Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

World's First Hybrid-Solar Power Plant

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-08-11 05:55 PM
Original message
World's First Hybrid-Solar Power Plant
World's First Hybrid-Solar Power Plant

The new plant is one of three huge new solar facilities commissioned by the utility Florid Power & Light. Apparently the first in the world of its kind, the Solar Energy Center consists of 190,000 solar panels working in combination with an existing natural gas-fired power plant. As a means of seamlessly transitioning out of fossil fuels and into renewables, the hybrid power plant concept is sort of like a mega-scale version of the Chevy Volt. You get all the advantages of new energy but the old energy is still there as a cushion. It's also an example of a transitional energy storage solution, in which the natural gas supply takes on the role of stored energy, instead of building a new facility to store solar energy.

Clean Taxes

One advantage of clean energy is the concept of clean taxes. In its first year, the plant is expected to generate a whopping $5 million in new local tax revenue in its home county, Martin. That's virtually impact-free revenue for the local economy, without the environmental, public health and and public safety risks (and costs) that local communities usually have to put up with when hosting fossil fuel operations.

A Who's Who of Solar Energy Fans in Florida

As an indicator of the statewide significance of the new plant, the switch-flipping ceremony was attended by a long list of dignitaries, including the Governor of Florida. While not quoted in FPL's press release, at the ceremony the Governor provided a clear statement of appreciation for FPL and NextEra, the company that built the installation. Left out of all the hoopla (unless I missed something) was any appreciation for federal taxpayers, who chipped in about $120 million in Recovery Act funding for the plant and the two other new FPL solar energy facilities.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/idUS379952796020110308


http://www.solarserver.com/solar-magazine/solar-news/current/2011/kw10/florida-power-and-light-celebrates-75mw-combined-cspnatural-gas-plant.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. Greenwash FTW?
> You get all the advantages of new energy but the old energy is still there
> as a cushion.

Yeah ... a nice fluffy pink cushion decorated with fairies and (green) unicorns ...
that's like describing the foundations, walls & roof of a house as a "cushion"
for the wallpaper ...


> It's also an example of a transitional energy storage solution, in which the
> natural gas supply takes on the role of stored energy, instead of building a
> new facility to store solar energy.

So ... when solar output exceeds demand, there will be no storage, just dumping
the excess (as heat) or shutting down the collection (gating input) but when
solar output is insufficient (>50% of the time) then gas is used ... just like
at present ...

You have to take off your hat to the marketers here: they've just brushed the
primary drawback of solar (actual 24x7 vs peak noon output) straight under the
rug by claiming that the need for fossil fuel is a *design feature*!


> That's virtually impact-free revenue for the local economy, without the
> environmental, public health and and public safety risks (and costs) that
> local communities usually have to put up with when hosting fossil fuel
> operations.

Ummm no ... that's continuing the existing environmental, public health
and public safety risks (and costs) that the local community is *already*
putting up with as it is an existing operation.


The article writer points out the political view quite nicely at the end:
> In other words, it's good policy for the U.S. to continue to engage in
> fossil fuel operations that involve high costs and high risks at every stage
> from harvesting to transportation to the final burn, as long as we keep all
> those impacts right here at home.

Sounds just like China ... except that the Chinese Prime Minister is already
starting to wake up ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. This sounds to me like a good step in the right direction
but you can't seem to see that can you
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. This sounds to me like a con-game that will *harm* genuine solar energy projects ...
... as it provides a great big "Look how so-called renewable energy
depends on natural gas" sign for some of your favourite anti-solar
posters but you seem to assume that I'm just blindly against anything
solar don't you?

Please re-read my post.

If the place is suitable for solar, all well & good but to try to pretend
that the retention & repolishing of the existing fossil fuel power source
is somehow "storage" is the bit that I have a problem with on this project.

There are genuine storage solutions out there: use them.

There are alternative energy co-generation options: use them.

If they'd come straight out with it and said "Here's a new solar farm that
we know will need various amounts of topping up from the existing natural
gas power station" then at least they would have been being honest!
I probably wouldn't have commented on such a report, just recommended it
and moved onto the next "new solar farm opens" post.

