CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Solar Energy Crescent Dunes

Published on February 14th, 2014 | by Tina Casey

25

Giant Solar Battery Made Of Salt (Almost) Ready To Charge Up

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

February 14th, 2014 by  

It basically runs on salt but nevertheless Crescent Dunes, the new 110 megawatt solar power and energy storage facility near Tonopah, Nevada, is billed as the “most advanced solar plant in the world” on top of laying claim to being the largest facility of its kind in the world. Now that construction is complete, the commissioning phase is under way so this is a good time to catch up and see what all the excitement is about.

We’re particularly interested in this project because we helped finance it and so did you, if you pay federal income tax. We’re not talking Kickstarter or Indiegogo either. In 2011 we taxpayers backed a $737 million Department of Energy loan to SolarReserve, the project developer.

That puts you and me in the same league as other project investors, the global engineering firm ACS Cobra and the financial services giant Santander, which was named “Sustainable Global Bank of the Year” last year. Not bad, right?

Crescent Dunes molten salt solar power plant

Crescent Dunes courtesy of SolarReserve.

The Salt Battery

Now, about that salt battery. Crescent Dunes represents the next generation of solar power plants, in which integrated thermal energy storage in the form of molten salt enables the plant to keep churning out electricity long after dark.

The storage feature enables the plant to smooth out spikes that are characteristic of solar energy, not only day-night cycles but also smaller bumps like weather and cloud cover.

Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for this one, too. Our Energy Department laid the foundation for cost-effective molten salt energy storage for solar power plants back in the 1990’s with two demo plants using a “solar salt” composed of sodium nitrate and potassium (you can read all about it in this 2013 NREL report on molten salt).

The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project

In terms of efficiency, Crescent Dunes represents a step up from the demo plants. More than ten thousand ground-mounted mirrors called heliostats collect solar energy and focus it on a central tower, where molten salt is circulated. The heated salt goes down to power a steam turbine, which generates the electricity.


The molten salt also serves as a “salt battery,” storing energy in the form of heat. When the heliostats are not contributing fresh solar energy, retained heat in the molten salt will continue to produce enough steam to generate electricity for about six hours.

With construction complete, the initial shakedown phase currently under way includes energizing the grid connection and other electrical systems. The heliostats are also undergoing the first stages of calibration for maximum efficiency.

The next steps include a number of stages that are common among conventional power plants, including revving up pathways for water, air, steam, and cooling.

SolarReserve points out, though, that among other differences the dry cooled condenser sported by Crescent Dunes will result in far less water consumption than conventional steam power plants.

The plant is expected to get up to speed later this year and when it does, the utility NV Energy already has dibs on 100 percent of its 500,000 MWh per year, which is enough electricity for 75,000 homes during peak periods.

US Solar Industry Races Ahead While Fossil Fuel Infrastructure Crumbles

Not for nothing, but while we’re on the subject of record-breaking solar power plants supported by us taxpayers, just yesterday the Energy Department held a dedication ceremony for another showpiece for US solar tech leadership, the Ivanpah concentrating solar power plant in California.

Facilities like Crescent Dunes and Ivanpah are not impact free, of course, especially when it comes to the construction supply chain.

However, there is no disputing the fact that once they are up and running, solar facilities do not require the kind of destructive energy harvesting operations required of fossil fuel power plants, and they do not produce the emissions that result from burning fossil fuels.

A recent series of events involving the fossil fuel infrastructure also underscores another indisputable fact, which is that infrastructure crumbles.

There are always going to be infrastructure episodes even under a best case scenario, where ample public and private resources are dedicated to efficient monitoring, troubleshooting, maintainence, and repair.

There is increasing evidence, though, that the US fossil fuel infrastructure has not been attended to, and it’s not getting any younger. Examples from the past few weeks include the Elk River coal washing chemical spill, the Dan River coal ash spill, the Kanawha River coal slurry spill, and a huge gas explosion in a Louisiana-to-New-York gas line that  put an entire rural Kentucky county in a state of emergency (fortunately with no lives lost — imagine if that had happened in a more populated area…).

Speaking of gas, hop on over to the Journal of Science and take a look at some research on what’s been leaking out from our aging natural gas infrastructure (h/t: grist.org).

As for oil pipelines, cleanup is still continuing with no end in sight from the 2010 Kalamazoo River oil spill (the largest ever inland oil spill in the US), and last we heard oil is still being found in a 12-acre cove after last year’s Lake Conway oil spill.

And don’t even get us started on fossil fuel disasters related to rail transport.

The point is, when you take infrastructure risks into account, it’s all the more clear that the US cannot sustain a fossil fuel economy for much longer.

Follow me on Twitter and Google+.

Keep up with all the latest solar news from CleanTechnica: subscribe to our Solar Energy newsletter.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , ,


About the Author

Tina Casey specializes in military and corporate sustainability, advanced technology, emerging materials, biofuels, and water and wastewater issues. Tina’s articles are reposted frequently on Reuters, Scientific American, and many other sites. Views expressed are her own. Follow her on Twitter @TinaMCasey and Google+.



  • C2shiningC

    I believe they are actually using ammonium nitrate for energy storage because it has a lower melting point (337F) than sodium nitrate (586.4F) or potassium nitrate(633.2F). All three salts are components to make powerful explosives and are serious water contaminants (1ppm considered dangerous to infants).
    The manufacture of all three salts begins with the creation of anhydrous ammonia from methane gas, a fossil fuel. They are highly corrosive, have an extremely low
    viscosity that requires high temperature, corrosion resistant piping (SS) with
    welded joints. The lower melting point of ammonium nitrate means they
    don’t have to keep the pipes as hot to prevent the molten salt from solidifying
    in the pipes at night.
    Safety has to be another concern. One of the worst disasters in US history
    was caused by the explosion of a shipload of ammonium nitrate (Texas
    City). In a molten state it is even more dangerous.

