World first: Australian solar plant has generated “supercritical” steam that rivals fossil fuels

Did they succeed in running a steam turbine connected to a generator?

originally posted by: darkbake
As for the night time energy, there are capacitors or batteries that can store excess electricity from the day to use at night...

Sure, but the fact that they can only produce the power in times of relatively intense sunlight is certainly a limitation.

Most power plants operate 24/7 in order to produce enough power to keep up with demand. This one obviously cannot do that. Sure -- they could store power when the sun isn't shining, but that isn't doing anything to slake the demand. That's why I say it is a limitation, even if they can store the power that they did produce.

Granted, if the can run turbines cheaply and efficiently, them this is one great way to supplement the demand for energy without burning fossil fuels in the process -- but it would only be a supplement, considering it only produces energy when (and where) it is sunny.

a reply to: shaneslaughta

I imagine they will be cooking birds right out of the air with all that heat. lol

but I'm glad that they are trying. there's no reason for countries like australia with tons of sunlight not to do this.

lol what will they use at night. Well what do they use now? Using this system wouldprovide 50% of our energy needs without any storage. That would be a wise start. Then figure in water and wind and that 50% is reduced again without storage.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Can you please explain (or provide a link) where the 50% figure come from?
Thanks.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People day and night
Of coarse those are generalizations but the thought that this tech is not doable because the sun does not shine all the time is crazy way to be a nonstarter. The point being that if this is used even without storage it would be a benefit and current producing means would be reduced by using this. Even just the thought of having solar panels has been negated by thoughts that the sun does not shine all day and windmills are not being used because the wind does not blow alll the time. so let's continue to rely on things that are not renewable because no fix is 100% while ignoring the fact that if every home had solar panels in the country there would be more jobs and less energy dependence on nonrenewables.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Well, sure -- every bit helps, and I agree that we humans should strive to use alternative energy sources.

However, if your "50%" number was based on the idea that the sun shines 50% of the time, then that is grossly overly optimistic. On most places on earth, the sun does NOT shine for 50% of the all of the available time in a year. In fact, I bet it is a rarity to find such a place (in general, when all population areas are considered)

Here is a link that gives the number of average sunlight hours per day in certain areas of the United States, averaged out over the course of a year.

How many hours of sunlight?


According to that table, where I live (in Pennsylvania) we would be lucky to get 4.5 hours of sunshine suitable for solar energy. Sure -- sometimes we get much more than that, but averaged out over a year, it is not even 4.5 hours. Even places such as Tucson (Arizona) and Las Vegas receive less than 7 hours per day.

This table is for the U.S., but I suspect similar numbers for Europe and Asia. Granted, as I said above, maybe some parts of the world may get close to 12 hours, but those places would be the exceptions, not the rule.

a reply to: deadeyedick
Referring to solar and wind as "renewables" is an exaggeration, at best.

You still require natural resources and power to develop and build the underlying components, which consume materials that will not be replaced or "renewed," especially for the turbines and generators.

You will also require conventionally-fueled power to take the load when your "renewable "source is off-line or less than 100% operational. Since we are in the process of eliminating 40% of conventional generation capacity under the EPA, you may want to start saving batteries and get your bicycle generators ready or just be prepared for the brownouts the Germans and Brits are facing right now due to lack of back-up capacity.

By the way, much of the UK's "renewable" energy comes from burning WOOD products. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative?

Wind and solar for the near-term will be supplemental sources, at best.
The reality is that elimination of fossil fuels is not going to happen in our lifetimes -- we should be spending on fossil-fuel efficiency and conservation instead of elimination/replacement.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Granted, if the can run turbines cheaply and efficiently, them this is one great way to supplement the demand for energy without burning fossil fuels in the process -- but it would only be a supplement, considering it only produces energy when (and where) it is sunny.

I agree, at least until technology improves, this kind of module makes best sense in a desert or somewhere where it is sunny.I think supplement is a good word for it, I don't think it would be feasible to replace all fossil fuel power plants with this kind of solar plant, I think it is more experimental actually.

I remember reading about this type of stuff a while back. Apparently there are proposals for similar setups in the Arizona/New Mexico deserts. These facilities cover a very large land footprint, due to the requirements of focusing dishes that track the sun's movement and direct the energy at a tower. Very cool tech, except on cloudy days and at night.

originally posted by: sn0rch
this is terrible news. if we trap all the suns light in one place, then it will get colder. and we will be in darkness a lot.