Sticking a few solar panels in the back yard of an old gas-fired powerstation
and calling it "New! Shiny! Green!" for the sole purpose of converting the
renewable energy grants into profits for investors in natural gas corporations
isn't "green" at all.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You really don't know what you are talking about
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 10:48 AM by kristopher
You are a proponent of nuclear power and you have consistently posted in a manner designed to undermine the use of renewable power, so please don't pretend that you have the best interest of solar power in mind.

The FACTS are these:

They have used a brownfield site of an existing natural gas plant to build a rather large solar farm.

The natural gas plant is primarily a peaking plant delivering power at the time when demand is highest due to mid-day AC use.

The solar plant is designed to meet that same peaking need.

That frees up the natural gas that would have been used during the peaking period.

That natural gas represents stored energy that can be used IF the weather is such that the solar plant delivers too little power.

That is energy storage by the definition of every energy analyst out here.


All you are after in reality is a reason to post negative comments on a thread about solar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Looking in a mirror again?
Your post is simply smearing bullshit in your usual manner
to defend the natural gas profit-margins at all costs.


> You are a proponent of nuclear power and you have consistently posted
> in a manner designed to undermine the use of renewable power, so please
> don't pretend that you have the best interest of solar power in mind.

I have stated several times that I've practically given up on nuclear power
as a viable option in the USA as it is totally mired in politics, in greed
and in lies (yes, on BOTH sides of the argument).

I have also stated countless times that I *support* the appropriate use of
renewable power - not just verbally on forums such as this but with my
own money & effort.


> All you are after in reality is a reason to post negative comments
> on a thread about solar.

That is a lie.

My strong suspicion is that you are posting lies like that purely from
a defensive position due to your self-confessed links to the natural gas
industry in the USA. Regardless of the accuracy of my suspicion, your
statement remains a lie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. That plant does not protect natural gas, it displaces it.
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 12:09 PM by kristopher
Which confirms what I said in the previous header, you don't know what you are talking about with your criticisms. They are purely a product of propaganda from the nuclear industry. The fact is that utility scale solar projects are required to pull manufacturing investment into the solar industry; which is an essential part of the process of getting the price to levels where solar generated electricity becomes less expensive than coal. It is clear from the OP that it is already less expensive than natural gas.

The only drawback to the system described in the OP is that the general theory behind it is one that is killing the nuclear power industry. Period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 12:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So are you here admitting your error?
You now recognize that even for it's ideal role (as a peaking supplier in hot sunny areas) solar power cannot meet the need without significant fossil generation capacity as a backup?

Welcome to the real world. You should visit more often. :)

the general theory behind it is one that is killing the nuclear power industry. Period.


Whoa. Record short visit. Come back soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Aw nuts. Why did I assume that you knew what you were talking about?
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 01:33 PM by FBaggins
The natural gas plant is primarily a peaking plant delivering power at the time when demand is highest due to mid-day AC use.

Care to try again?

The natural gas plant is one of the largest in the world (the largest fossil-fuel power facility in the US). The solar will help offset less than 1% of it's power generation.

On edit - That is... it's the largest in the country until the third unit opens up on the new West County Energy Center right down the road later this year.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. It is. It eliminates the cost of a turbine and reduces the amount of natural gas used.
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 12:46 PM by Fledermaus
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. You didn't by any chance...
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 01:13 PM by FBaggins
...compare the cost of the plant to the cost of the natural gas that will be reduced over the 30-year life expectancy of the plant, did you?

Whew... thank goodness they didn't have to pay for a turbine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. And you did?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Of course.
Why would I ask otherwise?

It cost $476 million

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/business/05solar.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=energy-environment

It's expected to save $178 million worth of natural gas over it's 30 year life expectancy.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/01/fpls_estimates_on_solar_costs.html

Now... those are estimates. Of course fuel prices could get out of hand and they would save more than that. OTOH, I don't know whether those savings include both cycles of gas power generation. The steam from the solar plant runs one of the steam turbines that would otherwise use the heat from the primary cycle of the gas generator. Some of that gas savings may therefore come at the price of lower power generation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fledermaus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 09:00 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. ???The numbers you gave are for a different power plant????
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 09:01 PM by Fledermaus
You didn't run any numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No they aren't.
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 09:11 PM by FBaggins
Both are for that Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center.