    • Ronald Brakels

      I’m pretty sure no one would be using ammonium nitrate for thermal storage. It’s a bit too blow uppy for that. Instead a mixture of sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, and calcium nitrate are generally used, all of which are non-flammable and non-blow uppy. While precautions do need to be taken with solar salt, in my country we wouldn’t consider it to be very dangerous as we are completely insane and wedge ourselves between a tank of explosive liquid hydrocarbon and a block of highly machined metal that operates off a continuous series of explosions and zoom around at high speeds. We keep huge tanks of explosive liquid at distribution centers throughout our cities and big machines tow huge tanks of it through our streets to these distribution centers. Personally I think there is something wrong inside our heads.

      • Bob_Wallace

        Do you also do what we do and run pipes full of highly flammable gases underneath your cities and into your building?

        • Ronald Brakels

          Sometimes, yes, but most of the time if we want explosive gases to flow into our homes we need someone to come around with a truck (running off explosive liquid) who will bolt tanks of explosive gas to our houses.

          • Wayne Williamson

            Thanks guys, been a while since I laughed so hard;-)

      • C2shiningC

        I’ve always been a fan of solar ponds which can produce electricity without interruption year round. A small solar pond (1.5 km^2) in Shiraz produced 6.2mw with an efficiency of 16.08% over a three year period. Type of salt is immaterial. Cheaper the better.

        35,200 people were killed last year speeding around sandwiched between tanks of explosives and the highly machined metal exploder chambers. You’re right about something being wrong when people “Choke on a gnat but swallow a camel”.

    • TCFlood

      I agree with Ronald Brakels, ammonium nitrate would never be used since it is an explosive.

      This article appears to confuse molten salt electrical batteries which use molten salts plus molten alkali metals (“sodium nitrate and potassium” mentioned in the article) with molten salt thermal storage which uses only salts which Ronald again correctly identifies as sodium, potassium and calcium nitrates – no liquid metal component would be used.

      • TCFlood

        I just read the NREL Molten Salt link given and it its indeed thermal storage not electric battery storage. Another example of sloppy reporting WITH NO CORRECTION.

  • dynamo.joe

    I don’t know why someone doesn’t just bump up the thermal reservoir size and say “hey look, 24/7 solar power”.

    It would defuse so many arguments about dispatchability, etc.

    • Bob_Wallace

      We don’t need 24/7. Thermal solar’s niche is pre- and post-PV solar. That’s where they can make money.

      Take a look at how (cheaper) PV eats away the middle of the day, leaving early and late peaks. Thermal solar with storage is likely to be cheaper than stored wind/solar.

      The other place thermal solar can win is by adding gas burning ability so that they can generate on cloudy days when PV is going to be low.

      • A Real Libertarian

        The point isn’t efficiency.

        The point is shutting up the naysayers.

    • Ronald Brakels

      If they draw less heat it will run 24/7 so feel free to say, “Hey look, 24/7 solar power!”

  • Doug Cutler

    Here in Canada in the province of Quebec in June of 2013 we had the most tragic and entirely avoidable oil train derailment and explosion in the town of Lac-Megantic. 47 lives were lost to the blast and fires and half the town center destroyed when the brakes failed on the train parked outside of town during the lone attending engineer’s break. Back-up supervision could have easily prevented the disaster but train company CEO explained just days later it wasn’t cost effective.

    Now the company is in bankruptcy and a long legal shell game of which mother corporation bares responsibility is underway. Meanwhile, who picks up the multimillion dollar clean-up tab? You guessed it, the Canadian Federal Government thus Joe Taxpayer. CAN Feds are in for 50% with total costs at $400Mil and rising. Once again profits are privatized and loses socialized. The Government pretty well has to pitch in but the move represents one more defacto subsidy/non-accounted cost of fossil fuels.

    • Ronald Brakels

      Heads I win, tails you lose.

      • Surf

        This plant was originally designed to generate 50mW 24 hrs a day. However the utility requested a larger turbine (110mw) so that the plant can handle the high load from sunrise to about midnight. Presumably they have other plants that can handle the late night loads.

        However if the utility changes its mind in the future they can throttle down the turbine to 50mW output and switch to 24hr operation.

        • A Real Libertarian

          That’s MW.

          mW is Milli-watts.

      • Gwennedd

        Huh? What was that comment supposed to mean?

        • Ronald Brakels

          If I run a dangerous fossil fuel transportation and nothing goes wrong then I make money and I win. If there is an accident and I don’t have to pay for the cleanup then you, as in the taxpayer, lose by having to shoulder the cost.

          • sam

            The liberal will fix the RET.

          • Ronald Brakels

            I’ve been rather liberal in my life, dearie, but it never seems to fix anything.

          • Rick Kargaard

            I believe the user of the fuel has to bear some responsibility. Those tanks bolted to your house are not there without your approval. Nor does the fuel industry force you to run around in your dangerous sandwich.

  • Matt

    One of the things that make you go hummmm. We have coal ash spills now, what happens when the coal profit start really dropping. Better get them to fix the issue now, or we need another super fund for cola ash clean up this time.

  • jburt56

    Next up thermoPV integration. . .

Back to Top ↑