Big Solar – those massive megawatt power plants to be built in California’s Mojave Desert – has been seen at best as an add-on to the power grid. Solar, the conventional wisdom goes, might provide "peaking power" when demand spikes during the day but can never replace the so-called baseload power supplied round-the-clock by coal or natural-gas fired power plants. But in a paper to be presented today at the International Solar Energy Society conference in Beijing, scientist David Mills argues that huge solar farms can replace carbon-spewing power plants and produce electricity at competitive prices for the entire nation.
How? By combining solar thermal power plants with energy storage systems to keep the lights on long after the sun has set, according to Mills, chairman and chief scientific officer of Silicon Valley solar company Ausra. Solar thermal plants like the ones being developed by Ausra use rows of mirrors to focus the sun’s rays on tubes of liquid – water in Ausra’s case – to create steam that drives an electricity-generating turbine. The solar farms would store energy in tanks of liquid that would release the heat for nighttime operation or when clouds pass over. Mills and co-author Robert Morgan calculated that a 92-mile by 92-mile
solar farm in the desert southwest could power the entire country. Analyzing electricity demand data from California and Texas, they figured that solar power plants with 16 hours of energy storage capacity could supply 92 percent of those states’ power at about 8 cents a kilowatt hour – roughly the current cost of fossil fuel-generated electricity. Mills and Morgan believe the same would hold true on a national scale. "Zero emissions technology is required to replace most of current generation by mid-century to meet stringent climate goals," they wrote. "What is now required as a climate safety, economic, and security imperative is a rethink of the function and form of electricity grid networks, and the inclusion of high capacity factor solar electricity technology in the design of continental electricity systems."
That would mean replacing the current AC grid with a DC grid to get solar electricity from sunny states to the rest of the country with minimal transmission losses – an undertaking on the scale and cost of the construction of the interstate highway system in the 1950s. And of course the fossil fuel industry isn’t about to march quietly off to the coal-bin of history. But Mills’s "thought experiment" is less a blueprint for a solar nation than an opening shot in a campaign to shift the power paradigm away from the constraints imposed by coal and nuclear technologies. "Baseload is what those older technologies provided, not what we need," Mills told Green Wombat recently. "We need something that follows the natural load."
In other words, the grid is currently constructed to accommodate capital-intensive fossil fuel plants that need to run 24/7 to be most efficient and economical. The natural load, on the other hand, is the demand for electricity created by people’s and the economy’s daily rhythm. That demand naturally peaks when people are up and about and falls at night when they’re asleep. Renewable energy sources, Mills argues, more closely mirror human behavior. Solar electricity production soars when demand does during the day. At night, stored solar energy and other renewable sources like wind, which tends to blow strongest in the evening, can more closely match lower demand as people and machines wind down.
For its part, Ausra is developing solar storage technology that will be commercially available in about 18 months, according to Mills. The company is expected to file a development application for a 175-megawatt solar power plant next week, a spokesperson for the California Energy Commission told Green Wombat. Ausra has been negotiating with PG&E (PCG) and other utilities. (Along with PG&E, California’s two other big utilities, Southern California Edison (EIX) and San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) so far have signed deals to buy nearly 3 gigawatts of solar power.)
"We’re hoping to make announcements at the end of the month for multiple projects," Mills says.
Green Wombat 
How Many Solar Panels to Power the U.S.?
I found this post on Green Wombat very interesting. Apparently theres a new type of solar thermal plants that could supply all of the United States power needs by covering just 92 by 92 mile square. They work by heating tubes of liqu…
Instead of building a new nation wide D.C. power grid. Why not generate hydrogen from sunlight and transport it thru our existing gas pipelines.
If the system is using steam to turn a turbine then why would you have to convert to DC. We use AC in the first place because it transports over long distances better.
The reason we would have to convert to a DC transmission system is because it is much better at transporting large amounts of electricity, long distances, with minimal line loss. You can tell a DC transmission line when you see it because it only has 2 conductors. The downside to a DC system is that you have to convert to DC at the source and then convert to AC again when you arrive. I have never worked around a DC system but it is not nearly simple as it might sound.
The reason we use AC instead of DC because it is easy and cheap to change voltages with AC. You can raise the voltage up after generation, transport it reasonably long distances, and then easily lower again to distribution and household voltages.