Why do they have to ruin everything. Sunlight should be for everyone, they shouldnt steal it all in deserts.

And as for at night, the sun still shines you know. it's not turning off. Maybe if they build these things in space then we wont have climate freezing due to them hogging all the sunlight and it can be powered constantly. Mars and Venus dont need the sun anyway.

Man, a couple of you guys must be the life of the party. This was an overly obvious attempt/success at humor. Come on ya'll, lighten up a little bit. It was funny.

What is wrong with simple water electrolysis during the day and combustion at night as a storage?
Can't they focus all the light into a laser like beam and make stuff with it? I mean stuff like high-temperature electrolysis and other playing with atoms

originally posted by: sn0rch
this is terrible news. if we trap all the suns light in one place, then it will get colder. and we will be in darkness a lot.

Why do they have to ruin everything. Sunlight should be for everyone, they shouldnt steal it all in deserts.

And as for at night, the sun still shines you know. it's not turning off. Maybe if they build these things in space then we wont have climate freezing due to them hogging all the sunlight and it can be powered constantly. Mars and Venus dont need the sun anyway.

---
OMG....Starred.

a reply to: Arnie123

I agree I thought it was hilarious. Apparently it is too serious of a topic to joke about though.

I'm surprised this is a new topic here. I must be subscribed to an e newsletter where I read dozens of breaking news like this every week. Anyway when I first read about this elsewhere a few weeks ago, I thought hooray, the cost looks like it now is becoming cost competitive with fossil fuels. I may want to search my emails to see what other information I may have read about this. I just do not have time to read everything. I was happy to hear the cost is coming down with this development. When I get a chance, I can share the e newsletter if asked.

a reply to: orionthehunter
---
Well, honestly I think it would be more cost effective in the long run.
You only have to buy the panels and an maintenance cost would decrease, its much more difficult an less dangerous then a nuclear power plant.

But the trade off though....that's key.

Solar plant: reduced emissions, Safe technology, operates at the expense of an open and clear sky.
BUT, Danger to animals, birds. Only effective during the day.
Nuclear Plant: Continuous power through night an day.
BUT, waste to the environment, increased emissions, hazardous technology.

So in truth, Ill stick to the Solar Power Plant, but whats being discussed in the thread has merit such as power storage and increased efficiency.

S&F

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Solar is the way to go.
The first 2 weeks of June, Germany was able to produce 50% of the entire countries required energy by solar power alone.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: deadeyedick



Well, sure -- every bit helps, and I agree that we humans should strive to use alternative energy sources.



However, if your "50%" number was based on the idea that the sun shines 50% of the time, then that is grossly overly optimistic. On most places on earth, the sun does NOT shine for 50% of the all of the available time in a year. In fact, I bet it is a rarity to find such a place (in general, when all population areas are considered)



Here is a link that gives the number of average sunlight hours per day in certain areas of the United States, averaged out over the course of a year.



How many hours of sunlight?





According to that table, where I live (in Pennsylvania) we would be lucky to get 4.5 hours of sunshine suitable for solar energy. Sure -- sometimes we get much more than that, but averaged out over a year, it is not even 4.5 hours. Even places such as Tucson (Arizona) and Las Vegas receive less than 7 hours per day.



This table is for the U.S., but I suspect similar numbers for Europe and Asia. Granted, as I said above, maybe some parts of the world may get close to 12 hours, but those places would be the exceptions, not the rule.

I call bs on your sunlight hour facts. I'm in texas and i have some panels and right now i can get peak rays for well over 10 hrs. a day and i can produce for over 12 hrs right now and that is without a sun tracker. The newer panels are designed to do better than that. There is a huge mental block that has been placed in the road of progress.

a reply to: jdub297 I respect all of you but it is this kind of talk that makes the whole issue a non starter. I think too many focus on the half empty part of the glass.

originally posted by: JackSparrow17
I remember reading about this type of stuff a while back. Apparently there are proposals for similar setups in the Arizona/New Mexico deserts. These facilities cover a very large land footprint, due to the requirements of focusing dishes that track the sun's movement and direct the energy at a tower. Very cool tech, except on cloudy days and at night.

There are statiions that use this tech and have been in operation for over ten years in the us temps. over 1500 degrees on normal days.