Parabolic Trough Technology

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has created a new website, "TroughNet." Currently parabolic trough solar technology offers the lowest cost solar electric option for large power plant applications.  TroughNet is a technical resource that offers:

• information about the various components of a solar trough,
• the power cycles that can be used with solar troughs,
• the status of thermal energy storage that could be applied to solar trough power plants,
• research and development being conducted and
• a market and economic assessment.

I hope that you find this site useful in pursuing your interests in renewable energy.

Comments

[Andreas]

The direct link to "Troughnet" is
http://www.nrel.gov/csp/troughnet/

More information on CSP is available at
http://www.trec-uk.org.uk
and Large scale CSP

[BCC]

Here's the direct link

[BCC]

Oops, Andreas beat me to it.

[Andreas]

CSP has an energy payback time of only 6 months compared to some 2 years for photovoltaic power plants in the south-west of US. Excess solar power is easily stored during the day as heat in salt tanks for night time electricity production. Waste heat can be used for sea water desalination.

At a cost of 4 $/W one could build 100 GW of CSP with the $ 400 billion spent in the “2nd oil war”, or 300 GW if private investors inject $ 2 for every $ granted by the government. In a desert area of 100 x 100 km2 (2 % of the Great Basin) at 20 % capacity factor they would generate clean electricity of 0.2 x 300 GW x 24 h/d = 1440 GWh/day. This is equivalent to 3,000,000 barrels of oil per day, more than imported from the entire Persian Gulf region!

Investing in solar energy instead in wars for oil would not only make US independent from Iraq et al., but also save us and our children from climate disaster and radioactive waste as long as sun shines on earth. Each square meter of desert receives solar energy equivalent to 1.5 barrels of oil annually, a layer of oil 9 inches deep! The technology to tap this never ebbing well exists and is economically viable.

We have to act before the rising fever of mother Earth provoked by Homo sapiens renders life unpleasant. Man has conquered space and landed on the moon. Now we need clear leadership, something like an Apollo Program for earth, to save our spaceship before its climatisation runs out of control.

[GreyFlcn]

The other cool part about CSP
Is that it can use biogas as it's backup.

Since all it needs to do is use the same built-infastructure, with a different heating element.

_

Actually last I checked, PG&E's Luz II project is down to 2 $/W

Where as thinfilm CIGS solar is getting into the similar region. (I've heard as low as 0.75 $/W to produce with 2.00 $/W installed)

That makes it competative with nuclear which advertises roughly 1.70 $/W
(However Nuclear tends to pick up a lot of externality costs, and is advertised using "best case scenario" long term plans)

[TheSunHarvest.com]

Yes I do find this Useful thank you for the post.
I think it would be useful if people put solar on their roof tops and harnessed all of there energy needs from the sun. I think this would be very Usefull. The Suns Harvest has enough energy to fill all of our needs we just have to have the balls to be first adaptors and not wait for big business or government to solve a problem when the solution is so obvios
Peace for you,
Thomas Foreman

[TheSunHarvest.com]

Yes I do find this Useful thank you for the post.
I think it would be useful if people put solar on their roof tops and harnessed all of there energy needs from the sun. I think this would be very Usefull. The Suns Harvest has enough energy to fill all of our needs we just have to have the balls to be first adaptors and not wait for big business or government to solve a problem when the solution is so obvios
Peace for you,
Thomas Foreman

[anonymous]

I read all the sections of this web site - I thought it was very well done. The section about storage also well written, but did not give an exact number as to the efficiency of storage (i.e. x% of energy stored that can be recovered [or in other words (100-x) % loss of energy for storage]). It is not clear why they did not consider pumped water storage, a technologically mature solution with known costs and (to my best knowledge) an 80% round trip efficiency for energy storage.

[Mike]

Interesting,

It appears we are finally seeing advances in solar concentration technologies which should dominate the market over solar PV in no time at all with the latest nano materail breakthroughs once combined with concentration and focus systems like this article pointed out, and like IAUS has developed.

www.Green-Homes.com

[Kit P.]

FPL is the leading US producer of solar electricity using this technology. It is also the US leader using wind power. Unfortunately, their web site does not provide any info on performance although it would appear they use advanced predictive maintenance methods.

This site www.worldwater.com provides some real time data. Three locations in California at capacity factors if 4%, 5%, and 18%. One NJ site had 13%.

[Glenn]

It would take relatively little to get to solar or wind energy. We can only get their by assessing damage done by continuning to burn fossil fuel. This is the answer.

This is the most transparent, most efficient, and least expensive way to get to sustainable energy and end energy imports and global warming; guaranteed!

The Free Market Solution Part 1
This is about using the power of the free market to provide to solution to oil imports and global warming.

The next president should appoint a commission, of wise people, with no significant financial interests in energy, to come up with the most effective and least costly means to reduce greenhouse gases.

This is what they would come up with:
An assessment against fossil carbon release and then returned equally to all tax filers.
Here’s why:

1.It avoids a tax that to many people means wasteful spending.
A carbon tax would do many of the same things an assessment would do, but would not
be as efficient (motivate) and certainly would not be popular.
2. A carbon tax is regressive, since low income people spend a greater portion of their
income for energy.
A carbon tax would be especially unfair and unpopular with lower income people.
3. An assessment does not make reduction of energy use mandatory.
Free choice is always desirable and would motivate more people. Those who chose
not to participate can feel free not to as they will be paying others to reduce their
use and will pay for renewable fuel development.
4. As non-fossil energy comes on line, the assessment becomes less until it disappears.
An assessment is temporary and disappears as fossil carbon emissions drop.
5. It would be inexpensive to collect, since it would involve the few oil or coal companies
and they already collect the necessary information.
6. It would cost very little to pay back, since a tax filing system is already in place.
7. An assessment would be fair, if the assumption is made, that all people are born equal and
have an equal stake or equal rights to a clean environment.
8. Most important, an assessment would allow free market principles to work.
Why would anyone think congress would make the best decisions on what energies to
support with grants, subsidies, tax breaks or mandates. The reason an assessment
would work is the complete transparency and everyone can choose whether to be
involved and those risking their investment money will make more knowledgeable
decisions than congress.
Go to www.greengenes.info for parts 2 -6