First Hyrbid Solar Thermal Power Plant In Florida!!

[Silhouette]

Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Zero costs? Do explain.

 

[asterism]

I don't understand why you won't just post the financial data to prove you are correct. Why is that?

Yes, you do understand because it was explained to you. It is the FIRST HYBRID PLANT IN THE WORLD according to the article title and was only installed a year ago So, the numbers will take time to come in.

Suffice to say it's an excellent roll of the dice that if it's easier and vastly cheaper to install and permit and mitigate environmentally, with free energy once its installed, the numbers are going to be much sweeter than pure coal or natural gas plants or the complete net loss that nuclear is.

I tell you, there isn't even a number high enough to calculate what between Chernobyl & Fukushima, what the total cost to the world environmental systems, fisheries and oceans will be.

So at this point you have nothing but faith and guesses. That's all you had to say instead of trying to make a financial argument without any financial data.

 

[Spiderman]

Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Zero costs? Do explain.

Where did I say zero cost?

And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.

Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?

 

[Silhouette]

Why settle for burning less fuel when we could burn ZERO fossil fuels with molten salt reactors that will work when the sun is not shining and the wind is not blowing.

Zero costs? Do explain.

Where did I say zero cost?

And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.

Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?

So the system is foolproof then? Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.

Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please. Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers. Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..

 

[Silhouette]

Mirrors that reflect and concentrate the sun's rays on an oil-filled tube that heat exchanges with water to boil it to run turbines don't come with $billions of guaranteed environmental catasrophes. You just have to clean and replace them occasionally to boil water just like is all nuclear power does...but at a tiny thumbnail fraction of the total costs..

I'm still betting on the solar thermal horse. That nuclear pony is so lame that it can't even limp out of the chute.

 

[Spiderman]

Zero costs? Do explain.

Where did I say zero cost?

And the fuel would be free since we already have it in storage.

Tell me which do you think would cost more a small reactor that can power 22000 homes 24 hours a day 365 days a year for 20 years or more that is buried underground in a small footprint or the development of thousands of acres of open land to put up monstrous and ugly solar arrays that only provide power during the day?

So the system is foolproof then? Because any leak of radioactive waste results in a minimum of $billions of dollars of environmental damage and cleanup; which the latter is impossible of course for 240,000 years.

Do explain how there is zero % chance of failure of your "free energy" please. Only a zero% chance of failure is acceptable in nuclear water boilers. Anything above zero means the project cannot go forward [see Chernobyl and Fukushima for details]..

Why don't you take a minute ti learn about molten salt reactors as they have as much in common with Chernobyl and Fukishima as the Wrights biplane does with an F22.

And I never said energy was free. That's your line not mine.

If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools. It's all part of the design.

And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.

 

[Silhouette]

And I never said energy was free. That's your line not mine.

If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools. It's all part of the design.

And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.

So, when the molten salt reactor fails and "the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools", I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the "liquid medium" and

2. Where is the reservior?

3. Is it completely isolated from any environmental vector that might pollute say, groundwater or air or soils for the 240,000 years it takes for plutonium [if that's part of the "liquid medium"] to lose its deadly radioactivity?

Or would it just be a more sensible and morally-responsible idea given the gravity of radioactive plutonium, to just boil water with mirrors with a simple carbon backup for cloudy days and at nightime?

 

[Spiderman]

And I never said energy was free. That's your line not mine.

If a molten salt reactor fails the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools. It's all part of the design.

And byw nothing man made has a 0% chance of failure.

So, when the molten salt reactor fails and "the liquid medium flows into a reservoir and cools", I have a couple of questions:

1. What is the "liquid medium" and

2. Where is the reservior?

3. Is it completely isolated from any environmental vector that might pollute say, groundwater or air or soils for the 240,000 years it takes for plutonium [if that's part of the "liquid medium"] to lose its deadly radioactivity?

I've given links that explain how they work if you haven't bothered to read them that's your problem.

 

[Silhouette]

OK, from your links:

First, the WAMSR takes the "spent" fuel rods (which, again, are actually far from spent), strip out the unused uranium, and dissolve it in molten salt...

...The molten salt reactor concept has actually been around since at least the 1950s, which the MIT crew admits.

What's new is the idea of using nuclear "waste" to power the plant.

The process, they say, reduces the original waste volume by up to 98 percent.

And the reactor reduces most of the waste's radioactive lifetime to hundreds of years, thereby decreasing the need for permanent repositories such as Yucca Mountain.

The entire reactor would be far more compact, too.

In an email, Russ Wilcox, the CEO of the firm founded to develop the technology, said they are designing a reactor to be modular and rail-shippable, with a fast construction time.

Read more: Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor - Business Insider

Could you define in detail the part in bold above?

