Comments on: Solar Thermal’s Rise to Power (get it?) http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/solar-thermals-rise-to-power-get-it/ Our energy systems blog Tue, 29 Dec 2009 12:42:27 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: SolarForum24.de http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/solar-thermals-rise-to-power-get-it/#comment-88 SolarForum24.de Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:30:36 +0000 http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/?p=41#comment-88 really good really good

]]> By: jkace http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/solar-thermals-rise-to-power-get-it/#comment-52 jkace Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:51:52 +0000 http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/?p=41#comment-52 I think the question here is what you mean by scalability. From what I understand, Brightsource's technology is more economically scalable in the direction of larger plants in hot areas. Since it utilizes a standard Rankine cycle, it needs high-grade heat in order to produce high temperature, high pressure steam. It is more proven because other than the solar concentrating mirrors, the plant would work identical to a standard combustion power plant. I doubt, however, that you'll see a plant like this outside of desert areas. The Stirling Energy technology is "scalable" because the heat needed to run a stirling engine can be low-grade heat. This means that if effective, its more realistic to set up one of these plants on a smaller scale, and not necesarrily in a desert. My guess would be that Brightsource produces a more economically attractive plant in the Mojave, but if Stirling can produce a viable alternative, it would be a better option for smaller installations in non-desert areas. Brightsource and Stirling are FAR from the only companies trying to make something happen in the Mojave. Here's a nice overview of the companies vying for plants. Capitalism at its best. <a href="http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/22/11-solar-thermal-companies-powering-up/" rel="nofollow">http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/22/11-solar-thermal-companies-powering-up/</a> I think the question here is what you mean by scalability. From what I understand, Brightsource’s technology is more economically scalable in the direction of larger plants in hot areas. Since it utilizes a standard Rankine cycle, it needs high-grade heat in order to produce high temperature, high pressure steam. It is more proven because other than the solar concentrating mirrors, the plant would work identical to a standard combustion power plant. I doubt, however, that you’ll see a plant like this outside of desert areas.

The Stirling Energy technology is “scalable” because the heat needed to run a stirling engine can be low-grade heat. This means that if effective, its more realistic to set up one of these plants on a smaller scale, and not necesarrily in a desert.

My guess would be that Brightsource produces a more economically attractive plant in the Mojave, but if Stirling can produce a viable alternative, it would be a better option for smaller installations in non-desert areas.

Brightsource and Stirling are FAR from the only companies trying to make something happen in the Mojave. Here’s a nice overview of the companies vying for plants. Capitalism at its best.
http://earth2tech.com/2008/04/22/11-solar-thermal-companies-powering-up/

]]> By: Andrew http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/2008/04/15/solar-thermals-rise-to-power-get-it/#comment-50 Andrew Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:14:04 +0000 http://joulesforfools.wordpress.com/?p=41#comment-50 Here's an interesting situation. Stirling Energy has just had their product proven on the testing grounds by demonstrating six fully operational Stirling engines with mirrors. However, I'm not sure of their business smarts. While admitting they still have to get these things produced on an assembly line, they signed a contract with California to have two operational large scale facilities producing a total of 1.75 Gigawatts of peak power. This would require a minimum of 70,000 operational engines between the two facilities. This also assumes that the mass produced versions will produce the same power as the prototypes. If I read this and other websites correctly, which I might not have, then a failure to meet this contract within a few year period will effectively bankrupt the company. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/about-us/default.asp So it looks like theres going to be a showdown in California between Brightsource, which produces large scale facilities using the rankine cycle and mirrors to focus the light on one central tower rather than parabolic mirrors for use in solar troughs, and Stirling Energy. Both have large scale contracts. Brightsource's product is a proven tech while Stirling's has yet to be proven, though that hasn't stopped California from investing heavily in it. According to Stirling's press releases though, it seems they are heavily emphasizing their tech's scalability, and seem to imply possible future applications as smaller power plants possibly in conjunction with the "microgrids" approach we've heard about. Brightsource's is not so scalable. In light of the recent presentation on grid ownership and blackout propagation, however, I'm not so sure of Stirling's ability to break into this market. What are your takes on this? Also, Stirling emphasizes they use hydrogen as their working fluid and I can't figure out why. Does anyone know what its advantages are over other working fluids? Here’s an interesting situation. Stirling Energy has just had their product proven on the testing grounds by demonstrating six fully operational Stirling engines with mirrors. However, I’m not sure of their business smarts. While admitting they still have to get these things produced on an assembly line, they signed a contract with California to have two operational large scale facilities producing a total of 1.75 Gigawatts of peak power. This would require a minimum of 70,000 operational engines between the two facilities. This also assumes that the mass produced versions will produce the same power as the prototypes. If I read this and other websites correctly, which I might not have, then a failure to meet this contract within a few year period will effectively bankrupt the company.

http://www.stirlingenergy.com/about-us/default.asp

So it looks like theres going to be a showdown in California between Brightsource, which produces large scale facilities using the rankine cycle and mirrors to focus the light on one central tower rather than parabolic mirrors for use in solar troughs, and Stirling Energy. Both have large scale contracts. Brightsource’s product is a proven tech while Stirling’s has yet to be proven, though that hasn’t stopped California from investing heavily in it.

According to Stirling’s press releases though, it seems they are heavily emphasizing their tech’s scalability, and seem to imply possible future applications as smaller power plants possibly in conjunction with the “microgrids” approach we’ve heard about. Brightsource’s is not so scalable. In light of the recent presentation on grid ownership and blackout propagation, however, I’m not so sure of Stirling’s ability to break into this market. What are your takes on this?

Also, Stirling emphasizes they use hydrogen as their working fluid and I can’t figure out why. Does anyone know what its advantages are over other working fluids?

]]>