The Week in Cleantech (Sep. 16 to Sep. 22) – More Solar Thermal, More Storage, and a Better Grid
On Tuesday, Andrea Quong at Red Herring told us that investors reaped returns on clean energy. A quick snapshot at returns in the European cleantech VC and PE spaces. On Wednesday, Emily Gertz at World Changing gave us the run-down…
Energy Independence begins with Energy efficiency – It’s cheaper to save energy than to make energy.
Updated September 22, 2007
MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY – THE ENERGY EVOLUTION –R22
By Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Today’s energy industry is perhaps the world’s most powerful. Energy is the basis of all this world’s wealth, and for perhaps earth’s entire history, the sun’s energy has fueled all ecological and economic systems. If early humans did not learn to exploit new sources of energy, humankind would still be living in the tropical forests. Without the continual exploitation of new energy sources, there would have been no civilization, no Industrial Revolution and no looming global catastrophe.
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America’s Utilization of Energy Sources must change.
“Energy drives our entire economy.” We must protect it. “Let’s face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy.” The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects, replacement of appliances, motors, HVAC with the use of energy efficient materials-products, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, insulation, retrofits etc. The source of energy must be by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, Ocean-Tidal, Hydrogen-Fuel Cell etc. This includes the utilizing of water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption. (Sales tax on renewable energy products and energy efficiency should be reduced or eliminated)
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair “NET METERING” (the buying of excess generation from the consumer at market price), including the promotion of research and production of “renewable energy technology” with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task. As an inducement to buy hybrid automobiles (sales tax should be reduced or eliminated on American manufactured automobiles).
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors’ commitment to renewable energy – energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) (rainwater harvesting, water conservation) (energy and natural resources conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
I believe what America needs are cool headed government leaders who understand how markets function and can work with consumers, voters and oil industry leaders to develop a viable energy strategy that will help and not hinder as our nation transitions to our new energy reality.
“To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality.”
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
September 3, 2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America’s capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis–the one in 1942–President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
“the way we produce and use energy must fundamentally change.”
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
The Oil Companies should be required to invest a substantial percentage of their profit in renewable energy R&D and implementation. Those who do not will be panelized by the public at large by boy cutting their products.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X’s 5 hrs per day X’s 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 2
4 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence. (Installation should be paid “performance based”).
Installation of renewable energy and its performance should be paid to the installer and manufacturer based on “performance based” (that means they are held accountable for the performance of the product – that includes the automobile industry). This will gain the trust and confidence of the end-user to proceed with such a project; it will also prove to the public that it is a viable avenue of energy conservation.
Installing a renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage. It also decreases our trade deficit.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
The head of the U.S. government’s renewable energy lab said Monday (Feb. 5) that the federal government is doing “embarrassingly few things” to foster renewable energy, leaving leadership to the states at a time of opportunity to change the nation’s energy future. “I see little happening at the federal level. Much more needs to happen.” What’s needed, he said, is a change of our national mind set. Instead of viewing the hurdles that still face renewable sources and setting national energy goals with those hurdles in mind, we should set ambitious national renewable energy goals and set about overcoming the hurdles to meet them. We have an opportunity, an opportunity we can take advantage of or an opportunity we can squander and let go,”
solar energy – the direct conversion of sunlight with solar cells, either into electricity or hydrogen, faces cost hurdles independent of their intrinsic efficiency. Ways must be found to lower production costs and design better conversion and storage systems.
Disenco Energy of the UK has announced it has reached important
milestones leading to full commercialization, such as the completion of
field trials for its home, micro combined heat and power plant (m-CHP).
The company expects to begin a product roll out in the second quarter of
2008.
Operating at over 90 percent efficiency, the m-CHP will be able to
provide 15 kilowatts of thermal energy (about 50,000 Btu’s) for heat and
hot water and generate 3 kilowatts of electricity. The m-CHP uses a
Stirling engine generator and would be a direct replacement for a home’s
boiler.
Running on piped-in natural gas the unit would create some independence
from the power grid, but still remain connected to the gas supply
network.
Whereas heat is supplied only when the generator is running (or
conversely electricity is generated only when heat is needed) a back-up
battery system and heavily insulated hot water storage tank seem
eventual options for more complete energy independence.
