Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Here is a good scientific video on resonance http://darkmattersalot.com/2014/02/24/resonance-beings-of-frequency/ On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Do you know about the Earth's natural Schumann Resonance? There is a theory that life evolved so as to become adapted to it and our EM broadcasts are interfering with this adaptation. Harry On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote: I didn't say cell phones were any better or worse, I have not studied them. My data is showing a strong correlation between areas of overlapping doppler microwave radars and excessive hypoxia and chronic algae blooms in waterways. Hypoxia and oxidative stress in brains is also a marker in autism alzheimers, along with mutations. We have immersed ourselves in a full spectrum of radiation. We are the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:02 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Might the mechanical telephone will make a comeback? Yes, after the 2018 Iranian EMP attack.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
X9 Solar Flare On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:02 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comjavascript:; wrote: Might the mechanical telephone will make a comeback? Yes, after the 2018 Iranian EMP attack.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones--you wrote: The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism. All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less. The simple small design is related to safety concerns and providing for competition in the componets and plant construction. This was course the nuclear navy took successfully. The Navy selected 1 reactor design for subs after the initial RD period and built 60 of essentially the same design with huge savings in consturction, competitive pricing and operater training, not to mention increased safety, reliability and design understanding of materials under long term use. Nuclear did not need 4 different designs--the CE, the Westinghouse, the GE and the BW designs--which made operating nuclear plants much more expensive considering training and repair, design, construction etc. associated with the 4 different plants. How bad it was to make a spent fuel wet storage facility above ground level as in the GE design. A simple regulation regarding safty concerns should have nixed this dubious cost effective design feature. We all know what happened at Fukishima with this design. In the commercial arena the USA had the likes of the Washington Public Power Supply (WPPS) board of directors deciding that it was desirable to have 3 different reactor designs at one site. They were sold a bill of goods that big was beautiful and that variety was the spice of life. It did not matter that it took 6 years to build one plant. The second and third plants at the Site reached 30% and 70% completion before it was decided they were too expensive. A good regulation on technical management know-how and design assurance should have been required by regulation. Controling management capability may sound socialistic, but it is warranted in a capitalistic system where cost accounting trumps safety and environmental accounting. The current effort in China to build nuclear plants, considering the lack of control on necessary high integrity, safety and environment management, will lead to disasters like the Fukishima one and other notable Russian and US accidents. Germany and Japan may have gotten the message. Hopefully LENR will help avoid a Chinese and Indian nuclear disaster. Bob - Original Message - From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 9:20 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:BrightSource From: a.ashfield The Andasol 1 plant cost around €300 million (US$380 million) to build … It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures? If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and it is guaranteed. There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/ But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in Spain. The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in the long run than even nuclear … unless we reprocess – like the French do. Impossible in the USA due to politics. Interesting fact which is more than a metaphor for solar – the Golden Gate Bridge was almost not built because the price seemed incredibly high at the time. Nowadays, with the 6 buck toll, it returns the initial investment every 6 months.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
the problem of too many design for reactors have been identified since long. CEA in france organized a coherent park of reactor. Among the cause of Fukushima accident identified too many independent design of reactors in japan, too hard to update, and where experience about one reactor could not be generalized to the others easily. 2014-02-26 18:43 GMT+01:00 Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com: Jones--you wrote: The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here - so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism. All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less. The simple small design is related to safety concerns and providing for competition in the componets and plant construction. This was course the nuclear navy took successfully. The Navy selected 1 reactor design for subs after the initial RD period and built 60 of essentially the same design with huge savings in consturction, competitive pricing and operater training, not to mention increased safety, reliability and design understanding of materials under long term use. Nuclear did not need 4 different designs--the CE, the Westinghouse, the GE and the BW designs--which made operating nuclear plants much more expensive considering training and repair, design, construction etc. associated with the 4 different plants. How bad it was to make a spent fuel wet storage facility above ground level as in the GE design. A simple regulation regarding safty concerns should have nixed this dubious cost effective design feature. We all know what happened at Fukishima with this design. In the commercial arena the USA had the likes of the Washington Public Power Supply (WPPS) board of directors deciding that it was desirable to have 3 different reactor designs at one site. They were sold a bill of goods that big was beautiful and that variety was the spice of life. It did not matter that it took 6 years to build one plant. The second and third plants at the Site reached 30% and 70% completion before it was decided they were too expensive. A good regulation on technical management know-how and design assurance should have been required by regulation. Controling management capability may sound socialistic, but it is warranted in a capitalistic system where cost accounting trumps safety and environmental accounting. The current effort in China to build nuclear plants, considering the lack of control on necessary high integrity, safety and environment management, will lead to disasters like the Fukishima one and other notable Russian and US accidents. Germany and Japan may have gotten the message. Hopefully LENR will help avoid a Chinese and Indian nuclear disaster. Bob - Original Message - *From:* Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, February 24, 2014 9:20 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:BrightSource *From:* a.ashfield The Andasol 1 plant cost around EURO 300 million (US$380 million) to build ... It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures? If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and it is guaranteed. There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/ But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in Spain. The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here - so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in the long run than even
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: Bob Cook The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. * We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism. * All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less. Well, Bob - that would pretty much be the definition of the kind of modern socialism which I am referring to and which France enjoys today. NYT had a good article on this recently. The French are happier and healthier than we are in the USA even without oil and other resources. Isn’t “happiness” what it is all about? Modern socialism is top-down in planning - but often depends entirely on heavily controlled capitalism for the implementation. Best of both worlds if you can keep politicians out of the planning stage. This type of Socialism was already embedded in the policies of FDR which got us out of the Great Depression, and should have accomplished, in Energy, what the Canadian form of Socialism did for them - with their nuclear effort – the CANDU. This is the only sane basic reactor design ever built, due to use of natural U, and it should have implemented here as well. A joint North American effort would improved the end product for both countries due to financial and RD input from the USA in the sixties and seventies – EXCEPT we wanted to enrich uranium for the Cold War. Thus, everyone suffers today to some degree - instead of benefiting from what “could have been” had we jointly built a CanAm “CAMDU” here using the kind of modularity you speak of. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
The socialism (some explain that Gaulism is right-winged socialism, a kind of paternalist state, while pink socialism is maternalism) have some success, especially in place were state is quite efficient and people experienced to regulation (french entrepreneur can survive in very complex regulation). The problem is that it is killing incentive, and blocking innovations, enforcing conformism, preventing entrepreneur to focus on their business, and too much focusing on fiscal questions. US have similar problems of conservatism, innovation blockage, among which LENR, but it is less general. Today the mother-state have succeed in pushing our youth into depression (60% 18-35 thinking they will live worse than their parents, and ready for a revolution), anyway state is not all, and entrepreneur are used to run 100m race with concrete shoes. The day we remove just one of that shoe (many french succeed today in silicon valley), they will be top athlete. 2014-02-26 20:12 GMT+01:00 Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net: From: Bob Cook The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here - so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. * We did not need Socialism and we had a national policy for nuclear in the Price Anderson Act which was only partial Socialism. * All we needed were good regulations for the reactor design part of nuclear and for the economics of the public utilities that thought Nuclear was the best invention, since sliced bread; regulations that mandated simple, small design that used components that could be made by a dozen vendors and could be assembled in 2 years or less. Well, Bob - that would pretty much be the definition of the kind of modern socialism which I am referring to and which France enjoys today. NYT had a good article on this recently. The French are happier and healthier than we are in the USA even without oil and other resources. Isn't happiness what it is all about? Modern socialism is top-down in planning - but often depends entirely on heavily controlled capitalism for the implementation. Best of both worlds if you can keep politicians out of the planning stage. This type of Socialism was already embedded in the policies of FDR which got us out of the Great Depression, and should have accomplished, in Energy, what the Canadian form of Socialism did for them - with their nuclear effort - the CANDU. This is the only sane basic reactor design ever built, due to use of natural U, and it should have implemented here as well. A joint North American effort would improved the end product for both countries due to financial and RD input from the USA in the sixties and seventies - EXCEPT we wanted to enrich uranium for the Cold War. Thus, everyone suffers today to some degree - instead of benefiting from what could have been had we jointly built a CanAm CAMDU here using the kind of modularity you speak of.
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones wrote. If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. But we don't. (not to mention LENR) So why build the Brightsource plant here?