 

[Silhouette]

Spiderman? Please define the bit in bold in the last post. Thanks.

 

[thereisnospoon]

An epic project, the 75 megawatt facility is spread over 500 acres of FPL-owned land, and powers 11,000 Florida homes. It has also created over 1,000 jobs and, according to the plant’s own press release, will reduce fossil fuel consumption by approximately 41 billion cubic feet of natural gas and more than 600,000 barrels of oil. This will cut more than 2.75 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions and save FPL customers approximately $178 million in fuel costs over the facility’s estimated 30-year lifetime.

The Martin Energy Center is the world’s first plant to combine solar energy with natural gas. Other plants often use dual energy sources, but this is normally done by burning oil at times of low sunlight.


Read more: Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building... Florida Launches the World's First Hybrid Solar Energy Plant | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green Building

You know, I've been blogging about this for years and they FINALLY DID IT!! [I'm so excited that I misspelled "Hybrid" in the title!!]

Whoot Whoot! There may be hope after all. The stupid..the stupid is wearing off...our nation maybe, just maybe, has a fighting chance.

It is precisely the perfect combination to ease out of our manic addiction to fossil fuels.

Well done gentlemen...well done...

Now get to work on about 1,000 more of those and we'll be back in the saddle again. Just do me a favor though, name just one of them the "Silhouette" power plant!...lol.. Reallly, gawd, it took like 5 years of blogging and exposing this technology for a power company to finally say, "hey, we'd like to charge the same amount to our customers but only have to pay for carbon for 30 days out of each year."

Duh! DO THE MATH $$$$ These guys are going to cleeeeeaaaan up at the bank.

For those who won't visit the link, the plant I've been urging for at least 5 years is one of parabolic mirrors that track the sun and focus it on a central elevated tube of thermal oil that gets up to 300 degrees celsius. That's way way hotter than boiling water. Then they use heat exchangers to boil water that runs turbines just like at every other conventional power plant. They don't have the salt tanks for night storage, but because for financial reasons the petroleum industry needs to be slowly weaned, they've opted to run the turbines at night with natural gas. The option to store heat in molten salt tanks still exists though and to run lower heat refrigerant boilers at night.

But this is an excellent start.





...

Maybe.....
I see a few issues.
One, construction costs. Solar panels are very expensive.
Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe.....
I see a few issues.
One, construction costs. Solar panels are very expensive.
Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.

They aren't solar panels. They're simple, concave reflective mirrors. Sheet metal with a shine; that's it. Because of their shape they focus the sun's rays to a beam, essentially, that is hot enough to bring the oil in the tube they're aimed at to 300 degrees celsius. That is shunted over to heat exchangers that boil water that run turbines.

They work nothing at all like photovoltaic solar panels. Apples and oranges. They move the big work horses of the energy industry: steam turbines.

 

[thereisnospoon]

So FPL spent $476 M to save $178 M over 30 years.

My ass. Do you know what it means to not burn carbon and sell free energy from the sun for most of the year? It adds up to more than that pal. They'll probably have that plant paid off in five years. Imagine selling donuts and having to pay the overhead to truck in flour, sugar, salt, confections etc., energy for the ovens, the deep fryer, the lights in the display case and selling donuts to make a living. Then one day someone comes in and designs a system for you that costs maybe $10,000 [in relative terms to the outlay for the solar thermal plant] that will save you having to buy all those things in overhead to provide your customers with donuts. That's what this plant is. You sell your donuts at the same price but after that new machine is paid off in a couple of years, five maybe tops, you are selling your wares at an ungodly profit margin.

That's what's happened in Florida. They got a machine that provides free boiling water: which is the same as free energy. It's an embarassingly simple technology long known of but suppressed because boiling water with deadly radiation or polluting carbon was a much more tricky endeavor...and therefore..easier to monopolize..

Your link states the saving in 2009 Dollars would be $178 million over the 30 year life expectancy of the plant.....$5.93 million per year. Now, that may seem like a lot of money, but over 30 years with inflation and the ever fluctuating costs of fuel, maintenance, parts, labor, wages, etc.....Well a plant such as this ends up costing far more than it should. Rate payers and stock holders will wind up footing the bill.
This link states the plant cost $476 million...Solar Energy Plants Under 2009 Construction in Florida - Yahoo Voices - voices.yahoo.com
BTW, who said carbon is pollution?
Carbon WHAT?

 

[thereisnospoon]

And it only serves 11,000 homes.

That is nothing in the grand scheme of things.

You mean the EXISTING carbon plant only serves 11,000 homes. The solar thermal reflectors attached to that carbon plant were set up as an augment to the existing service. Your point is a non sequitor.

No...The story you provided stated that plant provides enough electricity fore 11,000 homes.