You didn't actually buy kris' bs that solar is cheaper than the alternatives, did you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Wind Power Myths Debunked" Special article from IEEE Power and Energy Magazine
The continuing efforts of the nuclear proponents to muddy the role of renewables and energy storage (natural gas or other) needs to be addressed with some real information addressing a renewable grid and the role of storage:
Wind Power Myths Debunked
november/december 2009 IEEE power & energy magazine
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/MPE.2009.934268
International

By Michael Milligan, Kevin Porter, Edgar DeMeo, Paul Denholm, Hannele Holttinen, Brendan Kirby, Nicholas Miller, Andrew Mills, Mark O’Malley, Matthew Schuerger, and Lennart Soder

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

Does Wind Need Storage?

The fact that “the wind doesn’t always blow” is often used to suggest the need for dedicated energy storage to handle fluctuations in the generation of wind power. Such viewpoints, however, ignore the realities of both grid operation and the performance of a large, spatially diverse wind-generation resource. Historically, all other variation (for example, that due to system loads, generation-commitment and dispatch changes, and network topology changes) has been handled systemically. This is because the diversity of need leads to much lower costs when variability is aggregated before being balanced.

Storage is almost never “coupled” with any single energy source—it is most economic when operated to maximize the economic benefit to an entire system. Storage is nearly always beneficial to the grid, but this benefit must be weighed against its cost. With more than 26 GW of wind power currently operating in the United States and more than 65 GW of wind energy operating in Europe (as of the date of this writing), no additional storage has been added to the systems to balance wind. Storage has value in a system without wind, which is the reason why about 20 GW of pumped hydro storage was built in the United States and 100 GW was built worldwide, decades before wind and solar energy were considered as viable electricity generation technologies. Additional wind could increase the value of energy storage in the grid as a whole, but storage would continue to provide its services to the grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in the net demand, not just wind.

As an example, consider Figure 7 below, which is based on a simplified example of a dispatch model that approximates the western United States. All numerical values are illustrative only, and the storage analysis is based on a hypothetical storage facility that is limited to 10% of the peak load and 168 hours of energy. The ability of the system to integrate large penetrations of wind depends heavily on the mix of other generation resources. Storage is an example of a flexible resource, and storage has economic value to the system even without any wind energy. As wind is added to the system in increasing amounts, the value of storage will increase. With no wind, storage has a value of more than US$1,000/kW, indicating that a storage device that costs less would provide economic value to the system. As wind penetration increases, so does the value of storage, eventually reaching approximately US$1,600/kW. In this example system, the generation mix is similar to what is found today in many parts of the United States. In such a system with high wind penetration, the value of storage is somewhat greater because the economic dispatch will result in putting low-variable-cost units (e.g., coal or nuclear) on the margin (and setting the market-clearing price) much more often than it would have without the wind. More frequent periods with lower prices offers a bigger price spread and more opportunities for arbitrage, increasing the value of storage.

In a system with less base load and more flexible generation, the value of storage is relatively insensitive to the wind penetration. Figure 8 shows that storage still has value with no wind on the system, but there is a very slight increase in the value of storage even at a wind-penetration rate of 40% (energy). An across-the-board decrease in market prices reduces the incentives for a unit with high fi xed costs and low variable costs (e.g., coal or nuclear) to be built in the first place. This means that in a high-wind future, fewer low-variable-cost units will be built. This reduces the amount of time that low-variable-cost units are on the margin and also reduces the value of storage relative to the “near-term” value with the same amount of wind...



Readers may also want to browse these renewable integration reports prepared by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/wwsis.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Oh wow! We could have a 100% renewable grid in less than a decade!
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 02:03 PM by FBaggins
Who knew that all we had to do was relable coal/oil/gas as "storage"?

Problem solved!

BTW - You don't relize that the spam you just posted debunks your longstanding BS about a 100% renewable grid as it relates to storage needs, do you? Hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Poor little nuclear industry pusher just can't help himself...
Edited on Wed Mar-09-11 03:30 PM by kristopher
You claim that your unceasing support for nuclear power and your unending attacks on renewable energy are motivated by concern over climate change.