FEDERAL BUILDINGS WITH SOLAR ENERGY – Renewable Energy
All government buildings, Federal, State, County, City etc. should be mandated to be energy efficient and must use renewable energy on all new structures and structures that are been remodeled/upgraded.
“The government should serve as an example to its citizens”
A new innovative renewable energy generating technology is in development. The idea behind Promethean Power came from Matthew Orosz, an MIT graduate student who has worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the African nation of Lesotho. Orosz wanted to provide electric power, refrigeration, and hot water to people without electricity. He and some MIT colleagues designed a set of mirrors that focus sunlight onto tubes filled with coolant. The hot coolant turns to pressurized vapor, which turns a turbine to make electricity. The leftover heat can be used to warm a tank of water and to run a refrigerator or an air conditioner, using a gas-absorption process that chills liquid ammonia by first heating it.
IS TECHNOLOGY BEING HELD BACK
New Solar Electric Cells – 80% efficient
Mr. Marks says solar panels made with Lepcon or Lumeloid, the materials he patented, … Most photovoltaic cells are only about 15 percent efficient. …
A major increase in daily petroleum output is deemed essential to meet U.S. and international oil requirements in 2020, and so we should expect recurring oil shortages and price increases. Only by expediting the diminishing our day-to-day consumption of petroleum and implementing of efficiency and renewable energy policy can we hope to reduce our exposure to costly oil-supply disruptions and lower the risk of economic strangulation.
Quick Facts
? Energy is vital to every sector of the U.S. economy. As our economy grows, the demand for energy rises.
? Total energy consumption is projected to increase 35 percent by 2030.
? Energy-efficiency improvements have played a major role in meeting national energy needs since the 1970s, relative to new supply.
ULTRACAPACITORS – But what if you could harness a technology that would enable you to drive 500 miles round-trip on a 5-minute charge?
That’s the promise of U.S. Patent No. 7,033,406 which promises, maybe even threatens, to do away with the internal combustion engine, and the traditional car battery, all in one swoop.
The patent is the property of Austin-based startup called EEStor, which touts “technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries.” In layman’s terms, that means you could use the EEStor technology to drive from Boston to Philly and back without a drop of gasoline.
STEP INTO THE LIGHT – AND OUT TO THE WORLD
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA 91324
Email: renewableenergy2@msn.com
Posted on: 09/19//2007
AC is more efficient that DC in transmitting current over long distances. Westinghouse developed the AC system in 1885 in rebuttal to Edison’s DC system that could not transmit current efficently over long distance. In fact, the current wars began between the two of them with Edison stating that Westinghouse’s system was dangerous to the common user. Westinghouse prevailed with the system that we use today.
For solar farm technology, the DC current will be converted to AC and stepped up to tranmission line voltages for use on the national grid.
Thank you Jay, yes AC transmission is vastly superior to DC, same with RF, I don’t know where the other poster came up with DC being better at capacity handling.
I think that Changing things is just something that should’t be done like changing the AC grid to a DC grid is just messing around with things and the U.S. just has to much money to spend.
Yes guys I am very familiar with the Edison-Tesla debate on DC verses AC power systems. I think maybe you need to Google DC transmission before we get too far in this debate. The reason we use AC power today is because we can convert it easily and not because it is superior at transmission voltages. The problem with DC is it is hard to convert (especially in the 1800’s), would have to use distribution voltages that are just too low to transmit electricity efficiently and household voltages that are too high to be safe. DC is more efficient at moving large amounts of electricity long distances.
Now converting to a “DC System” does not mean that you have to convert your TV to DC or in any way change your house. It only means we would have to build a new transmission system. I say only but this would cost many billions of dollars. It would give us the ability to produce power in say California and sell it in New York.
AMERICANS INSATIABLE THIRST FOR ENERGY MUST BE MODERATED R4.
By YJ Draiman, Energy Development Specialist
As you know, many serious problems are associated with our insatiable thirst for energy. The reason is simple: To gain the energy we must burn the fuels. The combustion, by the way quite inefficient, causes huge gaseous emissions polluting the air and forming an invisible screen responsible for the famous “ green house effect ”, i.e., blocking the dissipation of heat and thus causing the feared warming up of our planet, with deadly consequences for nature and man.
There is only a finite amount of oil in the world. Everybody knows this.
Someday, we’ll run out. It will be gone.
Meanwhile, our insatiable thirst for oil — which we burn — has put enormous sums of money into the hands of fanatics who hate us and everything we stand for, and who use that oil money to fund the terrorists who murder Jews and Americans wherever they can.
We can’t burn oil forever.
And it’s bad strategy to base our economy on cheap oil when we have to buy at least some of it from our enemies.
Optimists tell us that the free market will eventually deal with the problem. Their theory is that as oil gets harder to extract cheaply, the price will go up; then other forms of energy will become economically attractive and we’ll switch over to them.
Here’s why their optimism is nothing short of suicidal.
First, there’s no guarantee that without intense government-funded research and financial incentives now, the new energy sources will be available in quantities large enough to replace oil when it does run out.
In other words, if we wait until it’s an emergency, our economy could easily crash and burn for lack of energy sources sufficient to drive it.
It’s easy to supply energy for an economy that’s only a tenth the size of the world’s economy today. The question is how many people will die in the resulting chaos and famine, before new free-market equilibrium is established?
Second, how stupid do we have to be to wait until we run out of oil before acting to prevent its waste as a fuel? Petroleum is a vital source of plastics. We could use it for that purpose for hundreds of generations — if we didn’t burn any more of it. But if we wait till we’ve burned all the cheap petroleum, it won’t be just fuel that we have to replace.
Third, market forces don’t do anything for our national defense, our national security. We had a clear warning back in the 1970s with the first oil embargo. What if terrorism in the Middle East specifically targets all oil exports, from many countries?
And even if they keep the oil flowing, why are we pumping money into the pockets of militant extremists who want to destroy us? Why are we subsidizing our enemies, when instead we could be subsidizing the research that might set us free from our addiction to oil?
You notice that I haven’t said anything about polluting the environment. Because this is not an environmental issue.
In the long run, it’s an issue of whether we wish to provide for our children the same kind of prosperity that we’ve luxuriated in as a nation since World War II.
It is foolish optimism bordering on criminal neglect that we continue to think that our future will be all right as long as we find new ways to extract oil from proven reserves.
Instead of extracting it, we ought to be preserving it.
Congress ought to be giving greater incentives and then creating mandates that require hybrid vehicles to predominate within the next five years.
Within the next fifteen years, we must move beyond hybrids to means of transportation that don’t burn oil at all.
Within thirty years, we must handle our transportation needs without burning anything at all.
Predicting the exact moment when our dependence on petroleum will destroy us is pointless.
What is certain is this: We will run out of oil that is cheap enough to burn. We don’t know when, but we do know it will happen.
And on that day, our children will curse their forebears who burned this precious resource, and therefore their future, just because they didn’t want the government to interfere with the free market, or some other such nonsense.
The government interferes with the free market constantly. By its very existence, government distorts the market. So let’s turn that distortion to our benefit. Let’s enforce a savings program. But instead of putting money in the bank, let’s put oil there.
Oil in the bank … so our children and grandchildren for a hundred generations can slowly draw it out to build with it instead of burn it.
Oil in the bank … so we’ll be free of the threat of fanatics who seek to murder their enemies — including us — with weapons paid for at our gas pumps.
Do you want to know who funded Osama bin Laden? We did. And we continue to do it every time we fill up.
You don’t have to be an environmental fanatic to demand that we control our greed for oil.
In fact, you have to be dumb and a fool not to insist on it.
But … foresight just isn’t the American way. We always seem to wait until our own house is burning before we notice there’s a wildfire.
Oh, it won’t reach us here, we tell ourselves. We’ll be safe.
Talk about foolish optimism.
Where do you people get this erroneous information about DC power transmission. DC power does NOT transmit well and that is why we have high voltage AC transmission lines. High voltage AC does transmit well with less loss.
Edison wanted to transmit electricity in DC but couldn’t overcome the need for huge conductors so he lost out to Tesla who worked for Westinghouse. Tesla was sure AC would work and he invented the AC motor to work with this kind of power.
I’m not making this up, check your history. I am an electrician and have a degree in electronics.
ok, I did some more research and yes, DC is more efficient at very high voltages and is more suitable under certain limited situations.
Learn something new every day.
helo how do u think this will happen