 

[thereisnospoon]

And the first major hurricane here will wipe those solar panels out in one fell swoop.

Already sabotage is "suggested"..lol..

Hey, guess what? Those "panels" aren't panels. They aren't even a thumbnail as expensive to mass produce as solar photovoltaics. They are simply mirrors. Just parabolic mirrors. Formed steel. No circuitry at all except their sun trackers, which are also relative easy to construct.

And your solution when that hurricane wipes out the carbon generator sitting right next to this system? The nuclear power plant? Should we scrap those too? [we absolutely should for nuclear]. Silly. If I had to pick a power plant to revamp after a hurricane or increasingly common freak tornado swarms, it would be a solar thermal plant, hands down. Cheapest by far.

Instead of stewing in sour grapes and obviously schilling for the petroleum industry, why not just invest in a cash cow that solar thermal hybrid plants are and switch over to creating biodiesels. Guess what? Creating biodiesels are much less expensive than mining petroleum and the energy you use to create them can be gotten by...*drum roll*.... solar thermal heaters! Right in the Midwest you can set up a biodiesel plant. Right where the fuels to mix with petrol are made. Train or truck those down to your Texas refinery, sit back and watch the cash flow in.

You aren't going to roll the clock back on the good old boon days of big tuna boat passenger cars and unending military presence in the Middle East.

And, recent earthquakes in the Texas town being fracked, right near the well site are alarming. Particularly because a lateral shear earthquake can shatter a well casing allowing corrosive solvents and deadly chemicals to enter the last reserves of fresh water this nation has underground to use for agriculture. We are overdue for "The Big One" in the New Madrid fault running down the Mississippi River roughly. Because of the nature of the strata in the Midwest, the earthquakes there are felt and experienced at a much wider radius than like they get in California. They are felt for hundreds, sometimes many hundred of miles. That's within fracking areas.

Just stop. Stop it. The bottom line is your bottom line anyway guys. Just figure out new ways to corner the market, lobby Congress [you know the drill] to get your monopolies and sleep at night knowing your whores and cocaine parties are at least paid for by doing something good for the world while you're ripping the chumps blind at the pumps. Fair enough?

Ya know what/ You were fine when you were extolling the virtue of this facility.
I se now that you are one of these leftard "all fossil fuel is evil" radicals.
You just lost whatever credibility you may have had.
Look, genius. Solar energy production is a good idea in its infancy. But for now and the foreseeable future the cost of these plants is prohibitive to build and maintain them. Plus, these plants are not suitable in areas where there are many days with cloud cover. Areas such as the Pacific Northwest. The Upper Midwest, The Mid Atlantic and New England States.

 

[asterism]

Maybe.....
I see a few issues.
One, construction costs. Solar panels are very expensive.
Two, land costs. This type of plant requires lots of real estate. In areas where land values are high, a plant of this type is not practical due to the expense of purchasing land.
Three. This type of plant could not be built in a suburban or urban area. Lack of available space.
Four..Limited output per the cost to build/operate. A plant of this size that can power just 11,000 homes makes the plant cost prohibitive.
Five, even with the hybrid design, the primary source of energy is the sun. Therefore a plant such as this can be built in areas only where sunshine is abundant.
You are correct in your observation that a plant of this type is a "start".
Petroleum is the base for the world's economies.

They aren't solar panels. They're simple, concave reflective mirrors. Sheet metal with a shine; that's it. Because of their shape they focus the sun's rays to a beam, essentially, that is hot enough to bring the oil in the tube they're aimed at to 300 degrees celsius. That is shunted over to heat exchangers that boil water that run turbines.

They work nothing at all like photovoltaic solar panels. Apples and oranges. They move the big work horses of the energy industry: steam turbines.

So when you say simple, does that mean cheaper than photovoltaic cells?

Mirrors:

"Typically what we're seeing is $2.50 to $4 a watt (for) capital cost," Weihl said. "So a 250 megawatt installation would be $600 million to a $1 billion. It's a lot of money."

link

Photovoltaic:

The cost of installing photovoltaic solar arrays has dropped to $3 per watt of electricity they produce - about the same as coal-powered plants cost to build - creating a watershed moment in the development of clean energy, experts say.

link

It doesn't appear to be any cheaper, but I could be wrong.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????

Less dependence on the middle east
A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.

 

[HenryBHough]

Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????

Less dependence on the middle east
A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.

Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Can you imagine how much energy this nation would save solar panels were required on every home????

Less dependence on the middle east
A energy source that is safe, reliable and smart.

Ah, but to mandate that the Supreme Court would have to rule that they're a tax.

If it would end our dependence on enemy nations. Why not?

 

[HenryBHough]

OK, you never DID meet a tax you didn't like.