Comments on: Calif. agency approves SoCal Edison’s first solar baseload contract

By: msn nickleri

msn nickleri — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 16:16:18 +0000

This is good news, but lately i hear stories about ‘environmentalists’ in CA now protesting solar plants – specifically baseload solar thermal because of all the new transmission lines and that fact that it is still centralized industrial scale operation.

Do you think this will be a real problem given the amount of new power lines that will need to be built?

By: Jim Bullis

Jim Bullis — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:52:41 +0000

How is it possible to have a discussion about solar concentration power generation without first addressing the existing experience base. The following is a quote pasted from Forbes Magazine of Nov 24.

In the Mojave Desert near Daggett, Calif. the Department of Energy poured $147 million into Solar One, a plant that concentrated solar energy from 2,000 mirrors onto a 300-foot concrete tower to make steam. It began operating in 1982 and was converted in 1995 to heat 3.4 million pounds of salt to a liquid state. DOE officials called the plant “a resounding success” when partner Southern California Edison shut it down in 1999 for the usual reason: It wasn’t commercially viable.

What went wrong here? Then it might be sensible to discuss new possibilities.

By: Michael Hoexter

Michael Hoexter — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 08:58:26 +0000

David Benson and Joe,
Long and short of it, producing the “always on” baseload of power that is usually supplied by coal or nuclear (ramping is inefficient or impossible) or in some places hydro (very ramp-able) is the most sensible understanding of the term “baseload”. This is usually described as 35%-40% of maximum power demand. If you look at the daily load profile for power, baseload is that band at the bottom that goes from zero to 24 hours.

“Dispatchability” is what you are describing, David Benson. A plant that is dispatchable can be scheduled or can be called up at a moments notice. There are complaints by power system operators that wind and solar PV without storage are not dispatchable in the sense that they cannot be scheduled so well (though less so for PV).

The Solar Two or Tres design or those proposed by Solar Reserve can be described as “solar baseload” and could shut down coal plants during at least 9 months of the year if located in some of the sunniest places as well as provide in the summer peak, some load following or peak shaving capacity.

The current renewable energy policy and electricity market environment does not favor building storage with these plants. We need a “solar baseload” policy that incentivizes utilities to REPLACE their fossil baseload and load-following output with true solar baseload (or load following) designs. Otherwise the climate-protective effect of these plants is FAR from maximized. I am attempting to build momentum in this direction via the educational/clearinghouse website solarsouthwest.org.

I realize that after so many years of not building these plants, we are all glad that some are being built, even without storage. “Bravo” for Esolar and SCE but lets take the (not very big) next steps into the world of renewables that replace the functions of fossil plants.

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 01:15:19 +0000

Michael Hoexter — As I understand the way the power people use the term, ‘baseload’ is set the previous day; it goes up in the morning to some peak in the afternoon and then down to some nighttime minimum; the ratio appears to be about 3 to 2 (for California). On top of the baseload, which the power distributors guarantee to buy from the producers, there is usually some need for additional power to meet unanticipated needs at various times of day or night. (I don’t recall the term, but these power blocks are bought in 1 MW units, very small.) The demand for this power could be met by rolling reserves, that depends upon the regulations for reliabity, but also natural gas powered or oil powered producers.

The point is that Joe Romm is correct in calling these units ’solar baseload’, even if there is no storage. All power purchased the day previous to delivery is ‘baselaod’; surely solar thermal will be done mostly this way, although the regualtors might require that some portion of it be ‘rolling reserve’. Clearly ‘ready reserve’ is going to have to become the term used; solar thermals don’t roll.

By: Michael Hoexter

Michael Hoexter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:28:11 +0000

While this is a step in the right direction, Joe, your use of the term solar baseload is introducing further distortion into the mix here. There is no mention of storage accompanying this plant in the announcements. Esolar has flirted with the notion that they COULD use storage but I don’t see anything that concretely says that the Gaskell project will include storage. It may very well be more of a “solar peak shaver” than anything else (which good too).

So, while I understand you are engaging in the somewhat Orwellian exercise of naming something in a propagandistic way that distorts the reality of that thing, this is not even the 3 to 6 hour storage plants that you have (mis)named solar baseload.

Joe, I think people are smart enough to understand, or should become smart enough to understand that we are facing a major challenge in replacing the stored energy of fossil fuels with energy flows like solar. We can do it, but we are going to have to START doing it first. Building solar thermal electric or CSP plants without storage is fine and good and I support it but this doesn’t create the market for scale and innovation in thermal storage that we need. Your calling all of this “solar baseload” is selling people short.

[JR: I call it solar baseload now because we won't get to change the name later. Storage is coming soon, as you know, but it would be crazy not to support non-storage plants in the mean time.]

By: David B. Benson

David B. Benson — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 23:27:50 +0000

Bob Wallace — Biogasse is a mixture of CO, CO2 and CH4 (and sometimes micro-organisms).. I’m sure they will process the stuff, just letting the biomethane into the natural gas pipelines; this is being done elswhere in the U.S. and in Germany.

By: Bob Wallace

Bob Wallace — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:37:18 +0000

There was discussion of building a solar thermal plant in the south end of the Valley (Kern County area) that would burn biogas from feedlot/dairy manure in sunless hours. Don’t find anything on line about that now.

Seems that PG&E is now looking to feed biogas directly into their natural gas pipelines….

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:27:24 +0000

The solar baseload stuff will be closer to the desert, yes.

These early CSP plants are just the start of the reemergence of this essential industry.

By: Bob Wallace

Bob Wallace — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:36:38 +0000

Joe – I’ve lived in the Central Valley. During the winter there can be day after day when there is no sun because of the very dense fog – the “Tuely fog”. The fog can get so dense that you can’t even tell where the sun is in the sky. And can persist for days/weeks.

The Kern County facility won’t be a “baseload” source. It will be a “supply summer air conditioners” source.

By: Bob Wallace

Bob Wallace — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:58:40 +0000

darth – I’ve seen the random post by someone concerned about thermal solar being installed in “places of beauty” and transmission lines strung across National Parks. But I haven’t seen any concern by any group of any size.

Any installation is going to have to pass environmental review.

There is lots of “low quality” land in the desert that can be utilized. (Pull up a Google map of the US and look at the amount of open land in the US Southwest.)

There are already power lines strung from place to place. We can put new facilities in places where the view is not compromised and species are not significantly impacted.