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: a.ashfield Jones wrote. If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. But we don't. (not to mention LENR) So why build the Brightsource plant here? Sorry to inform you that a few places in the USA do indeed pay this rate or higher in the peak hours, even though the average is much lower. Peak hour pricing is coming, and that is when solar works best. Con Ed customers in New York pay a very high rate at peak NOW. They have over 2 million residential who pay about 28 cents per kWhr, twice the national average - but if they are large residential users, say on Long Island- the rate is over 35 cents at peak hours. Needless to say, many houses there have solar voltaic which also works out to about this cost, but at least it will not be going up. We simply cannot base important RD decisions on the fact that coal power is cheap in most places, since that pricing does not reflect the harm done by pollution. MIT labels BrightSource as the World's smartest energy company for an important reason - they are looking well beyond the short horizon where cheap and dirty coal gets a free ride, and customers do not pay the real cost for the damage done. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jones wrote. If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. But we don't. (not to mention LENR) So why build the Brightsource plant here? You are missing the point. We have to build these things here and now if we want to reduce the cost and play a future role in this technology. We cannot let China and other countries do all of RD now and then later expect to be in this business. We cannot expect the first units to compete with established technology such as coal and wind. This is a risk. Solar thermal may not fall in price quickly enough. It may be left behind by PV or wind. Is it worth the risk? Google apparently thought it was for a while, then they changed their minds. Maybe they will change their minds back again. In any case, once the project was underway it made sense to complete it. When steamships were first developed in the 1830s and 40s people proposed using them in the transatlantic trade. The British government and other proposed methods of subsidizing them, for example, to carry mail. This was met with by protests from conservatives, who said -- quite correctly -- that steamships were more expensive than sail, and these subsidies interfered with free-market capitalism. These conservatives were missing the point. Steam had to be subsidized at first because it was new whereas sailing ship had been developed to a high degree of efficiency for hundreds of years, often with government subsidies, especially for warships. Steamships needed a boost up. It took 20 to 40 years (in various different markets), but eventually they became competitive. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: Jed Rothwell Is it worth the risk? Google apparently thought it was for a while, then they changed their minds. Maybe they will change their minds back again. Apparently, they did change their minds back again. PRESS RELEASE: Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Reaches 'First Sync' Milestone NIPTON, Calif.--Sep. 24, 2013--Today it was announced that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System produced its first output of energy when the Unit 1 station was synchronized to the power grid for the first time. Achieving this critical first sync is a major milestone for the project, which is jointly-owned by NRG Energy, Inc., BrightSource Energy, Inc. and Google. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
No, they had already commited their money a couple of years ago for Ivanpah. They decided to not invest anymore in solar thermal. I can slap in a 50 MW peaking solar PV field in a couple months for 1/2 the price and a year and 1/2 faster than a solar thermal plant. Obsolete technology. Period On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: From: Jed Rothwell Is it worth the risk? Google apparently thought it was for a while, then they changed their minds. Maybe they will change their minds back again. Apparently, they did change their minds back again. PRESS RELEASE: Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System Reaches 'First Sync' Milestone NIPTON, Calif.--Sep. 24, 2013--Today it was announced that the Ivanpah Solar Electric Generating System produced its first output of energy when the Unit 1 station was synchronized to the power grid for the first time. Achieving this critical first sync is a major milestone for the project, which is jointly-owned by NRG Energy, Inc., BrightSource Energy, Inc. and Google.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jed wrote.You are missing the point. We have to build these things here and now if we want to reduce the cost and play a future role in this technology. We cannot let China and other countries do all of RD now and then later expect to be in this business. We cannot expect the first units to compete with established technology such as coal and wind. That is false logic.You might as well claim Tokamaks are the answer, and we should do the research here, no matter what the cost, or be left behind.The problem is of course that if the system is fundamentally uneconomic no amount of research is going to fix it.It looks to me that thermal solar is in that category.I don't care who recommends it.Remember, MIT dismissed cold fusion in an unethical way.Group think at its best. Maybe the numbers are available.I haven't seen them.I suspect that Brightsource is a huge boondoggle.Perhaps you can prove me wrong. There are a number of more promising avenues for research. Possibly half a dozen more economical fusion and fission projects are essentially unsupported because of ITER's drain on funds. I think moving pebble bed reactors are a more promising interim solution.China is developing and building those.There is no possibility of a meltdown with them being passively fail safe. Disposal of radwaste is only a problem because of the bureaucracy handling it. I would prefer to see LFTRs developed.I remain optimistic about the E-Cat HT.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: That is false logic. You might as well claim Tokamaks are the answer, and we should do the research here, no matter what the cost, or be left behind. The problem is of course that if the system is fundamentally uneconomic no amount of research is going to fix it. It is not clear whether solar thermal is fundamentally uneconomical, or whether it has not been funded enough to lower the cost. The price per kilowatt hour is close enough to PV or wind that it may be competitive. Also, that depends on the market and the geographic location. The Tokomak is not competitive. That seems pretty clear. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/KrakowskiARIES.pdf For a long time, people said that wind and PV would never become competitive. Some conservatives still say that. They do not take into account the hidden social and economic costs of coal, such as 20,000 dead people a year. They do not take into account the cost of uranium fission reactor accident. You could not take into account this cost before now, because there were not many major accidents with Western European and U.S. reactors. The Fukushima accident has displaced 90,000 people and contaminated somewhere between 4% and 8% of the land in Japan. That is a very high price to pay for electricity. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Flat mirrors, water boilers and steam turbine manufacturing have already evolved, like the wheel On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.netjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','a.ashfi...@verizon.net'); wrote: That is false logic. You might as well claim Tokamaks are the answer, and we should do the research here, no matter what the cost, or be left behind. The problem is of course that if the system is fundamentally uneconomic no amount of research is going to fix it. It is not clear whether solar thermal is fundamentally uneconomical, or whether it has not been funded enough to lower the cost. The price per kilowatt hour is close enough to PV or wind that it may be competitive. Also, that depends on the market and the geographic location. The Tokomak is not competitive. That seems pretty clear. See: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/KrakowskiARIES.pdf For a long time, people said that wind and PV would never become competitive. Some conservatives still say that. They do not take into account the hidden social and economic costs of coal, such as 20,000 dead people a year. They do not take into account the cost of uranium fission reactor accident. You could not take into account this cost before now, because there were not many major accidents with Western European and U.S. reactors. The Fukushima accident has displaced 90,000 people and contaminated somewhere between 4% and 8% of the land in Japan. That is a very high price to pay for electricity. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: ChemE Stewart I can slap in a 50 MW peaking solar PV field in a couple months for 1/2 the price and a year and 1/2 faster than a solar thermal plant. Obsolete technology. Period That is very short sighted. It ignores the inevitable progress and the vast possibilities for synergy in the next generation. In fact, this particular technology is not far from the cutting edge, if a relatively simple upgrade can be implemented. They - which includes Google - are already talking about the next generation of concentrated solar. It is called CPVT. The same heliostats, or the same collector surfaces - which are installed in the Mojave site, or preferably a smaller site - could even be used but with a twist. If you can slap a PV field together in a couple of months then a hybrid PV panel can be slapped onto existing mirrors in a couple of weeks, and RD is already underway to do this. Alternatively, high temperature PV panels are placed over the collector exterior. Both of these require a different kind of PV cell which skims off photon spectra - one can be high pass and the other low pass; and then either reflects most photons or absorbs them. In fact the PV can be added to both mirror and collector of concentrated solar thermal. The hybrid technology is called CPVT and it can employ an existing mirror rendered partly reflective since the modified PV panel is located on the mirror, or as the covering for an existing collector it will permit thermal transfer. In some cases the PV part will be less efficient than normal PV, but a large fraction of photons are reflected and concentrated. Synergy exists, since you get the free heliostat steering (sunk cost) of the existing mirrors. Here is a CPVT version for parabolic troughs which is already in place. http://chromasun.com/images/content/papers/Initial%20field%20performance%20o f%20a%20hybrid%20CPV-T_May2012.pdf Here is an CPVT system for distributed (home) use. Makes perfect sense since very hot water for home heating is essentially free. http://solvarsystems.com/company/index/items/27 Here is a bibliography that focuses more on the non-concentrated version, which is called PVT. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2012/307287/ref/ There is nothing obsolete about concentrated solar thermal as the first step towards a hybrid, especially as it progresses to CPVT. However, it should be perfected for distributed cogen systems first IMO. Unfortunately Google is not very interested in the distributed option.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Flat mirrors, water boilers and steam turbine manufacturing have already evolved, like the wheel Combustion technology (fire) is by far the oldest and best developed technology, but it has made tremendous strides in the last 50 years, and there is no telling how much better it might get. Billions of dollars are invested in combustion technology. Automobile tires and wheels have changed quite a bit in the last 10 years. Eventually, tires that do not need to be inflated will be perfected. That will be a major improvement. Wind turbines have also evolved since they were invented 2000 years ago, but the pace of change and improvement increased exponentially in the last generation. Wind turbine size and power has increased by a factor of 100 in the last 30 years, from 75 kW to over 7,500 kW. The turbines now being constructed would have been unimaginable when the technology began to undergo a renaissance in the 1970s. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wind_turbine_size_increase_1980-2011.png - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
That is not brightsource high pressure 1500 psig, Home Depot mirrors, water boiler and steam turbine technology so no, I am not short sited. You listed a hybrid PV technology to cool cells and re-use low grade heat. Big difference. On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart I can slap in a 50 MW peaking solar PV field in a couple months for 1/2 the price and a year and 1/2 faster than a solar thermal plant. Obsolete technology. Period That is very short sighted. It ignores the inevitable progress and the vast possibilities for synergy in the next generation. In fact, this particular technology is not far from the cutting edge, if a relatively simple upgrade can be implemented. They - which includes Google - are already talking about the next generation of concentrated solar. It is called CPVT. The same heliostats, or the same collector surfaces - which are installed in the Mojave site, or preferably a smaller site - could even be used but with a twist. If you can slap a PV field together in a couple of months then a hybrid PV panel can be slapped onto existing mirrors in a couple of weeks, and RD is already underway to do this. Alternatively, high temperature PV panels are placed over the collector exterior. Both of these require a different kind of PV cell which skims off photon spectra - one can be high pass and the other low pass; and then either reflects most photons or absorbs them. In fact the PV can be added to both mirror and collector of concentrated solar thermal. The hybrid technology is called CPVT and it can employ an existing mirror rendered partly reflective since the modified PV panel is located on the mirror, or as the covering for an existing collector it will permit thermal transfer. In some cases the PV part will be less efficient than normal PV, but a large fraction of photons are reflected and concentrated. Synergy exists, since you get the free heliostat steering (sunk cost) of the existing mirrors. Here is a CPVT version for parabolic troughs which is already in place. http://chromasun.com/images/content/papers/Initial%20field%20performance%20of%20a%20hybrid%20CPV-T_May2012.pdf Here is an CPVT system for distributed (home) use. Makes perfect sense since very hot water for home heating is essentially free. http://solvarsystems.com/company/index/items/27 Here is a bibliography that focuses more on the non-concentrated version, which is called PVT. http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2012/307287/ref/ There is nothing obsolete about concentrated solar thermal as the first step towards a hybrid, especially as it progresses to CPVT. However, it should be perfected for distributed cogen systems first IMO. Unfortunately Google is not very interested in the distributed option.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Even greenie weenies don't like it, in addition to avian roast http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/02/19/largest-solar-thermal-plant-completed-ivanpah On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: That is not brightsource high pressure 1500 psig, Home Depot mirrors, water boiler and steam turbine technology so no, I am not short sited. You listed a hybrid PV technology to cool cells and re-use low grade heat. Big difference. On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.netjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jone...@pacbell.net'); wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart I can slap in a 50 MW peaking solar PV field in a couple months for 1/2 the price and a year and 1/2 faster than a solar thermal plant. Obsolete technology. Period That is very short sighted. It ignores the inevitable progress and the vast possibilities for synergy in the next generation. In fact, this particular technology is not far from the cutting edge, if a relatively simple upgrade can be implemented. They - which includes Google - are already talking about the next generation of concentrated solar. It is called CPVT. The same heliostats, or the same collector surfaces - which are installed in the Mojave site, or preferably a smaller site - could even be used but with a twist. If you can slap a PV field together in a couple of months then a hybrid PV panel can be slapped onto existing mirrors in a couple of weeks, and RD is already underway to do this. Alternatively, high temperature PV panels are placed over the collector exterior. Both of these require a different kind of PV cell which skims off photon spectra - one can be high pass and the other low pass; and then either reflects most photons or absorbs them. In fact the PV can be added to both mirror and collector of concentrated solar thermal. The hybrid technology is called CPVT and it can employ an existing mirror rendered partly reflective since the modified PV panel is located on the mirror, or as the covering for an existing collector it will permit thermal transfer. In some cases the PV part will be less efficient than normal PV, but a large fraction of photons are reflected and concentrated. Synergy exists, since you get the free heliostat steering (sunk cost) of the existing mirrors. Here is a CPVT version for parabolic troughs which is already in place. http://chromasun.com/images/content/papers/Initial%20field%20performance%20of%20a%20hybrid%20CPV-T_May2012.pdf
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: That is not brightsource high pressure 1500 psig, Home Depot mirrors . . . Would you please stop saying Home Depot mirrors. This is technically inaccurate and disrespectful. You know darn well these are high-tech, carefully engineered mirrors, nothing like a retail consumer mirror. Do not make a mockery of this discussion. If you have a valid technical point to make, make it without insulting me, or Google, or the engineers who designed the heliostats. Just because you do not think there is a future to their technology, that does not mean you have right to declare it slapdash, or unsound, or not carefully planned with good craftsmanship. Even if this turns out to be obsolete, like the airships of the 1930s, it is still an engineering triumph -- as the airships were. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Even greenie weenies don't like it, in addition to avian roast And stop using derogatory names like greenie weenie. That is inappropriate to this forum. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
It might make a good bird feeder On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote: That is not brightsource high pressure 1500 psig, Home Depot mirrors . . . Would you please stop saying Home Depot mirrors. This is technically inaccurate and disrespectful. You know darn well these are high-tech, carefully engineered mirrors, nothing like a retail consumer mirror. Do not make a mockery of this discussion. If you have a valid technical point to make, make it without insulting me, or Google, or the engineers who designed the heliostats. Just because you do not think there is a future to their technology, that does not mean you have right to declare it slapdash, or unsound, or not carefully planned with good craftsmanship. Even if this turns out to be obsolete, like the airships of the 1930s, it is still an engineering triumph -- as the airships were. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
My tax money helped pay for it, I can call it what I want. I have designed a solar thermal plant. How any have you designed Jed? On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: It might make a good bird feeder On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jedrothw...@gmail.com'); wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: That is not brightsource high pressure 1500 psig, Home Depot mirrors . . . Would you please stop saying Home Depot mirrors. This is technically inaccurate and disrespectful. You know darn well these are high-tech, carefully engineered mirrors, nothing like a retail consumer mirror. Do not make a mockery of this discussion. If you have a valid technical point to make, make it without insulting me, or Google, or the engineers who designed the heliostats. Just because you do not think there is a future to their technology, that does not mean you have right to declare it slapdash, or unsound, or not carefully planned with good craftsmanship. Even if this turns out to be obsolete, like the airships of the 1930s, it is still an engineering triumph -- as the airships were. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: My tax money helped pay for it, I can call it what I want. I have designed a solar thermal plant. Since you designed one, you damn well should see these are not Home Depot consumer-grade mirrors, and you should have more respect for your colleagues who designed this facility. The people who wrote this document are good at what they do, even if what they are doing turns out to be technological dead end: http://www.google.org/pdfs/google_heliostat_reflector_design.pdf How any have you designed Jed? I have designed a lot of software. Enough that I would never go to a forum like this and claim that Microsoft Word is garbage written by monkeys banging on typewriters. I think Word is obsolete in many ways. It has an advanced case of feature-itis. The graphics integration is dreadful. But any product has problems. I respect the professional capabilities of the people who wrote it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
The technology of hundreds of thousands of flat mirrors pointed across hundreds of acres at a water boiler hundreds of feet in the air cycling at thousands of lbs pressure is obsolete. The MIT PhDs need to go work in a power plant and not just do an energy balance. It is capital intensive, maintenance intensive and will be a great prop for the next Sahara movie sequel. FYI, I started my career for a controls/software Company named measurex (now part of Honeywell) located on Bubb road in Cupertino, CA down the street from Apple. I programmed and installed control systems. We were always calling the software/hardware competitors system they had just sold vaporware because they sold something they had never done before. Some software is buggy and crappy So don't give me your bleeding heart programmers don't make fun of other programmer's software, I respect good technology, good software, good engineering and facts. Adding $1.6B to the national debt for a movie prop seems stupid to me. I will hold off on the greenie weenie comments if it hurts your feelings, I am a bit of one myself On Tuesday, February 25, 2014, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comjavascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cheme...@gmail.com'); wrote: My tax money helped pay for it, I can call it what I want. I have designed a solar thermal plant. Since you designed one, you damn well should see these are not Home Depot consumer-grade mirrors, and you should have more respect for your colleagues who designed this facility. The people who wrote this document are good at what they do, even if what they are doing turns out to be technological dead end: http://www.google.org/pdfs/google_heliostat_reflector_design.pdf How any have you designed Jed? I have designed a lot of software. Enough that I would never go to a forum like this and claim that Microsoft Word is garbage written by monkeys banging on typewriters. I think Word is obsolete in many ways. It has an advanced case of feature-itis. The graphics integration is dreadful. But any product has problems. I respect the professional capabilities of the people who wrote it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Might the mechanical telephone will make a comeback? Probably not since all communication seems to be going wireless these days. But who knows... Pulsion Telephone Company certificate and ad from 1889 http://scripophily.net/imputesecoma.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_can_telephone For a short period of time acoustic telephones were marketed commercially as a niche competitor to the electrical telephone, as they preceded the latter's invention and didn't fall within the scope of its patent protection. When Alexander Graham Bell's telephone patent expired and dozens of new phone companies flooded the marketplace, acoustic telephone manufacturers could not compete commercially and quickly went out of business. Their maximum range was very limited, but hundreds of technical innovations (resulting in about 300 patents) increased their range to approximately a half mile (800 m) or more under ideal conditions.[5] An example of one such company was Lemuel Mellett's 'Pulsion Telephone Supply Company' of Massachusetts, which designed its version in 1888 and deployed it on railroad right-of-ways, purportedly with a range of 3 miles (4.8 km). Harry . On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, we also used to have the Stanley Steamer and vacuum tube technology and they were REPLACED with better technology Better? Are you sure? Vacuum tube computer memory replaced CRT-based memory. Vacuum tubes were then replaced by magnetic core memory, which was replaced by semiconductor memory. But wait, magnetic core may be staging a comeback. It might replace semiconductor RAM again. As I said, the old is often made new again. Charles Spindt of SRI told me that ideas proposed by Ken Shoulders and Don Geppert's on integrated micron-sized vacuum tubes (Vacuum Microelectronics) had been pursued, maybe we would be using vacuum tube RAM today. People are now working on DNA based data storage systems. It does not seem likely to me these will ever be used for RAM memory, but you never know. If they are, all the world's data would fit in 8 mL of fluid costing a fraction of a penny. DNA is old technology. Very old. 3.5 billion years old. The DNA data transfer speed occurring in your body at this moment far exceeds the speed of all computers on earth. Electric cars were made obsolete in 1908 by the introduction of the Model T Ford. Today, gasoline cars are being may obsolete by the introduction of . . . electric cars, hybrid and pure. It may be that solar thermal lost its chance. It may never compete with PV or wind. Then again, maybe it will. I hope that all of them are soon replaced by cold fusion. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Do you know about the Earth's natural Schumann Resonance? There is a theory that life evolved so as to become adapted to it and our EM broadcasts are interfering with this adaptation. Harry On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:48 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I didn't say cell phones were any better or worse, I have not studied them. My data is showing a strong correlation between areas of overlapping doppler microwave radars and excessive hypoxia and chronic algae blooms in waterways. Hypoxia and oxidative stress in brains is also a marker in autism alzheimers, along with mutations. We have immersed ourselves in a full spectrum of radiation. We are the experiment.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones, very interesting story about Rancho Seco. I live in the Sacramento area and I moved here from Sweden in 1988. I could never understand that people voted to close a relatively new power plant, thanks for giving me an explanation. Poor design I guess. At that time in Sweden, The Green: had pressed (and succeeded) to have a closing date for all Swedish nuclear plants. (Parliament decision ) In Sweden the closing date has been moved forward as nobody have found a replacement source. In my opinion the biggest problem with our nuclear power plants is the production of radioactive material, which we have no way to handle. Couldn't LENR take this waste material and fuse it to a more stable isotope? Sounds to me that already (relatively) high activity material should be easier to fuse. I admit poor knowledge of nuclear physics Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The new rankings of the World's smartest companies is out. I was wondering about alternative energy and energy in general. Is there any smart company in energy sector - one which takes into account ecological costs and real taxpayer subsidies to nuclear and coal? Turns out, the largest solar power plant in the World, built by the top ranked energy company in the World (according to MIT) which is named BrightSource - was also in the News as well - as the plant started up on time last week. BrightSource is located in Oakland no less (maybe there is a there, there). This is not photovoltaics, but 3-axis mirrored thermal - and the solar heat can be stored. BrightSource's 370+ megawatt facility is the first and more of this type are on the way. It is claimed that although the initial facility capital cost was pretty high, it is nevertheless competitive with nuclear, based on real quotes and lack of need to refuel every 6 years. Do not fall for the disinformation of the nuclear industry on low cost. None of nuclear would not have been possible without large government loan guarantees - and the one to BrightSource partially makes up for other solar loans gone sour. Many nuclear loans went sour too. BTW - the tax credit and loan guarantee is less than a comparable nuclear plant when one includes the real adjusted cost of fuel enrichment to the taxpayer. That is a massive hidden cost. To be fair, there is controversy of course. Energy is political. The WSJ - which has sadly degenerated into a Murdoch political tool on ecological issues - even to the extent of supporting coal - quotes incorrect cost numbers for this facility (and grossly overblown harm to wildlife)... and the numbers show that this kind of solar power will cost a third of what consumers are now paying in California. Three more facilities are underway, which certainly rankles the fossil fuel industry. Jones BTW from a California perspective, for those who wonder why consumers here do not trust nuclear in general, and will pay more for solar - here is what the Nuclear industry does not want you to consider: the infamous Rancho Seco disaster. This was suppose to be a Gigawatt level - Babcock and Wilcox designed pressurized water reactor plant which achieved initial criticality in 1974. Four years later, a power supply failure led to steam generator dry-out. This could have been a mini TMI, Brown's Ferry or even Fukushima - but fortunately without the perfect storm of Fuku. Few appreciate how close Rancho Seco was to a gigantic catastrophe. The plant operated from 1975 to 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%. That's right over 14 years of operation - the net output was less than 40% of faceplate! Rancho Seco was closed by public referendum in 1989 (despite its operating license being good until 2008). Electric power from that plant cost more than solar, even without the extreme risk of catastrophe - and when everything is considered, there will probably never be another nuclear plant in this state until LENR is available.
