Welcome to the future of power generation… at SolarReserve’s 110 megawatt Crescent Dunes solar energy plant in Nevada. Capturing solar power in molten salt ... and storing it reliably, with revolutionary US developed technology.
Taking the initial capital investment plus running costs, how does this generating plant stack up against fossil fuel and nuclear in terms of Cents per KWh ?
Hi Will, we actually just announced a project that will be 2,000 megawatts - comprised of 10 towers. See (or listen to) www.npr.org/2016/10/12/497637737/solar-power-project-would-generate-electricity-24-hours-a-day
Now they just need to get the boiler to run off salt water and then we are set. Then in areas that are near the ocean or a highly salty water source can use that rather then fresh water. P.S. this type of solar plant boils water to make power for the people that do not know.
+jona jon great point. We do use the molten salt to heat water, create steam, and turn a turbine to generate electricity - just like a conventional power plant. Regarding water usage, you'll be happy to know two things. One, that the water/steam cycle is a closed loop system, so the steam is cooled back into water and used again (and again). Two, some power plants use water to cool the steam - we use (large) fans in what's called a 'dry cooling' system. So water use is much lower than a conventional fossil or nuclear plant.
***** Could it be modified to be cooled by salt water in areas that have easy access. So that the steam generated from the salt water could be condensed to make fresh water and retrieve salt or is the financial viability not there. If the financial viability is there this maybe very useful in the Salton Sea basin in California and other areas where you could get access to large amounts of salt water.
Chris Bernard They are using salt to store heat. As for the power output they are likely just reducing the flow of water into the boiler and then if there are multiple turbines they would likely close values to some of them.
+Jesse Gough we use a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate. The mixture is both non-toxic and inert. It's a great solution for heat transfer as well as thermal energy storage, and never needs replacing or topping off for the entire 30 + year life of the plant!
How would you protect this setup from solar flares? I understand that's not a priority at the moment but sometime in the future, shouldn't it be? It would be amazing if a lot of tech engineer teams came together and made the world futuristic, as seen in sci-fi cartoons. #ElonMusk anyone?
+Mike O'Tren good question! I asked our engineering team, and they confirmed that solar flares do not have any impact on our actual or projected thermal energy collection, or electricity generation. Teams are definitely coming together to innovate, part of that effort is being driven by the DOE SunShot program. This is what SolarReserve is working on: bit.ly/1XItTAP
Not sure what you define as "the best" but this technology is performing quite well and is able to provide dispatchable power when it's needed most. See www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-24-hours-on-the-sun
Well that's kind of ironic. I mean "the best" in the same way it was being implied in the video. I didn't say it was ineffective or not performing well. Just kind of seems like an outdated approach from the moment of implementation. I've seen more efficient designs already implemented elsewhere in the world.
***** I mean, even the Desert Sunlight Solar Farm it seems like, which uses cadmium telluride modules.. If I'm not mistaken, it takes up less space and produces more energy. There's also the solar dishes developed by Ripasso Energy. Gallium Arsenide seems to have a lot of potential.
The Desert Sunlight Solar Farm doesn't have energy storage, so it only produces electricity when the sun is shining. It's on 3,600 acres and powers 160,000 homes (but NOT during peak evening demand periods). Crescent Dunes is on 1,600 acres and powers 75,000 homes, day and night including peak evening demand periods. Solar that can't work if it's cloudy or night time sounds outdated to me :)
Not sure why you're hoping that innovative clean technology that will help our environment will fail, but it is working brilliantly. See www.powermag.com/crescent-dunes-24-hours-on-the-sun
***** Less (and unreliable) energy, at a greater expense. $1B, 70% of which were funds granted by the Department of Energy. A better alternative\investment? Nuclear.
DOE funds were a loan that we’ve been paying back , with interest, since December 2014. Also, this is emerging American innovation - the first project of its kind. Our next generation projects have no subsidies, as a price competitive with fossil fuel plants. In Chile, we just bid US$63MWh for 24/7 baseload power - completely emissions free.
***** It's good that the loan is being paid back. These kinds of projects absolutely have applications within particular locations. Especially where reducing emissions is concerned. However, I'm of the opinion that nuclear power is a better investment where the phasing out of fossil fuels is concerned. thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/nuclear-has-one-of-the-smallest-footprints I'm skeptical of solar, wind and other "green" energy projects, especially after scams like "solar roadways" and the many failed companies: www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/The-Mercifully-Short-List-of-Fallen-Solar-Companies-2015-Edition @ $1B, Crescent Dunes yields 1.37GWh, while a single-unit nuclear plant in Brokdorf, Germany yields 31.4GWh (if my calculations are right..). It has been doing its job since 1986 and took about 10 years to build (started in 1975). Crescent Dunes was built in half that time, with modern technology. New plants would be built faster, but cost more. I think nuclear should have greater subsidies; renewable energy receives multiple times more subsidies than nuclear energy at the moment (partially, I think, because of politics). So I'm not saying that solar doesn't have a place in the energy market, just that I don't see it competing well against nuclear.
You'll be interested to know that I started my career in nuclear power. The problem is that the regulations are so stringent, many times overly so, that it costs a lot (of time and money) to build new nuclear power plants. Our goal is to deploy our solar + storage technology without ANY subsidies ... we're doing so in South Africa and Chile.
