DescentBB

i've been trying to see how the price of this new solar tower tech compares to the current coal plant tech, manufacture cost per MegaWatt produced.

because i remember being excited to read that the solar tower would be cheaper per MW. in otherwords, there would be no more need to EVER use coal power again. and there's the added bonus of it releasing absolutely no emissions, and needing no raw resourses input. it just sits there, and spits out 200MW of power 24 hours a day.


i've just been doing some rough figures. (all prices are in $AUD. multiply by approx 0.7 to get $USD)

using a $1 billion dollar (current replace value) coal plant as an example.
the plant burns about 80tonnes of coal an hour.
it produces approx 1000MW of power.

a solar tower energy plant, that uses no coal at all, the first big one will be estimated to cost $700 million. and makes about 200MW 24/7 (yes 24hours a day, no it's not typical solar power ).

my rough figures show that using 5 200MW solar towers instead of a 1MW coal plant would take about 70years to pay for it's difference (to a coal plant), with it's "no coal" savings.

i just used google to get figures for various things like the example power plant, and the prices of coal. but i'm not sure if i left anything out, or if i'm forgetting something. because i seem to remember something about these solar towers actually being CHEAPER IN EVERYWAY than their coal powerplant rivals, including manufacturing cost per MW produced.

anyone here have any experience with coal plants, or any knowledge of them, their costs and profits etc?

Unsubstanciated rumor I heard: solar panels cost more energy to produce than they'll ever make in their useful lifespan.

Confirm/deny?

it's amoot point because the tower doesn't use solar panels. to check out the technology itself and why it's cool take a look at the other thread i just posted about it.

but that rumour you heard about solar panels, you may have heard it from me. because i said it here not 1 week ago (although i wasn't sure of it's truth either, i merely overheard it on usenet).

Tetrad wrote:Unsubstanciated rumor I heard: solar panels cost more energy to produce than they'll ever make in their useful lifespan.

Confirm/deny?

Old school silicone oven-baked panels this is true of. I understand the technology is improving.

We had to do an alternate power project in physics, and we happened to stumble on tidal power. I didn't know anything else had been done with this, but apparently they have something called the Stingray (http://www.lgc.org/freepub/energy/image ... rplant.jpg) which, when the technology and size improves, can produce upwards of a hundred megawatts apiece. For coastal areas, this seems more feasible than solar power, just because solar power seems to be a "weak" technology.

It is possible, or at least in some places, to hook up solar panels to your house and feed the power not used back into the power grid. If your power consumption is essentially negative (you put more power back into the grid than you pull out), the power company will just get rid of the difference.

What if we were to just eliminate the power companies altogether? All the houses are hooked up to each other via a "grid", but all houses have their own power system (solar cells, etc.). If one house's power system goes down, the other houses will support it until the system gets back up. A very socialistic way to do things, so there might be some kind of moderator company (the new power companies) that make sure nobody's leeching off the system, and they can maintain large systemwide batteries.

I find it stupid that so much effort is put into wind and solar energy, while these installations protruding from the ground destroy the landscape. They are relatively inefficient, relatively unreliable and still expensive for what they do.

Scientists have been playing with nuclear fusion reactors for a while now. There is a limitless supply of fusion power available, if only we managed to harness it and keep it under control. Instead of launching probes to Mars and other useless crap missions over which only some l33t scientists and people like Mobi and roid wet their pants, the governments should invest those budgets in reseach for fusion energy and bundle forces. It's the key to our energy needs. It may be nuclear energy, but there will be no such thing as radioactive waste, since the waste of nuclear fusion is mere Helium. You can concentrate the production in plants, you don't have to put windmills or solar panels all over the place.

Sometimes I think we have our priorities all wrong..

That's correct Tri - but if it was just me and roid who got wood at the thought of men on Mars, or about us sitting in orbit looking down on earth, then there'd be no space program. Let's get one thing straight - the space program is supported by more than 50% of the US population - far more people than voted for Bush, anyway.

YES, Fusion is DEFINITELY the way forward - but you're confused about one thing: Tritium and Deuterium are NOT the fuel we'll be using for our fusion reactors! Those isotopes fuse at temperatures which require in excess of 100 million degrees. The ITER reactor (if it EVER gets built) will be nothing more than a proof of concept device, and attempting to build reactors based on T or D are doomed to failure: the cost will be prohibitive, and therefgore the power will be too expensive.

Here's where we tie YOUR interests to MINE: The only really viable source of fuel is sitting 250,000 miles away: the moon.

The top six inches of luna dust contain enough Helium 3 to power the planet for the next several million years. Helium 3 is not found on earth, and can only be synthesized. It fuses at a temperature less than 10 million degrees too.

If the USA mines the moon for Helium 3, then they can effectively control the world's energy supplies. One shuttle full of Helium 3 woul power the world for decades.

So, instead of dribbling on like an old woman about the uselessness of space exploration and utilisation, maybe you should get your facts straight first, and look beyond the tiny horizon that comprises where your mind will look?

Mobius wrote:If the USA mines the moon for Helium 3, then they can effectively control the world's energy supplies.

Yes, and effectively own the moon and all energy resources supplied to Earth. It would be a fantastic profiting scheme for them.

*cough* roid?

Oh good, our next wars can be over the moon.

But still, fusion sounds like the ★■◆●! But perhapse we're all baised twards it on a Descent baord...

Were we to have Helium 3, would it be immediately viable to start... fusing, or is the technology not there yet? Which is the problem here, the lack of moonrock or the lack of technology?

damn Tri, you just got pwned by Mobi.

Nitrofox125 wrote:Were we to have Helium 3, would it be immediately viable to start... fusing, or is the technology not there yet? Which is the problem here, the lack of moonrock or the lack of technology?

The lack of technology.

According to SimCity, Coal Power Plants are $5000 each. That's one-fourth the price of a Nuclear Power Plant.

L M F A O !

Haha, G1 DCrazy!

Fact is, Nuclear Fission Power Plants are still the best bang for the buck. (no pun intended)

And don't gimme no crap about 3-Mile Island, dealing with the waste or the 'China Syndrome'. Nuclear Power technology does less damage to the enviroment than coal-fired power plants, period!

The US Navy has been dealing with Nuclear power since 1955 with great success. Everybody who opposes Nuclear Power should look their track record and agree that it can be made safe and quit killing The Planet with mercury and strip mining.

Excuse the laymans question, but if we take off that much dust off the moon wouldn't it mess around with orbits n tides and fings, making everyone die a horrible death.

Ford Prefect gave a help with this link from the other thread. http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin ... BA833?open
it had this nugget of information:

The initial cost is comparable with the $600m cost of building a new 200MW brown-coal power station and a drying plant for the coal

which is the information i was trying to recreate in this thread. but seems i hadn't factored in the additional cost of the coal drying plants.

so by this, it seems that there IS indeed no need for coal plants, as this solar tower technology superceeds it with all of it's many advantages, and is only marginly more expensive ($700million vs $600million).

happy happy

Tyranny wrote:damn Tri, you just got pwned by Mobi.

To each his opinion, but did I really?
I say we need to put funding in fusion research. Mobi says we need to mine the moon for a mysterious fusion fuel as if the interplanetary distance is the only obstacle in the way.

Who's rational and realist on this one? You tell me!

Tricord teh win.

Tricord wrote:

Tyranny wrote:damn Tri, you just got pwned by Mobi.

To each his opinion, but did I really?
I say we need to put funding in fusion research...

Current Fusion Research

Roid don't forget the ongoing costs of the solar tower. It may not burn coal but it will not be without operating costs. If they use glass for the greenhouse pad then there are cleaning and replacement costs. If they use some kind of PVC or other plastic it will degrade eventually and need replacement. The generator turbine itself will need maintainence too. Also the Spanish model had lots of plant growth under the greenhouse. Plants will restrict the air movement and to keep the plant at maximum operating efficientcy they will have to be removed or poisoned.
Not at all easy to calculate the ongoing costs but I think it is telling that the Spanish project is not in use. If it was cost effective then it would still be running. It would be good to find out why they turned it off.

they said the spanish tower had very minimal running costs, they didn't even have to replace any of the greenhouse material (it stood up to baseball sized hail even).