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: Lennart Thornros Jones, very interesting story about Rancho Seco. I live in the Sacramento area and I moved here from Sweden in 1988. I could never understand that people voted to close a relatively new power plant, thanks for giving me an explanation. Poor design I guess. Well not so poor as the Soviet design of Chernobyl, but Babcock Wilcox was clearly at fault - and at TMI also. The government secretly bailed them out of some liability or they would have gone under long ago. Both disasters were not far away from Fukushima. They could build good boilers, but not good control mechanisms. Most of the neighbors in Sacto would rather have had the later. They were also involved heavily in asbestos, so it is a miracle they are still in business. In World War II, BW claim that half of the Navy fleet was powered by their boilers, so naturally after the War - the company decided to get into the lucrative nuclear energy business. They hooked up with a sleazy oil company after the two big failures but did go bankrupt anyway - yet they somehow recovered. Were it not for many friend$ in the Pentagon, and sweetheart contracts galore - this company would be as dead as Rancho Seco, and probably should be - except sadly there is a reality to too big to fail.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Ivanpah was obsolete before it started up. $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar-project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ray-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The new rankings of the World's smartest companies is out. I was wondering about alternative energy and energy in general. Is there any smart company in energy sector - one which takes into account ecological costs and real taxpayer subsidies to nuclear and coal? Turns out, the largest solar power plant in the World, built by the top ranked energy company in the World (according to MIT) which is named BrightSource - was also in the News as well - as the plant started up on time last week. BrightSource is located in Oakland no less (maybe there is a there, there). This is not photovoltaics, but 3-axis mirrored thermal - and the solar heat can be stored. BrightSource's 370+ megawatt facility is the first and more of this type are on the way. It is claimed that although the initial facility capital cost was pretty high, it is nevertheless competitive with nuclear, based on real quotes and lack of need to refuel every 6 years. Do not fall for the disinformation of the nuclear industry on low cost. None of nuclear would not have been possible without large government loan guarantees - and the one to BrightSource partially makes up for other solar loans gone sour. Many nuclear loans went sour too. BTW - the tax credit and loan guarantee is less than a comparable nuclear plant when one includes the real adjusted cost of fuel enrichment to the taxpayer. That is a massive hidden cost. To be fair, there is controversy of course. Energy is political. The WSJ - which has sadly degenerated into a Murdoch political tool on ecological issues - even to the extent of supporting coal - quotes incorrect cost numbers for this facility (and grossly overblown harm to wildlife)... and the numbers show that this kind of solar power will cost a third of what consumers are now paying in California. Three more facilities are underway, which certainly rankles the fossil fuel industry. Jones BTW from a California perspective, for those who wonder why consumers here do not trust nuclear in general, and will pay more for solar - here is what the Nuclear industry does not want you to consider: the infamous Rancho Seco disaster. This was suppose to be a Gigawatt level - Babcock and Wilcox designed pressurized water reactor plant which achieved initial criticality in 1974. Four years later, a power supply failure led to steam generator dry-out. This could have been a mini TMI, Brown's Ferry or even Fukushima - but fortunately without the perfect storm of Fuku. Few appreciate how close Rancho Seco was to a gigantic catastrophe. The plant operated from 1975 to 1989 but had a lifetime capacity average of only 39%. That's right over 14 years of operation - the net output was less than 40% of faceplate! Rancho Seco was closed by public referendum in 1989 (despite its operating license being good until 2008). Electric power from that plant cost more than solar, even without the extreme risk of catastrophe - and when everything is considered, there will probably never be another nuclear plant in this state until LENR is available.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Even more interesting as I do understand organizations (much better than nuclear physics). We (the culture) is obsessed with bigger is better. Then we when they proved that big organizations cannot work effectively then we must keep them as they are to big vs. the whole to fail. My pet peeve is that we have to organize ourselves in small groups and solve one problem at a time. I think it is true in regards to RD also and if we divided the tasks at hand in any LENR group we would soon find *THE*solution both practically and theoretically. From what I can read there is enough experience, enough resources, just no plan to get to a fully working and understood LENR. To develop this idea in small groups and with simple step by step progress must be doable. I think there are a few factors, which prevent that from happen. First of all it is difficult to see where to begin. Usually called procrastination. Secondly and mostly, I think, it is a ego / greed problem. It should not be as there is no reward without a real solution. 100% of nothing is less than just a small percentage of one. To me it looks like a few individuals are having some progress and now they are protecting the small winnings they have seen. Understandable but far from rationell. Those lucky to have taken a few steps are carefully trying to find the missing links without saying what they have achieved. Those with no luck so far does not know what is the reason for very slow progress, so they do not contribute to the progress.. My suggestion would be to put the resources together and reward with 'points' until the whole is solved and the cake can be eaten. After listening (most of the time) to Vortex for some time I know the resources are here. It requires no big money to move ahead. To get big money one need to kiss and be politically correct and that guarantee slow progress and right to failure. Best Regards , Lennart Thornros www.StrategicLeadershipSac.com lenn...@thornros.com +1 916 436 1899 6140 Horseshoe Bar Road Suite G, Loomis CA 95650 Productivity is never an accident. It is always the result of a commitment to excellence, intelligent planning, and focused effort. PJM On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Lennart Thornros Jones, very interesting story about Rancho Seco. I live in the Sacramento area and I moved here from Sweden in 1988. I could never understand that people voted to close a relatively new power plant, thanks for giving me an explanation. Poor design I guess. Well not so poor as the Soviet design of Chernobyl, but Babcock Wilcox was clearly at fault - and at TMI also. The government secretly bailed them out of some liability or they would have gone under long ago. Both disasters were not far away from Fukushima. They could build good boilers, but not good control mechanisms. Most of the neighbors in Sacto would rather have had the later. They were also involved heavily in asbestos, so it is a miracle they are still in business. In World War II, BW claim that half of the Navy fleet was powered by their boilers, so naturally after the War - the company decided to get into the lucrative nuclear energy business. They hooked up with a sleazy oil company after the two big failures but did go bankrupt anyway - yet they somehow recovered. Were it not for many friend$ in the Pentagon, and sweetheart contracts galore - this company would be as dead as Rancho Seco, and probably should be - except sadly there is a reality to too big to fail.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Well not so poor as the Soviet design of Chernobyl, but Babcock Wilcox was clearly at fault - and at TMI also. The government secretly bailed them out of some liability or they would have gone under long ago. It is not a bit secret. See the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, which has been in force since 1957. There would be no nuclear power industry without it. The insurance company could never afford to cover a nuclear power plant. The Japanese government also covers liability for nuclear accidents, yet despite this the Fukushima disaster has effectively bankrupted TEPCO the world's largest electric power company, and that not even begun to pay off the damages. There are also load guarantees. The US government just signed off guaranteeing a $6.5 billion loan to Georgia Power to build another nuclear plant, which is now under construction. See: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/breaking-news/a-65b-federal-loan-guarantee-jolts-ga-nuclear-powe/ndWgF/ - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Bah. political hucksterism at its worst. You should see through this negativism for what it is, Stewart. There is no floundering. This facility opens on time, and the next one will too. What is the real objection here? Nonsense, as to economics. The bottom line is favorable for California. Maybe there are too many rainy days in Georgia, or too many fowl Texans, to make a go there - but we already know that good solutions for one spot are not workable everywhere, especially when payola is involved. Who would have guessed the positive impact of solar in Germany, of all places? The dirty-coal-backed anti-solar lobby is suddenly wanting to protect what ? . desert birds? . give me a break. How many birds die flying into the toxic exhaust of a coal or natural gas plant? Answer - many more per megawatt than solar. Evolution at work. The local bird population will learn to avoid the towers. Anyway, this solar facility is in one of the driest deserts in the USA. There is little water in the desert. Birds need water. Get it? The problem is de minimis. Hundreds of birds die crashing into tall building every day, but we do not stop building tall buildings because of lost bird habitat. These criticisms stink like a Faux News hatchet job. Never mind the facts, money speaks the truth to Rupert in a way that only money can. Jones From: ChemE Stewart $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar- project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ra y-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
They are home depot mirrors, high pressure boilers cycling daily, won't last. Distributed PV much more cost effective. First widespread power outage where you can't move the mirrors you melt the tower. You are right, the whole funding was political, not scientific. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Bah... political hucksterism at its worst. You should see through this negativism for what it is, Stewart. There is no floundering. This facility opens on time, and the next one will too. What is the real objection here? Nonsense, as to economics. The bottom line is favorable for California. Maybe there are too many rainy days in Georgia, or too many fowl Texans, to make a go there - but we already know that good solutions for one spot are not workable everywhere, especially when payola is involved. Who would have guessed the positive impact of solar in Germany, of all places? The dirty-coal-backed anti-solar lobby is suddenly wanting to protect what ? ... desert birds? ... give me a break. How many birds die flying into the toxic exhaust of a coal or natural gas plant? Answer - many more per megawatt than solar. Evolution at work. The local bird population will learn to avoid the towers. Anyway, this solar facility is in one of the driest deserts in the USA. There is little water in the desert. Birds need water. Get it? The problem is de minimis. Hundreds of birds die crashing into tall building every day, but we do not stop building tall buildings because of lost bird habitat. These criticisms stink like a Faux News hatchet job. Never mind the facts, money speaks the truth to Rupert in a way that only money can. Jones *From:* ChemE Stewart $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar-project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ray-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They are home depot mirrors . . . Oh come now. You know better than that. Who are you trying to kid? This is the 21st century. Information is at our fingertips. Here, let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brightsource+heliostat+reflector+design+project+overview Was that so hard? Direct link: http://www.google.org/pdfs/google_heliostat_reflector_design.pdf QUOTES: We experimented with hundreds of different reflector designs and sizes to address weight and thermal issues. Our experiments included mylar mirrors, concrete mirrors, foam-backed mirrors, steel supports, plastic frames, and different thicknesses of glass. . . . Our simplest design proved to be the best: A lightweight reflector made entirely out of glass. This design simplifies the assembly process, resolves the thermal expansion mismatch, and provides a high stiffness-to-weight ratio. We also decided that a larger curved mirror (2 m x 3 m) would be more effective than a smaller flat mirror in focusing light on a target. . . . The reflector we designed is constructed out of a glass honeycomb-style matrix sandwiched between an optical quality mirror and a sheet of structural support glass. This reflector has a slight parabolic curve to focus and concentrate reflected sunlight 2-3 times over a 50m distance. The glass used for the construction is only two to three millimeters thick, reducing weight and cost while maintaining reliability. . . . Does that sound like something you can buy at Home Depot? Look at the photos, for goodness sake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Flat mirrors like you buy at home depot and a bunch of steel with a couple stepper motors. That is their technology. Goofy. Hard to aim in the wind, especially when you are 1/4 mile from the tower. Also when they are covered in desert dust. Do the math and see how much water and time it takes to wash 375,000 mirrors monthly and how much fuel that takes in vehicles. Greeny weeny bamboozle. No robots to be seen. Big air coolers on turbine condensers because no water. Goofy. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: They are home depot mirrors . . . Oh come now. You know better than that. Who are you trying to kid? This is the 21st century. Information is at our fingertips. Here, let me Google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=brightsource+heliostat+reflector+design+project+overview Was that so hard? Direct link: http://www.google.org/pdfs/google_heliostat_reflector_design.pdf QUOTES: We experimented with hundreds of different reflector designs and sizes to address weight and thermal issues. Our experiments included mylar mirrors, concrete mirrors, foam-backed mirrors, steel supports, plastic frames, and different thicknesses of glass. . . . Our simplest design proved to be the best: A lightweight reflector made entirely out of glass. This design simplifies the assembly process, resolves the thermal expansion mismatch, and provides a high stiffness-to-weight ratio. We also decided that a larger curved mirror (2 m x 3 m) would be more effective than a smaller flat mirror in focusing light on a target. . . . The reflector we designed is constructed out of a glass honeycomb-style matrix sandwiched between an optical quality mirror and a sheet of structural support glass. This reflector has a slight parabolic curve to focus and concentrate reflected sunlight 2-3 times over a 50m distance. The glass used for the construction is only two to three millimeters thick, reducing weight and cost while maintaining reliability. . . . Does that sound like something you can buy at Home Depot? Look at the photos, for goodness sake. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: First widespread power outage where you can't move the mirrors you melt the tower. Surely you realize that all power plants have emergency power supplies! The destruction of the emergency supplies is what caused the Fukushima disaster. It wasn't as if they did not have any way to operate the plant equipment in the event of an emergency. The Brightsource engineers have constructed many plants, in Spain and elsewhere. They know what they are dealing with. They have years of experience operating these plants. If what you describe is a problem I'm sure they have encountered it, and they know to defocus the mirrors in the event of a major power failure. Do not assume that you are smarter than people who built and operated billions of dollars worth of equipment over many years. Do not assume that you see things they have overlooked. That attitude irks me. Amateur critics often assume they understand potential problems with cold fusion experiments better than McKubre or Storms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Brightsource has done no plant in Spain, get your facts right. No, Ivanpah is their first plant to produce 1 watt of electricity Don't assume you know what you are talking about just because you are talking On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: First widespread power outage where you can't move the mirrors you melt the tower. Surely you realize that all power plants have emergency power supplies! The destruction of the emergency supplies is what caused the Fukushima disaster. It wasn't as if they did not have any way to operate the plant equipment in the event of an emergency. The Brightsource engineers have constructed many plants, in Spain and elsewhere. They know what they are dealing with. They have years of experience operating these plants. If what you describe is a problem I'm sure they have encountered it, and they know to defocus the mirrors in the event of a major power failure. Do not assume that you are smarter than people who built and operated billions of dollars worth of equipment over many years. Do not assume that you see things they have overlooked. That attitude irks me. Amateur critics often assume they understand potential problems with cold fusion experiments better than McKubre or Storms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Flat mirrors like you buy at home depot and a bunch of steel with a couple stepper motors. That is their technology. No, it isn't. Not even slightly. Read the paper. A glass honeycomb-style matrix sandwiched between an optical quality mirror and a sheet of structural support glass is not like anything you can buy at Home Depot. Do the math and see how much water and time it takes to wash 375,000 mirrors monthly and how much fuel that takes in vehicles. They have been operating plants like this in desert areas and washing the glass for 30 years. They have equipment designed to wash it with a minimum amount of water and energy. They have invested hundreds of millions of dollars in that aspect of the technology. They know how much water it takes and they have taken that into account. The mirror washing machinery is electrically power in most installations. It is part of the energy overhead, like the friction in turbine bearings. Overhead is lower in these plants than it is conventional plant such as coal-fired plants. (It takes a great deal of energy to shovel and pulverize the coal, not to mention mining it.) Greeny weeny bamboozle. No robots to be seen. Completely wrong. All the mirror washing is done by robotic equipment. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
You are the amateur, stick to cold fusion On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:54 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Brightsource has done no plant in Spain, get your facts right. No, Ivanpah is their first plant to produce 1 watt of electricity Don't assume you know what you are talking about just because you are talking On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: First widespread power outage where you can't move the mirrors you melt the tower. Surely you realize that all power plants have emergency power supplies! The destruction of the emergency supplies is what caused the Fukushima disaster. It wasn't as if they did not have any way to operate the plant equipment in the event of an emergency. The Brightsource engineers have constructed many plants, in Spain and elsewhere. They know what they are dealing with. They have years of experience operating these plants. If what you describe is a problem I'm sure they have encountered it, and they know to defocus the mirrors in the event of a major power failure. Do not assume that you are smarter than people who built and operated billions of dollars worth of equipment over many years. Do not assume that you see things they have overlooked. That attitude irks me. Amateur critics often assume they understand potential problems with cold fusion experiments better than McKubre or Storms. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Brightsource has done no plant in Spain, get your facts right. Obviously I meant that other people have built plants in Spain. Engineering information will go from one company to the other, along with employees. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Especially for Stewart, Here is a rather hilarious perspective piece about the recently concocted problems of bird-kills at alternative energy sites, especially wind energy, mostly concocted by born-again bird lovers with the WSJ as their new ally. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/05/20/why-coal-and-nuclear-plants-kill-far-mor e-birds-than-wind-power/comment-page-2/ Fossil fuel plants kill about 24,000,000 birds annually. Building windows in cities kill about 97,000,000. OK. Yes, there is one confirmed kill at the new Mojave solar plant, and it was a nasty looking BBQ job deluxe, yikes... the stench is almost as bad as WSJ reporting. ...but, can we really extrapolate that there will be hundreds more in a vast desert with almost no birds to begin with ? Even so, is this a major ecological problem which favors coal instead of solar? Hey, they do not call it the Mojave desert for nothing. BTW, feral cats nab 110,000,000 per annum ... so why don't we see that story on the pro-coal, foxterized WSJ op-ed pieces? Bah... political hucksterism at its worst. You should see through this negativism for what it is, Stewart. There is no floundering. This facility opens on time, and the next one will too. What is the real objection here? Nonsense, as to economics. The bottom line is favorable for California. Maybe there are too many rainy days in Georgia, or too many fowl Texans, to make a go there - but we already know that good solutions for one spot are not workable everywhere, especially when payola is involved. Who would have guessed the positive impact of solar in Germany, of all places? The dirty-coal-backed anti-solar lobby is suddenly wanting to protect what ? ... desert birds? ... give me a break. How many birds die flying into the toxic exhaust of a coal or natural gas plant? Answer - many more per megawatt than solar. Evolution at work. The local bird population will learn to avoid the towers. Anyway, this solar facility is in one of the driest deserts in the USA. There is little water in the desert. Birds need water. Get it? The problem is de minimis. Hundreds of birds die crashing into tall building every day, but we do not stop building tall buildings because of lost bird habitat. These criticisms stink like a Faux News hatchet job. Never mind the facts, money speaks the truth to Rupert in a way that only money can. Jones From: ChemE Stewart $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar- project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ra y-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Not some prototype from some other plant. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Brightsource has done no plant in Spain, get your facts right. Obviously I meant that other people have built plants in Spain. Engineering information will go from one company to the other, along with employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You are the amateur, stick to cold fusion I can read, and I know that you cannot go to Home Depot and buy a 2 meter by 3 meter heliostat made of glass honeycomb-style matrix sandwiched between an optical quality mirror and a sheet of structural support glass. Here, try it: http://www.homedepot.com/s/heliostat?NCNI-5 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I think coal sucks too Just a matter of time until the next nuclear meltdown Distributed PV and Natural gas is our current best option. Solar towers are a waste of taxpayer money. Obsolete mirrorss, boilers and steam turbines On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:01 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Not some prototype from some other plant. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 3:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Brightsource has done no plant in Spain, get your facts right. Obviously I meant that other people have built plants in Spain. Engineering information will go from one company to the other, along with employees. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Technology is the same as a flat home depot mirror covered in dust and blowing in the desert wind. Might as well setup a roadkill restaurant nearby and serve up ravens and condors that get cooked On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You are the amateur, stick to cold fusion I can read, and I know that you cannot go to Home Depot and buy a 2 meter by 3 meter heliostat made of glass honeycomb-style matrix sandwiched between an optical quality mirror and a sheet of structural support glass. Here, try it: http://www.homedepot.com/s/heliostat?NCNI-5 - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Yes. But many others are in operation, as I noted. Apple, Compaq and Dell were not the first companies to build computers. Do you suppose that meant they were incapable of doing it? Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Funny Jed, you can't tell the difference between an animation and real life. Let me show you real life Ivanpah... [image: Argus Contracting at Ivanpah Project] http://www.irexcontracting.com/subsidiary/argus-contracting/project-gallery/missing-title-and-text/ Are you that easy to fool? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Yes. But many others are in operation, as I noted. Apple, Compaq and Dell were not the first companies to build computers. Do you suppose that meant they were incapable of doing it? Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I wrote: There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. Plus this one has been in operation since September 2013: http://ivanpah.nrgenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-electric-generating-system-reaches-first-sync-milestone/ It is now in full operation. The Luz solar thermal plants have been in operation in the Mojave producing 354 MW since 1984. They are still working. The mirrors still reflect, despite 30 years of dirt, wear and tear. The people who ran Luz were involved in this new company, bringing their know-how. It is absurd to say that solar thermal cannot work in harsh desert areas. It is absurd to think that the engineers have not devised cost-effective, modern ways to clean the glass. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
