I was (reputedly) one of the leading solar thermal designers in Canada. I
also worked, somewhat more peripherally, with photovoltaics, proposing - as
part of a team - a method of providing comprehensive PV irrigation stations
for the Sahel region in Africa.
I was involved, even more peripherally, with small hydro, wind and biomass.
Most of the people I met - not all mind you - were innocent dreamers,
without much business sense. But they did have some excellent technical
ideas and lots of enthusiasm... as I did. It's been a while now, but I've
seen all the numbers thrown up in the air by alternate energy afficionados,
and frankly, I'm not impressed. Been there, done that.
I do however, believe - from my experience - that there are lots of places
in this world that would benefit greatly from non-centralized electrical
systems, as opposed to giant hydro schemes... Lots of places.
Solar thermal? These same places - obviously tropical - could also benefit
from solar thermal, but only if the applications were absolutely
correct. There are other ways of applying the principles of solar thermal
other than sticking collectors on roofs or on poles in the ground.
It's a huge topic, and, again frankly, I really can't be bothered arguing
how many PV modules can dance on the head of a pin. I was in the field for
a time, had lots of fun, travelled to tropical countries on behalf of the
Canadian government... but made very little to live on.
That's where it ends.
Philip.
At 05:25 PM 3/15/2006 -0500, you wrote:
Philip Winestone wrote:
Sorry - but I've been there. I was an "alternate energy" engineer quite
a few years ago, specializing in solar . . .
What kind of solar? PV or direct thermal? Direct, large scale thermal
plants were built 20 years ago by Luz, and they take less land area than
coal or nuclear plants do when you factor in the size of the mines. They
take much less land than hydroelectricity does, when you factor in the
land that is submerged by the lake behind the dam. They are more efficient
than PV, and about 250 times more efficient than biomass. See Strirling
Energy, Sempra Energy and others. They are building a 500 MW unit and a
900 MW unit. These units do not take much land. See:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/news/Solars%20Day%20in%20the%20Sun%20-%20WSJ%2011-17-05.pdf
Stirling claims that a solar farm 100 miles square could supply all U.S.
electricity. Others have made similar claims. There are plenty of places
in the Southwest desert ares where you could hide an installation as large
as this -- not that you would actually put it all in one location. See:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/faq.asp?Type=all
Wind power is inconsistent (like I said).
For many applications this does not matter.
Solar power - if you put panels on every square metre of the US - may
supply lots of energy.
Panels -- meaning PV. This is the wrong approach in the U.S., with present
day technology, although it is going great guns in Japan. Japan has
different land use and weather parameters.
Prohibitive cost? Yup.
Stirling expects it will cost 10 cents per kWh in their first
installations. Others estimate 6 cents. That's expensive but not
prohibitive. The cost would fall to 2 cents if these things were developed
on a large scale. (That is true of wind, as well.) PV electricity in Japan
is now cheaper than centrally generated power, which is admittedly the
world's most expensive.
- Jed
