Talk:Solar thermal energy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Archive

Older discussions can be found at:

[edit] International Automated Systems

Would somebody that knows more than me explain how this company claims to have invented something new? International Automated SystemsMichaelkrewson 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
They didn't invent something new, they just advanced the Photovoltiac technology. What they're saying is that their upgrade to the current technology is new.Watersoftheoasis 01:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved material from Solar power#Solar thermal electric power plants

I've done the move, so that all the material is in one place. I think it belongs here rather than in Solar power. Some of the subsections of Solar power#Solar thermal electric power plants arguably might be best moved here (Solar Tower etc). --Singkong2005 (t - c - WPID) 09:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I certainly want to encourage you to create a state-of-the-art article on Solar thermal energy. On the other hand, it begs the question what function remains for the Solar power article. In my view the Solar power article should give an overview of all what is out there, without getting into too much detail on all of that; details are best dealt with in separate articles like the one you are creating on Solar thermal energy. I that vein I would advocate to leave a short discussion on this subject in Solar power, and then provide a link to this article for further deatil.
Another issue I am concerned about is the proliferation of closely related articles, which seem to mostly ignore each other. I did a quick search to see what is out there, and what pops up is Solar power tower, Solar thermal collector, Solar One, Parabolic trough, Nevada Solar One, Solar hot water, Heliostat, Solar Energy Generating Systems, Alkali-metal thermal to electric converter, and this is far from complete. I think there is a need to concentrate all that material in one place, and provide an overview of what is out there. Solar power already overburdened with too much stuff, so perhaps all Solar thermal energy related articles should be reviewed (or even combined) in an article like this one. JdH 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Re the merge discussion: I recommend not to merge; rather, move much of the content from here to solar thermal collector, and let this article be devoted to energy generation in general, including a review of the various power plants, etc. linas 23:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] degrees

"latitude plus about 10 degrees": give reason and examples. Also two paragraphs down you switch from F to C degrees in the same sentence. Use C.

[edit] conversion efficiency

The article gives a 2.6% conversion efficiency to the AndaSol power plant in Spain. However it takes in account a 1Kw/m2 insolation at land level, which is far away the effective insolation, which averages 200 - 300w/m2. The prior number applies to the solar irradiation BEFORE it enters the atmosphere.

If we use the appropriate data for insolation we get more than 10% conversion efficiency for AndaSol, and this by computing its entire area and not only the conversion apparatus itself.

--Dfv10 15:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Lost & found. I wrote this paragraph a while back to point out that the conversion efficiency of the solar updraft tower is pathetic compared to other solar thermal energy technologies. The paragraph was moved within minutes I inserted it from solar updraft tower to here, an a transparent attempt to obfuscate that fact. Solar updraft tower is a promotional disaster area, and I abandoned it because I was sick and tired dealing with that kind of nonsense. It should probably be moved back to there, unless somebody believes that it is of some use over here. JdH 15:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Efficiency?

Isnt the focus on the efficiency a bit spurious? At the end of the day what counts is really the effective cost pre kWh, which takes all factors into acdcount, and how much land area is needed@Engineman 18:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

In-efficiency translates into cost. Since the solar collector of the solar updraft tower need 20 or 30 times the area of other solar thermal power plants in order to generate the same electrical power the upfront investments are actually higher than that of solar troughs and solar power towers; see Trieb, Franz; Ole Langniβ and Helmut Klaiβ (January-March 1997). "Solar electricity generation—A comparative view of technologies, costs and environmental impact". Solar Energy 59 (1-3): 89-99. Elsevier Science Ltd. doi:10.1016/S0038-092X(97)80946-2.  JdH 19:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some technology such as the TREC - CSP proposal can deliver firm power, due to the use of molten salt storage to allow power to be produced over night. Fossil fuel or bio-fuel can be also burnt as a back up. The proposal for power to be generated in North Africa and shipped to Central Europe using high efficiency HVDC power lines.Engineman 13:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data mismatch: 350MW or 330MW?

The "Parabolic trough designs" section says SEGS total electricity output is 350 MW, but in "Conversion rates from solar energy to electrical energy" section, that power is 330 MW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.185.46 (talk) 16:11, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Levelized Cost Calculation

I edited the obvious mistake, namely the 179 / 310 = 1.73 Euro. I'd like the original editor to fix the paragraph and clearly explain the assumptions he's making. Where does the division by 11.65 come from? If the lifetime is 25 years, and you repay the cost, C, in C/25 chunks with 7% interest on the remaining balance, then the largest(first) yearly payment you make is C/25 + .07*C. So, if 179 million KWh come out every year, you have to charge (1/25+.07)(C/179) = (.11)(1.73) = .19 Euros/KWh. If you consider the average yearly principal+interest payment, then you have (13*.07+1)/25*(C/179) = .13 Euros/KWh. An explanation of the financing assumptions the original editor used would be appreciated or I really think a more involved/useful analysis should replace that paragraph (or some citation to a study that calculated the levelized cost already). Meowist (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I will update it this week. I assumed payment of interest, with a decreasing debt (so, total interest payment decreasing). This result in a more complex formula. Lkruijsw (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated levelized cost. It is a bit long now. A separate article would be fine, because it also counts for other renewable energy. I want it in, because for me it took quite a long time, to find out how much solar energy really costs. This would have helped. Lkruijsw (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it that the levelized cost section doesn't qualify as original research? --  timc  talk   13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to thank the people that have contributed to the description of levelized cost in connection with alternative energy sources. Since virtually all debate in the area revolves around cost relative to established methods, information bearing on this is important to an informed understanding.

But, as suggested above, perhaps the discussion of the concept itself would be better placed under subjects related to accountancy and akin to concepts like amortization and compound interest.

Levelized cost is an established concept in accounting. Description of the concept does not, therefoere, constitute original research and neither would applicaton of its rules to specific examples.

Johnfravolda (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this section

I've removed the following section, as these technologies are just curiosities really, and only worthy of a mention in the See also list... Johnfos 21:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other solar thermal energy

There are a few other solar technologies that are based on thermal principles. They are similar to CSP in the sense that they can store heat and deliver energy at night. However, they do not concentrate the light and therefore can't be called CSP. They are based on heating or cooling of air and the principle that hot air rises and cold air sinks.