=60

To convert to average power, divide by 24*365.25 hours/year.

The Palen project is quite a bit larger: 500 MW(peak); 1430 GW-h/yr =163 MW(average). http://www.nrel.gov/csp/solarpaces/project_detail.cfm/projectID=53

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 22:18:00 +0000

Where did these numbers come from. I don’t see any mention of GW or MW in the article.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 23:00:00 +0000

With an average coal plant now costing in the one billion range what’s your point? No on going fuel costs, no mercury (and 12 other heavy metals) pollution, no CO2, SO2 what’s not to like?

By: joew

joew — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:51:00 +0000

I wonder how much water is needed to run this facility?

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 18:37:00 +0000

“molten salt, which flows through receiver panels at the top of the tower, consisting of alloy tubes”

I’d assume that the alloy used is not reactive with the salts.

By: Otis11

Otis11 — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 17:20:00 +0000

“which enables it to supply power on an on-demand basis, just like any fossil fuel or nuclear power plant” – Actually it’s definitely better than Nuclear and probably better than most FFs because of it’s response time. Since the medium is already hot enough to make the water super-critical it can be ramped up in a matter of minutes. Coal and Nuclear usually take hours to ramp up, and some as long as 3 days to reach full capacity. NG can hit 60% capacity within 15 minutes, but takes a few hours to get above that because it takes time to build a thermal mass.

“any conventional fossil fuel power plant” Ah, thermal FF plants yes, but most NG plants run turbines as the main source of energy and only use thermal to improve efficiency in times which they are on for extended times (aka not cycling)

Also, the comparison with China is flawed – the difference isn’t in the amount of FFs used, it’s in the pollution regulations. Look at LA in the 60s and compare it to today. Restricting emissions solved that problem, not changing fuel sources.

Don’t get me wrong – I support RE and want to see it grow, but imprecision allows FF advocates room to argue and discredit.

Only other comment – the keystone thing is irrelevant to this article. It’s comparable to discussing hybrids in an article about fracking… While everything said is true, it makes the author (and article) appear bias.

Just my two cents.

By: Bill_Woods

Bill_Woods — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:28:00 +0000

As long as you’re responding, how much is this project costing? Somewhere north of $900 million, obviously, but I’ve never seen an official figure.

By: Bill_Woods

Bill_Woods — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 16:22:00 +0000

About 500 GW-h (=57 MW-yr) per year.

By: James Wimberley

James Wimberley — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 15:27:00 +0000

The smaller 20mw Gemasolar CSP+ hot salt storage plant in Spain has been running since July 2011. The technology challenge is basically solved, as with PV. It’s now just a question of bringing down the cost.

By: niladri mantena

niladri mantena — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:38:00 +0000

Good report on the Solar Thermal Plant that runs on 10-hour storage component.
Salt is known to be fairly corrosive and you begin to wonder how these guys
managed this problem. We still have to see the long-term effects of molten salt
being circulated through many miles of pipelines. But, Nevada can prove the
point that you do not need massive quantity of water, which they do not have
in the steaming desert, to keep this plant going for at least twenty years.
The Federal subsidy could be a non-issue if the plant becomes operational and successful.Thanks for the excellent coverage of this breakthrough technology.

By: Edward Kerr

Edward Kerr — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 12:44:00 +0000

If there is any controversy with this project it is with the fossil fuel proponents who are notoriously wrong about solar energy. (which, ironically, fossil fuels are). They love to point out solar’s “only when the sun is shining” drawback. With the advent of molten salt storage solving that problem (along with the pressure issue) the coal, NG and nuclear lovers now stand naked. The sooner we dump fossil fuels the better and if we don’t do it soon we are going to be in real trouble, if we aren’t already.
Good report Tina,
Ed

By: rkt9

rkt9 — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 11:56:00 +0000

Great News! I do hope the power plant is notoriously successful, inspiring many more to be built throughout our country! Thank you Mr. Smith for leading this great project!

By: Ivor O'Connor

Ivor O'Connor — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 03:16:00 +0000

Notorious caught my eye causing me to read the article closely. I liked the article but I wish she clearly stated how much power the plant will be producing. I’d also would have like the article to say something about whether the Palen project, http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/palen, would be larger and baseload.

By: Kevin Smith

Kevin Smith — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 02:48:00 +0000

Nice article on a great project, but use of the word “notorious” was a bit dissapointing and unnecessary. “Controversial” would have been more fair.
Kevin Smith, CEO, SolarReserve