From their environmental filing: Each heliostat would have two mirrors, each 7.2 feet high by 10.5 feet wide, mounted on 6-inch diameter pylons, with a total height of 12 feet. Cables connecting each heliostat that transmit information to the controller, would be strung above ground. The mirrors track the sun throughout the day and reflect sunlight onto the receiver atop the central tower. *Mirrors would be washed every two weeks *on a rotational basis. Washing would utilize water accessed from the groundwater supply wells, following treatment in a water treatment system. Washing would be done using a truck-mounted pressure washer, and use *42.7 acre-feet per year*. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:18 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Funny Jed, you can't tell the difference between an animation and real life. Let me show you real life Ivanpah... [image: Argus Contracting at Ivanpah Project] http://www.irexcontracting.com/subsidiary/argus-contracting/project-gallery/missing-title-and-text/ Are you that easy to fool? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Yes. But many others are in operation, as I noted. Apple, Compaq and Dell were not the first companies to build computers. Do you suppose that meant they were incapable of doing it? Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
From California government site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/ I rest my case. Like I said before, even your futuristic robot upgrades won't save obsolete technology (those were not androids in the picture) On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:23 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: From their environmental filing: Each heliostat would have two mirrors, each 7.2 feet high by 10.5 feet wide, mounted on 6-inch diameter pylons, with a total height of 12 feet. Cables connecting each heliostat that transmit information to the controller, would be strung above ground. The mirrors track the sun throughout the day and reflect sunlight onto the receiver atop the central tower. *Mirrors would be washed every two weeks *on a rotational basis. Washing would utilize water accessed from the groundwater supply wells, following treatment in a water treatment system. Washing would be done using a truck-mounted pressure washer, and use *42.7 acre-feet per year*. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:18 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Funny Jed, you can't tell the difference between an animation and real life. Let me show you real life Ivanpah... [image: Argus Contracting at Ivanpah Project] http://www.irexcontracting.com/subsidiary/argus-contracting/project-gallery/missing-title-and-text/ Are you that easy to fool? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Yes. But many others are in operation, as I noted. Apple, Compaq and Dell were not the first companies to build computers. Do you suppose that meant they were incapable of doing it? Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I like this one. Is that a hydrogen powered robot tractor? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:29 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: From California government site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/ I rest my case. Like I said before, even your futuristic robot upgrades won't save obsolete technology (those were not androids in the picture) On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:23 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: From their environmental filing: Each heliostat would have two mirrors, each 7.2 feet high by 10.5 feet wide, mounted on 6-inch diameter pylons, with a total height of 12 feet. Cables connecting each heliostat that transmit information to the controller, would be strung above ground. The mirrors track the sun throughout the day and reflect sunlight onto the receiver atop the central tower. *Mirrors would be washed every two weeks *on a rotational basis. Washing would utilize water accessed from the groundwater supply wells, following treatment in a water treatment system. Washing would be done using a truck-mounted pressure washer, and use *42.7 acre-feet per year*. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:18 PM, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.comwrote: Funny Jed, you can't tell the difference between an animation and real life. Let me show you real life Ivanpah... [image: Argus Contracting at Ivanpah Project] http://www.irexcontracting.com/subsidiary/argus-contracting/project-gallery/missing-title-and-text/ Are you that easy to fool? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Obviously. Also, this is the first brightsource tower to produce one watt of sustainable power. Yes. But many others are in operation, as I noted. Apple, Compaq and Dell were not the first companies to build computers. Do you suppose that meant they were incapable of doing it? Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Luz was trough technology and Solar thermal oil. Luz went BANKRUPT On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. Plus this one has been in operation since September 2013: http://ivanpah.nrgenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-electric-generating-system-reaches-first-sync-milestone/ It is now in full operation. The Luz solar thermal plants have been in operation in the Mojave producing 354 MW since 1984. They are still working. The mirrors still reflect, despite 30 years of dirt, wear and tear. The people who ran Luz were involved in this new company, bringing their know-how. It is absurd to say that solar thermal cannot work in harsh desert areas. It is absurd to think that the engineers have not devised cost-effective, modern ways to clean the glass. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Way cool video. The robots are solar powered as well. This is not all that futuristic IMO, but a near-term solution to cleaning mirrors - and probably another reason why Google hired Ray Kurzweil. Robots could be on-the-way for all we know, given the reputation of Google. I have to agree with Stewart on one point: that distributed power of any kind would be better, if it were feasible. However, photovoltaics are too expensive in the USA. LENR is about the only option that seems to work best as a distributed system, but will it be delayed? If LENR is delayed -perhaps the next step can be analyzed this way. 1)When wind is available it is preferable and the lowest cost - go with VAWT first even for small installations. 2)There are not many great wind sites, so distributed solar is not a bad choice but photovoltaics are still not a great option due to installation cost. 3)Photovoltaic installation cost exceeds hardware cost in many places. 4)Distributed solar thermal without steam - would be ideal if there was a good converter, and there is - but it isn't available yet. It could probably be self-installed, but that technology is not here. 5)This free piston Stirling looks like the best of all non LENR solutions if it could be mass produced like an auto engine: http://www.qnergy.com/-overview From: Jed Rothwell Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Washing would be done using a truck-mounted pressure washer, and use *42.7 acre-feet per year*. That's 14 million gallons per year. 38,000 per day. Nuclear plants use 400 to 700 gallons/MWh, as do coal plants. That's at least 9.6 million per day for a 1000 MW plant. Since this is a 300 MW plant I guess a fair comparison would be 2.8 million. What is your point? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I am cool with robots, I see cool animations of future robots all the time, like this one :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRzHaD5bg2s On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Way cool video. The robots are solar powered as well. This is not all that futuristic IMO, but a near-term solution to cleaning mirrors - and probably another reason why Google hired Ray Kurzweil. Robots could be on-the-way for all we know, given the reputation of Google. I have to agree with Stewart on one point: that distributed power of any kind would be better, if it were feasible. However, photovoltaics are too expensive in the USA. LENR is about the only option that seems to work best as a distributed system, but will it be delayed? If LENR is delayed -perhaps the next step can be analyzed this way. 1)When wind is available it is preferable and the lowest cost - go with VAWT first even for small installations. 2)There are not many great wind sites, so distributed solar is not a bad choice but photovoltaics are still not a great option due to installation cost. 3)Photovoltaic installation cost exceeds hardware cost in many places. 4)Distributed solar thermal without steam - would be ideal if there was a good converter, and there is - but it isn't available yet. It could probably be self-installed, but that technology is not here. 5)This free piston Stirling looks like the best of all non LENR solutions if it could be mass produced like an auto engine: http://www.qnergy.com/-overview *From:* Jed Rothwell Show me the robots driving through that desert Jed, washing those 350,000 + mirrors. Here, let me Google that for you: Autonomous Electrostatic Heliostat Cleaning Robot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMgW-VFvzRs There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
calculate the fuel used to clean 175,000 heliostats (350,000 mirrors) and number of vehicles required to cycle the field every two weeks along with labor/android rental cost On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Washing would be done using a truck-mounted pressure washer, and use *42.7 acre-feet per year*. That's 14 million gallons per year. 38,000 per day. Nuclear plants use 400 to 700 gallons/MWh, as do coal plants. That's at least 9.6 million per day for a 1000 MW plant. Since this is a 300 MW plant I guess a fair comparison would be 2.8 million. What is your point? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Luz was trough technology and Solar thermal oil. Luz went BANKRUPT Yes, they did. Do you know why? Because they could not get contracts to supply enough electricity. The power companies forced them to scale down their plants again and again, to the point where they were not cost effective. And do you know why the power companies did that? Press reports say they did it as a favor the fossil fuel industry, with whom they are Best Friends. The plants now being built evolved from trough technology. They are an improvement on that. Technology tends to improve when you build more and more things. If the power companies and the fossil fuel companies had not driven Luz out of business, by now solar thermal would probably be far cheaper than coal, natural gas, wind or nuclear. That is according to many projections made over the last 30 years. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: ChemE Stewart Luz was trough technology and Solar thermal oil. Luz went BANKRUPT Your point is? Many companies that go Bankrupt stay in operation. Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Plus this one has been in operation since September 2013: That is misleading to everyone, that is the first tower at Ivanpah, the same project we are talking about, it Their only other project in the US pipeline just got mothballed because it is OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY and too expensive On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There are many other robotic heliostat cleaners in arid and desert areas already in operation. They have been in operation for years. Plus this one has been in operation since September 2013: http://ivanpah.nrgenergy.com/ivanpah-solar-electric-generating-system-reaches-first-sync-milestone/ It is now in full operation. The Luz solar thermal plants have been in operation in the Mojave producing 354 MW since 1984. They are still working. The mirrors still reflect, despite 30 years of dirt, wear and tear. The people who ran Luz were involved in this new company, bringing their know-how. It is absurd to say that solar thermal cannot work in harsh desert areas. It is absurd to think that the engineers have not devised cost-effective, modern ways to clean the glass. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
My point has not changed, IT IS OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY and may end up like the towering inferno without OJ around to save it. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Luz was trough technology and Solar thermal oil. Luz went BANKRUPT Your point is? Many companies that go Bankrupt stay in operation. Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: calculate the fuel used . . . Zero fuel. The vehicles are electrically powered. to clean 175,000 heliostats (350,000 mirrors) and number of vehicles required to cycle the field every two weeks along with labor/android rental cost Obviously the people who built these plants calculated these things! As did the power companies, Google and the other investors. The people at Google are very good at calculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Right, Not cost effective. No they are a competitor to trough technology and UNPROVEN. I can build a 300 MW Natural Gas Plant for $500M, not $2.2B. It has been really cold this winter so I say fire up the gas turbines until something better comes along On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Luz was trough technology and Solar thermal oil. Luz went BANKRUPT Yes, they did. Do you know why? Because they could not get contracts to supply enough electricity. The power companies forced them to scale down their plants again and again, to the point where they were not cost effective. And do you know why the power companies did that? Press reports say they did it as a favor the fossil fuel industry, with whom they are Best Friends. The plants now being built evolved from trough technology. They are an improvement on that. Technology tends to improve when you build more and more things. If the power companies and the fossil fuel companies had not driven Luz out of business, by now solar thermal would probably be far cheaper than coal, natural gas, wind or nuclear. That is according to many projections made over the last 30 years. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, Google backed out of solar thermal a couple of years ago http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2011/11/google-solar-thermal/ Don't assume things Jed On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:47 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: calculate the fuel used . . . Zero fuel. The vehicles are electrically powered. to clean 175,000 heliostats (350,000 mirrors) and number of vehicles required to cycle the field every two weeks along with labor/android rental cost Obviously the people who built these plants calculated these things! As did the power companies, Google and the other investors. The people at Google are very good at calculation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations. That is correct. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems 354 MW nameplate, 75 MWe actual, 21% capacity factor. Not bad for something that peaks during peak demand. Look at the capacity factor for other peak generators for comparison. The cost is $0.14 per kilowatt hour. Not bad for first-generation equipment engineered in the 1980s. It says: An automated washing mechanism is used to periodically clean the parabolic reflective panels. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Why do you say that? Looks like this one is a success and is being expanded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station From: ChemE Stewart My point has not changed, IT IS OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
THAT IS FALSE GUYS After Luz Industries' bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy in 1991 plants were sold to various investor groups as individual projects, and expansion including three more plants was halted.[*citation needed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed*] Luz died But you guys make great cheerleaders, do you have pom poms? On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations. That is correct. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems 354 MW nameplate, 75 MWe actual, 21% capacity factor. Not bad for something that peaks during peak demand. Look at the capacity factor for other peak generators for comparison. The cost is $0.14 per kilowatt hour. Not bad for first-generation equipment engineered in the 1980s. It says: An automated washing mechanism is used to periodically clean the parabolic reflective panels. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Don't you know the difference between a parabolic trough with Dow thermal oil and a 400' tower with a with an obsolete water boiler sitting on top that you can't get to in order to do maintenance on On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Why do you say that? Looks like this one is a success and is being expanded http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andasol_Solar_Power_Station *From:* ChemE Stewart My point has not changed, IT IS OBSOLETE TECHNOLOGY Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Hundreds of birds die crashing into tall building every day, but we do not stop building tall buildings because of lost bird habitat. ***Next they will have to outlaw seagulls... Seagulls lure other birds to skyscraper deaths: study Posted: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 under Science in the Newshttp://www.royalsociety.org.nz/news/science-in-the-news http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/news/science-in-the-news http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/1997/09/04/seagulls-lure-other-birds-to-skyscraper-deaths-study/ London, Sept 4 AFP - Seagulls have learned to lure migrating birds to their deaths by guiding them into skyscrapers, New Scientist magazine reported today. Like the wreckers who used to lure ships on to rocks, the devious gulls cause their prey to crash into high glass buildings and then eat them up, the weekly reported. The phenomenon has been observed in the Canadian city Toronto, which is the home of the world's tallest structure, the CN Tower. While street-wise city birds learn to avoid bright lights and reflective glass, huge numbers of migrating species die every year crashing into the skyscrapers of the United States and Canada. Some collide with the glass, some drop from exhaustion, Michael Mesure, of Toronto's Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP), a voluntary group dedicated to rescuing stunned birds, told New Scientist. He said seagulls were now posing an extra threat to the migrant birds. The gulls started off scavenging dead birds that had been accidentally killed. But, said Mesure, as more gulls competed for food, some learned to drive birds into collisions. They had been seen herding the birds like sheep and driving them to their deaths. Daniel Klem, of the University of Pennsylvania in the United States, has calculated that lit-up buildings and smokestacks kill 100 million birds a year in North America. The carnage peaks during spring and autumn migrations when many species, especially songbirds, fly at night and at low altitudes, he told the weekly. The Sears Tower in Chicago killed 1500 birds a year and FLAP estimated that 10,000 birds a year died in Toronto's financial district. In the mid-1980s Toronto's CN Tower started turning its floodlights off for eight weeks in the middle of each three-month migration season after visitors complained that the ground was littered with dead birds. FLAP is trying to persuade the owners of other skyscrapers to do the same. So far the managers of 85 buildings in Toronto have agreed to ask tenants to pull their blinds and turn off their lights. AFP mel 04/09/97 11-01NZ *From:* ChemE Stewart $2.2B Boondoggle http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/obama-backed-israeli-solar-project-flounders-california http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/02/nevadas-massive-solar-plant-death-ray-birds/358244/ Even Jed's robots can't save it, if they existed :) I agree on the nuclear.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: THAT IS FALSE GUYS After Luz Industries' bankruptcy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy in 1991 plants were sold to various investor groups as individual projects, and expansion including three more plants was halted. What is false? The plants are still in operation. The original builder/operator was Luz, and they went bankrupt. So did the Pennsylvania Railroad but the trains and tracks they owned are still in use. As I noted, Luz was forced out of business by big coal, in collaboration with the power companies. There is no doubt that solar thermal is having difficulty competing with PV solar, wind, and natural gas. PV is dropping in cost rapidly, partly because of support from the Chinese government, which is probably dumping. If solar thermal had been aggressively developed in the 1990s, it might be a lot cheaper and more competitive today. Many good technologies have fallen by the wayside because they did not get funded at the right time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
You guys implied Luz kept operating, which was false Brightsource was a political play to pump $2B across the pond under the guise of new technology and then try to go public and unload obsolete technology on Joe Q Public, which failed. Hard to make that boiler, turbine and flat home depot mirrors much less expensive. That technology has been around for 100 years. Sam old girl in a new dress. On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: THAT IS FALSE GUYS After Luz Industries' bankruptcyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankruptcy in 1991 plants were sold to various investor groups as individual projects, and expansion including three more plants was halted. What is false? The plants are still in operation. The original builder/operator was Luz, and they went bankrupt. So did the Pennsylvania Railroad but the trains and tracks they owned are still in use. As I noted, Luz was forced out of business by big coal, in collaboration with the power companies. There is no doubt that solar thermal is having difficulty competing with PV solar, wind, and natural gas. PV is dropping in cost rapidly, partly because of support from the Chinese government, which is probably dumping. If solar thermal had been aggressively developed in the 1990s, it might be a lot cheaper and more competitive today. Many good technologies have fallen by the wayside because they did not get funded at the right time. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You guys implied Luz kept operating, which was false No, we never said anything like that. Furthermore, if you review the archives here, you will see that I and other have often discussed Luz, their demise, and the reasons for it. Hard to make that boiler, turbine and flat home depot mirrors much less expensive. That technology has been around for 100 years. Same old girl in a new dress. Wind turbines used in wind mills have been around for 2,000 years, and in sailing ships for about 4,000 years. Combustion technology has been around for 300,000 years. In technology, that which was old is often made new again. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jed Rothwell 4:55 PM (33 minutes ago) to vortex-l Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Actually BrightSource bought Luz and I think that it never stopped operations.FIRST HALF OF STATEMENT FALSE BACKED BY YOUR CHEERLEADING, Luz went bankrupt. That is correct. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Energy_Generating_Systems Right, we also used to have the Stanley Steamer and vacuum tube technology and they were REPLACED with better technology On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 5:24 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: You guys implied Luz kept operating, which was false No, we never said anything like that. Furthermore, if you review the archives here, you will see that I and other have often discussed Luz, their demise, and the reasons for it. Hard to make that boiler, turbine and flat home depot mirrors much less expensive. That technology has been around for 100 years. Same old girl in a new dress. Wind turbines used in wind mills have been around for 2,000 years, and in sailing ships for about 4,000 years. Combustion technology has been around for 300,000 years. In technology, that which was old is often made new again. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Right, we also used to have the Stanley Steamer and vacuum tube technology and they were REPLACED with better technology Better? Are you sure? Vacuum tube computer memory replaced CRT-based memory. Vacuum tubes were then replaced by magnetic core memory, which was replaced by semiconductor memory. But wait, magnetic core may be staging a comeback. It might replace semiconductor RAM again. As I said, the old is often made new again. Charles Spindt of SRI told me that ideas proposed by Ken Shoulders and Don Geppert's on integrated micron-sized vacuum tubes (Vacuum Microelectronics) had been pursued, maybe we would be using vacuum tube RAM today. People are now working on DNA based data storage systems. It does not seem likely to me these will ever be used for RAM memory, but you never know. If they are, all the world's data would fit in 8 mL of fluid costing a fraction of a penny. DNA is old technology. Very old. 3.5 billion years old. The DNA data transfer speed occurring in your body at this moment far exceeds the speed of all computers on earth. Electric cars were made obsolete in 1908 by the introduction of the Model T Ford. Today, gasoline cars are being may obsolete by the introduction of . . . electric cars, hybrid and pure. It may be that solar thermal lost its chance. It may never compete with PV or wind. Then again, maybe it will. I hope that all of them are soon replaced by cold fusion. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: ChemE Stewart Don't you know the difference between a parabolic trough with Dow thermal oil and a 400' tower with a with an obsolete water boiler sitting on top that you can't get to in order to do maintenance on? It's not either/or. The point is that neither is obsolete and both are preferable to fossil fuels in many ways. The low cost of natural gas will be no more than a fond memory in 5-10 years. Nothing wrong with boiling water with solar - and you can put another mirror on the tower if you want the boiler on the ground - but admittedly there are more elegant ways. It should noted for the record that LENR could work with added synergy with this exact kind of moderate heat storage device (molten salt from concentrated solar). at least if we believe Andrea Rossi. Rossi has said many times that he could substitute natural gas or any heat input for the electrical input which is needed to provide a thermal floor or threshold - for his process. Thus, molten salt from a solar trough would work for that in a hybrid system. As for distributed power, rooftop solar troughs for an office building, factory, apartment building, large store, mall, or school etc. would work either with LENR or without - and provide cogeneration as well. This would likely be too complicated for the single home, but not for some kind of localized distributed system in the 100 kW range. That makes more sense than going for individual distribution. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I wrote: Vacuum tube computer memory replaced CRT-based memory. Yes, I do mean CRT-based. See: https://www.ias.edu/about/publications/ias-letter/articles/2012-spring/george-dyson-ecp This IAS computer designed by von Neumann had, Williams cathode-ray memory tubes, storing 1,024 bits in each individual tube, for a total capacity of five kilobytes (40,960 bits). - Jed
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
In my latest design, I'm using a TI MSP430FR5969 which has ferroelectric RAM. It's really nice to be able to go back to the old magnetic core memory days where the RAM was non-volatile. No boot time needed, the system retains its current state even if the power goes off--instant on. There's no write degradation, and it's fast. FRAM ( and the other non-volatile technologies: MRAM, SPINRAM, Phase Change RAM etc. ) are the future. I foresee the day when there will only be one kind of memory to replace RAM, ROM, FLASH, DISKs, CACHEs etc. No need for a memory hierarchy at all, just semi infinite fast terabyte storage on the chip. Hoyt Stearns Scottsdale, Arizona US From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:55 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:BrightSource ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: ...Vacuum tube computer memory replaced CRT-based memory. Vacuum tubes were then replaced by magnetic core memory, which was replaced by semiconductor memory. But wait, magnetic core may be staging a comeback. It might replace semiconductor RAM again. As I said, the old is often made new again. ... --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
As a final note - no matter what observers here may think about BrightSource and their solar strategy, it is undeniable that MIT listed them in the Top 50 companies of the World, and the top company which is solely in the Energy Sector. MIT does not have a political axe to grind and instead assumes the big picture long-term approach. That means something special. Since BrightSource has a technology focus, the least that can be said is that the top Engineering University considers this technology to be the best chance for a sustainable future. Every energy technology has strong and weak points. However, the days of affordable fossil fuel are numbered, despite the current blip brought on by a bonanza in Shale oil and gas. Is there another bonanza in store? Peak oil may not happen till 2020 or even 2030 but it will happen, and the generation which includes our grandchildren will feel the pain thereafter, unless a major breakthrough happens in an alternative energy. We can do something about that in 2014 with a breakthrough in LENR. My hope is that Rossi will stand and deliver this Spring, and that the details will be made public; but if not, others are waiting in the wings. It should surprise no one if the breakthrough in LENR happens in Asia instead of the USA or Europe. Surely there are underpublicized efforts underway in China. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology? On Monday, February 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As a final note - no matter what observers here may think about BrightSource and their solar strategy, it is undeniable that MIT listed them in the Top 50 companies of the World, and the top company which is solely in the Energy Sector. MIT does not have a political axe to grind and instead assumes the big picture long-term approach. That means something special. Since BrightSource has a technology focus, the least that can be said is that the top Engineering University considers this technology to be the best chance for a sustainable future. Every energy technology has strong and weak points. However, the days of affordable fossil fuel are numbered, despite the current blip brought on by a bonanza in Shale oil and gas. Is there another bonanza in store? Peak oil may not happen till 2020 or even 2030 but it will happen, and the generation which includes our grandchildren will feel the pain thereafter, unless a major breakthrough happens in an alternative energy. We can do something about that in 2014 with a breakthrough in LENR. My hope is that Rossi will stand and deliver this Spring, and that the details will be made public; but if not, others are waiting in the wings. It should surprise no one if the breakthrough in LENR happens in Asia instead of the USA or Europe. Surely there are underpublicized efforts underway in China. Jones
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Brightsource $2.2 B solar plant technology. You bought it, enjoy it :) [image: Inline image 1] On Monday, February 24, 2014, ChemE Stewart cheme...@gmail.com wrote: Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology? On Monday, February 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: As a final note - no matter what observers here may think about BrightSource and their solar strategy, it is undeniable that MIT listed them in the Top 50 companies of the World, and the top company which is solely in the Energy Sector. MIT does not have a political axe to grind and instead assumes the big picture long-term approach. That means something special. Since BrightSource has a technology focus, the least that can be said is that the top Engineering University considers this technology to be the best chance for a sustainable future. Every energy technology has strong and weak points. However, the days of affordable fossil fuel are numbered, despite the current blip brought on by a bonanza in Shale oil and gas. Is there another bonanza in store? Peak oil may not happen till 2020 or even 2030 but it will happen, and the generation which includes our grandchildren will feel the pain thereafter, unless a major breakthrough happens in an alternative energy. We can do something about that in 2014 with a breakthrough in LENR. My hope is that Rossi will stand and deliver this Spring, and that the details will be made public; but if not, others are waiting in the wings. It should surprise no one if the breakthrough in LENR happens in Asia instead of the USA or Europe. Surely there are underpublicized efforts underway in China. Jones inline: image.jpeg
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: ChemE Stewart Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology? Now, now . no one's perfect. Do you use a cell phone?
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Yes, but it is not mine :) On Monday, February 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology? Now, now ... no one's perfect. Do you use a cell phone?
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: ChemE Stewart Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology? +++Do you use a cell phone? +++ Yes, but it is not mine :) Doppler radar is UHF (300-1000 MHz). Cell phones radiate directly through your brain at 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. Higher is worse (more energetic radiation). Orders of magnitude more dangerous radiation is coming from the Cell phone than the radar. How is it that Doppler radar is worse for you or anyone else, than your cell phone?
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
Jones wrote,Looks like this one is a success and is being expanded The Andasol 1 plant cost around EUR300 million (US$380 million) to build + 13% for power storage.It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!)With successful plants like that who needs failures? Jones. The low cost of natural gas will be no more than a fond memory in 5-10 years. According to the US Energy information Administration, the US has known reserves for 94 years. I am suspicious of Brightsource until I see independent numbers. I would risk a fairly large bet that they have had substantial government grants. It seems too big for a relatively untried technology: one doesn't know what the snags are yet but there will be some. I wonder what the weather is like there? One hailstorm would shatter thousands of 2-3mm untempered glass sheets. The NY Times thinks it maybe both the first and the last such plant. The departure of Brightsource's CEO, Media Relations, legal depts. and shutting down two 500 MW projects might give pause for thought. (http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/brightsource-ceo-steps-down.html) Apart from anything else it is an Israeli company pretending to be American, owned by an Israeli whose main claim to fame is getting decorated for building settlements on Palestinian land. I think LENR is real and even if it weren't a better energy than this will be developed.As a taxpayer I wonder what my share in the plant is.
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I didn't say cell phones were any better or worse, I have not studied them. My data is showing a strong correlation between areas of overlapping doppler microwave radars and excessive hypoxia and chronic algae blooms in waterways. Hypoxia and oxidative stress in brains is also a marker in autism alzheimers, along with mutations. We have immersed ourselves in a full spectrum of radiation. We are the experiment. On Monday, February 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology?+++Do you use a cell phone? +++ Yes, but it is not mine :) Doppler radar is UHF (300-1000 MHz). Cell phones radiate directly through your brain at 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. Higher is worse (more energetic radiation). Orders of magnitude more dangerous radiation is coming from the Cell phone than the radar. How is it that Doppler radar is worse for you or anyone else, than your cell phone?
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
I didn't say cell phones were any better or worse, I have not studied them. My data is showing a strong correlation between areas of overlapping doppler microwave radars and excessive hypoxia and chronic algae blooms in waterways. Hypoxia and oxidative stress in brains is also a marker in autism alzheimers, along with mutations. We have immersed ourselves in a full spectrum of radiation. We are the experiment. On Monday, February 24, 2014, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* ChemE Stewart Is that the same MIT that helped squash cold fusion and owns Lincoln labs has pushed doppler microwave technology that is destroying all biology?+++Do you use a cell phone? +++ Yes, but it is not mine :) Doppler radar is UHF (300-1000 MHz). Cell phones radiate directly through your brain at 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. Higher is worse (more energetic radiation). Orders of magnitude more dangerous radiation is coming from the Cell phone than the radar. How is it that Doppler radar is worse for you or anyone else, than your cell phone?
Re: [Vo]:BrightSource
Exactly, smoke and mirrors On Monday, February 24, 2014, a.ashfield a.ashfi...@verizon.net wrote: Jones wrote, Looks like this one is a success and is being expanded The Andasol 1 plant cost around EURO 300 million (US$380 million) to build + 13% for power storage. It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures? Jones. The low cost of natural gas will be no more than a fond memory in 5-10 years. According to the US Energy information Administration, the US has known reserves for 94 years. I am suspicious of Brightsource until I see independent numbers. I would risk a fairly large bet that they have had substantial government grants. It seems too big for a relatively untried technology: one doesn't know what the snags are yet but there will be some.I wonder what the weather is like there? One hailstorm would shatter thousands of 2-3mm untempered glass sheets. The NY Times thinks it maybe both the first and the last such plant. The departure of Brightsource's CEO, Media Relations, legal depts. and shutting down two 500 MW projects might give pause for thought. ( http://www.kcet.org/news/rewire/solar/concentrating-solar/brightsource-ceo-steps-down.html ) Apart from anything else it is an Israeli company pretending to be American, owned by an Israeli whose main claim to fame is getting decorated for building settlements on Palestinian land. I think LENR is real and even if it weren't a better energy than this will be developed. As a taxpayer I wonder what my share in the plant is.
RE: [Vo]:BrightSource
From: a.ashfield The Andasol 1 plant cost around €300 million (US$380 million) to build … It produces power at $0.35/kWh which is guaranteed for 25 years(!) With successful plants like that who needs failures? If you live in a country with little coal, hydro, oil or gas, 35 cents is about average. Electricity costs more than that in Germany, Denmark and a few other countries with better resources than Spain. With Russia doubling the price of natural gas every 5 years - that 35 cent price will look great in a decade, and it is guaranteed. There is no doubt the French did it right going to almost all nuclear, at a time when it was affordable - since like Spain, they have little coal, hydro, oil or gas. Now they have electricity for half the price of most of Europe. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/ But what is the real cost of a nuclear meltdown, especially in a country with high tourism income? If the ratepayer in France had to pay for insurance against Fukushima type accidents, the cost could be closer to that of solar in Spain. The only way the USA could have achieved the same reliable nuclear program as France did is essentially with Socialism, and a national policy for nuclear. Having coal made that policy impossible here – so we did not do that, and now the cost of nuclear is through the roof. In the long run, any renewable like solar at high initial cost is better in the long run than even nuclear … unless we reprocess – like the French do. Impossible in the USA due to politics. Interesting fact which is more than a metaphor for solar – the Golden Gate Bridge was almost not built because the price seemed incredibly high at the time. Nowadays, with the 6 buck toll, it returns the initial investment every 6 months.