Let's look at how your posts in this thread disprove your claim:

Natural gas has significantly lower GHG emissions than coal.

Natural gas is much more expensive than coal - that's why coal provides such a large share of our electricity and nearly 80% of that sector's GHG emissions.

Renewables are less expensive than natural gas.

Renewables emit far fewer GHGs than natural gas.

We have enough unused already built natural gas infrastructure to enable us to shut down ALL coal plants tomorrow if we were willing to pay the price of the fuel.

Natural gas is an excellent load follower that enables large quantities of renewable energy technology to be deployed WITHOUT diverting funds from renewable generation to not yet built storage facilities.

Building renewables reduces consumption of both natural gas AND coal.

When we spend less in the near term on storage it means we spend more on renewable generation - thus reducing GHG emissions.

As the grid becomes saturated with renewables there will be ample emerging economic niches to move away from natural gas. For example, when we compare building an ice storage facility and building a natural gas facility from scratch the ice storage delivers electricity for less money than the natural gas facility. That means that as the natural gas plants age or when new dispatchable capacity is needed to support a heavily renewable grid, the non-fossil alternatives are going to be selected.

In the meantime, natural gas plants that are supporting variable energy sources can at any time seamlessly transition to biomethane for greater GHG reductions.

The general timeline is that we focus on deploying RENEWABLE GENERATION and electric vehicles until about 2030 and then turn our attention to the final goal of eliminating natural gas.

Since the facts and strategy outlined here are accepted by all experts as the most effective and achievable route to a carbon free economy it is hard to take seriously your claim that your support for nuclear is motivated by climate change concerns. Apparently you want us to *not* build renewables solely because they take away market from nuclear power.

All of your efforts here are not going to save nuclear, so why not stop the attacks on renewable energy and let us enjoy some meaningful discussion?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-09-11 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Poor Kris... can't help but build his own strawman.
Obviously because reality is too difficult to deal with.

You claim that your unceasing support for nuclear power and your unending attacks on renewable energy are motivated by concern over climate change.

Nope. I have unceasing support for both nuclear and renewable energy. I'm a big fan of offshore hydro and a pretty big fan of most kinds of wind (and even most solar if sited properly). You will find no "unending attacks" on renewables, merely corrections of the misguided BS that somehow we can achieve a 100% renewable infrastructure in 10-20-30 years. I also correct your frequent false statements that are offered as settled facts. That's not an attack on renewables. It's a correction of your errors. Not at all the same thing.

Let's look at how your posts in this thread disprove your claim:

A statement that is then followed by a list of statements that I didn't make... many of which are factually incorrect? You don't even try to hide your strawmen, do you?

Natural gas has significantly lower GHG emissions than coal.
That's true.
Natural gas is much more expensive than coal
Also true (but see below).
Renewables are less expensive than natural gas.
Not even close. Any games that try to make it lool like that's true would change tha answer to your point above.
Renewables emit far fewer GHGs than natural gas
Of course. Just as nuclear power does.
We have enough unused already built natural gas infrastructure to enable us to shut down ALL coal plants tomorrow if we were willing to pay the price of the fuel.
Not a chance. Not even close. Coal produces almost half of our electricity while natural gas is a tad over 20%. You're saying that almost 3/4 of the natural gas plant capacity is idle at any given time?
Building renewables reduces consumption of both natural gas AND coal.
Of course. As does nuclear.
When we spend less in the near term on storage it means we spend more on renewable generation - thus reducing GHG emissions.
And that's fine right up until that renewable generation goes from being a tiny 2-4% of power generation and starts to be something we rely on.

All of your efforts here are not going to save nuclear,

You continue to spend most of your time in that fantasy world? "My efforts" are not needed to "save" nuclear power. It's doing just fine on it's own. The fact that you would like it to die off does not mean that it has or will. In fact just the opposite is occuring (your best efforts notwithstanding).

Since the facts and strategy outlined here are accepted by all experts

Lol! You've got to be kidding. It must be awfully convenient to define "experts" as "people who already agree with me... no matter how few they are" and everyone else is a nuclear industry shill that can be ignored.

It isn't rational... but it is convenient. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC