Solar thermal shoots for the sky
It is generally recognised that solar thermal technology will make a major contribution to Australia’s future energy needs. But its cost structure is said to be around a decade behind that of solar PV – and the roll-out of solar thermal has slowed in some areas because of it.
But new technological developments seem likely to accelerate that fall down the cost curve. John Woolard, the CEO of US-based BrightSource Energy, last week told Greentech Media that the cost of the solar tower technology it has developed will be competitive with solar PV as early as 2014/15, as the second phase of developments are rolled out. That’s way ahead of most expectations.
How that might be done was revealed in the past two weeks, when the company unveiled two new important new designs that will make it more efficient, and push its production further into the evening peak.
BrightSource is currently building a 392MW solar thermal plant called Ivanpah in the Mojave Desert in California, and has just unveiled plans for a new 500MW plant just 60km to the south. Solar towers use software to control thousands of tracking mirrors, known as heliostats, to directly concentrate sunlight onto a boiler filled with water that sits atop a tower. Ivanpah will feature three towers each of 450 feet (137 metres, or the equivalent of a 33-storey building), at the centre of three modules that will each have a capacity of 130MW. Just by comparison, the solar tower research facility launched at the CSIRO’s flagship facility last month by Prime Minister Julia Gillard stands 30m high.
Last week, the company released plans for a 500MW plant at Hidden Hills, some 60km north of Ivanpah, and about the same distance west of Las Vegas, that will feature 750-foot towers (228m), the equivalent of a 55-storey building. According to the company, the extra height will enable it to pack more heliostats into a smaller area, reduce the space required, and boost the economics of the project significantly. Each of 750-foot towers will cost around 40 per cent more than the 450-foot towers, but their capacity will be doubled, and each will be able to generate 250MW, instead of 130MW at Ivanpah.
BrightSource also unveiled a molten salt storage option to go with its solar towers. Rather than aiming for energy produced 24/7, as has been achieved at the Gemasolar plant in Spain, the company says just six hours of storage would more than double the amount of output from the same plant – from 1,900 hours a year to more than 4,000 hours – and deliver a huge cost advantage. This will particularly be the case in when pushing output into the high-value evening peak, and will give it an advantage over other renewables such as wind and solar PV, where economically viable storage options are proving more elusive.
Carlos Aguilar, the head of international development for BrightSource, says the storage option will not likely be used at the Ivanpah project, because the summer peak load tends to fall in summer afternoons when Californian air conditioners are in most demand. But it will be applicable in other regions where local factors mean that peak loads occur later in the evening. “What we are trying to do is adapt to each plant’s needs,” he tells Climate Spectator in an interview. “When you have load curves that go into the evening – that affects the value of the energy.”
Aguilar has arrived in Australia for a week-long visit which will take him to most capital cities. Like other solar developers, BrightSource’s interest in Australia – which already has some of the best solar resources in the world – has been renewed by the government’s plans to introduce a carbon price, and create a new body, the Clean Energy Finance Corp – which will have up to $10 billion to invest to boost the deployment of new technologies.
“Australia is one of the most important markets, longer term, for solar thermal – without a doubt,” he said. “The solar research you have is fantastic. The other important reason is policy. There clearly is a focus on developing a regulatory environment that is favourable to this technology. The carbon price, when it comes into law, is an example. But there are many factors that will influence this. How fast it is going to develop we really don’t know. That’s the reason for me to visit.”
BrightSource and other solar developers in the US have benefited greatly from the use of loan guarantees from the US Department of Energy. Such mechanisms are also likely to be used now in Australia, both to help financing of some coal-fired power stations that may be affected by the carbon price, but also to help roll-out new technologies under the CEFC.
Australia currently has several large-scale solar thermal projects under planning or development. Two – a 250MW gas fired booster plant in Queensland using Areva’s compact linear Fresnel reflector technology, and a 150MW solar PV plant in NSW – will be sponsored by the Solar Flagships program; a 40MW plant using solar dish technology developed at the ANU will be built in Whyalla; and a 44MW solar boost plant will be added to the Kogan Creek coal-fired power station.
The second round of the Solar Flagships program will also likely support more and smaller utility-scale solar projects, and there have been calls for this to support solar tower and storage technologies. However, even without the Solar Flagships, some consortia – such as one supported by investment bank Investec – are expressing interest in developing projects, particularly in WA, where energy prices are high and there is a shortage of power in regional areas, and a particular problem with peak loads.
Australia, however, is not the only country to have a flagships program. South Africa launched the bidding process for its version lat week, while Morocco is expected to have a solar tower-specific round of grants next year. India is also preparing a new round of bids for its solar program, which aims to have 20GW installed by 2022, and the China market also looks promising. “They are very large markets, we will see how those evolve,” Aguilar says.
Comments on this article
In response to David LeComte
China's spending on renewables is not that great. We are to believe that per capita emissions are what count, that is Australia is one of the highest per capita emitters. The latest data I can find (end 2010) is that Australia has twice the wind generaty capacity installed per capita than China, and 100% was connected to the grid whereas around 75% of China's was. As for when it will be time to invest, the answer is whenever, it is economic to do so, no matter which decade that may be.
The fact is, we as a nation need to defend ourselves against the threat of climate change. As a nation we spend $21 billion per annum on our defense forces, even though there is no imminent threat of invasion. We also have treaties with other nations to come to our aid and vice versa.
The problem is that other nations are acting out of self interest when it comes to renewable energy, particularly the Chinese, British, and Europeans who do not wish to be dependendent on Russian gas pipelines; and our nation does not have a treaty with the rest of the world to defend us against global warming, until we do renewables should ditched as a complete waste of time and money.
Money spent on adaption planning (drought proofing the nation for example) would provide us with a much better defense without having to bet our whole future on the rest of the world saving us.
Australia lacks in solar ambition
We have such a wide continent, 3 time zones, plenty of sunshine, good latitudes, and yet Australian solar innovation is sadly lagging. Projects are needed to build up local engineering and manufacturing expertise. If solar thermal is going to be cost competitive with PV soon, then we need to be involve in planning and building commercial scale installations now, and their supporting infrastructure. Overseas efforts are dwarfing ours.
Great Minds Think Alike?
Lesser minds do as well.
Glenn Sargent - Great minds think alike
I invite your attention to an earlier post VIZ
Giant step in the right direction - If Chinese Whispers, sincere
Submitted by vasso massonic on Fri, 2011-08-05 13:06.
An outstanding opportunity for Australia to hold fire, pro tem, on renewable energies power generation.
The Chinese can afford the luxury of a big spend on solar, wind and wave technology, simply because they stand to significantly control its emissions and also profit from exporting the technology. Whereas, Australia does not have the significant emissions problem going forth but its fossil fuels stocks will, inevitably, reach obsolescence.
Dont invest now - wait till later?
In response to Glenn Sargent:
When is later? 2020 is only 8 years and 5 months away. 2030 is only 10 years after that.
Building infrastructure takes a long time. The transformation we are talking about will take decades.
Purchasing the fruits of other people's successful investment in R&D, is a lot more expensive than developing that Intellectual Property yourself. There is less risk, though.
This is a commercial decision that involves risk taking. It is better left to industry.
The government would be better to stay clear of picking technology winners, and concentrate on funding fundamental research, and removing barriers.
HV transmission should be brought back into the public sphere. It is currently state-based, and privately run (in the main). It should have a national focus.
It is also something which is a natural monopoly. Unless, that is, you like the idea of having rival HV transmission grids running side by side across the country. I believe that elected governments should be responsible for natural monopolies.
There should be a National Electricity Grid (NEG) - akin to the NBN. Such a grid would facilitate and foster new technologies whether they be geothermal, nuclear, solar thermal, or gas turbine.
I would like to see some of the money raised by selling carbon permits being used to build long distance inter-state based EHV, and UHV transmission lines for this NEG.
This should include a few UHV DC links across the Nullarbor, and duplication of the pathetic DC link we have across Bass Strait.
A change from stupid to liar, whatever next David leComte
Over and out.
Don't invest in solar now
Like many articles written on renewables technology this one also proves that the technology is immature and relatively expensive, Renewables will provide a better bang for the buck in the future. When the benefit of renewables match that of current technoligies then we should begin to invest.
What a waste building a 30 metre tower in Australia, let the rest of the world spend on the research, when we are ready we will use it.
In response to Vasso Massonic
Do you really think so little of the readers of this website to insult their intelligence so glibly?
If people wish to keep smoking they will. A tax on cigarettes does not impinge on supply, only demand, as you well know.
Making the consumption of carbon more expensive does not somehow miraculously reduce the amount of carbon that can be consumed.
It will make alternatives cheaper in the same way as it makes giving up cigarettes, or smoking less, a not so onerous choice.
So trying to imply that my analogy would lead to blackouts isn't silly, it is fraudulent. You aren't stupid - you're a liar.
Many thanks for the abusive response.
Response to David leComte
The Australian Government decided to implement a 25 per cent increase in tobacco excise to reduce smoking rates. Are you suggesting that they now wish to encourage black outs - Your comparison is laughable to say the least.
Solar thermal economics
"It is generally recognised that solar thermal technology will make a major contribution to Australia’s future energy needs." Are you sure of this Giles? Given the steep cost reduction curve for concentrating solar thermal power (CSP) to become economically competitive, that you yourself have earlier acknowledged, will solar thermal ever make more than a marginal contribution to our future energy mix? One report on the decreasing cost curve of renewables (Hearps & McConnell 2011) notes that: Cost of PV electricity predicted to fall to between $300 and $100/MWh (depending on who you believe) by 2030. Cost of wind between $140 and about $85/MWh by 2030. Cost of CSP between abput $210 and about $60/MWh by 2030. Contrast this with predictions that geothermal baseload energy can be delivered by 2020 for between about $50 and $100/MWh from the north Flinders Ranges and (if the latter prediction proves reliable) ask yourself which ‘renewable’ gives us the best chance of getting out of this fix.
Solar thermal is a joke...
Even the most basic understanding of economics knows that solar thermal doesn't stack up anyway you look at it.
Take the Kogan Creek Solar Boost Project for example:
Gillard announces $104.7M project inside an existing CFP station. (zero economies of scale here and severe performance masking on those 'dull' days)
Said groundbreaking project will provide QLD with 44MW of electricity per year (or a paltry 1.8% of QLD's daily demand).
Current average cost of QLD electricity = $38MWh
Cost of Kogan Creek Solar = $2,380MWh
Laughably this facility also claims "some 36,000 tonnes of carbon pollution will be avoided."
Do the math on the cost of that per tonne of 'carbon' abated.
Spain's unemployment is well over 20%; their green job and green energy fantasy lies in tatters, riddled with rorts, scams and an existence only made possible through massive government subsidies at the expense of its other industries.
And this is the future being demanded by the Carbon Cabal for Australia.
storage
David
I think i mentioned it won't be used for Ivanpah. Here's their announcement about it a week or so ago.http://www.brightsourceenergy.com/images/uploads/press_releases/SolarPLUS_Release_08-03-11_Final.pdf
More Detail on the Molten Salt Storage Option Please?
I cannot find any direct reference to molten salt storage at Ivanpah or any of the other Mojave desert plants under construction?
Giles, you indicate that BrightSource Energy have unveiled something - can you provide a link to it?
In response to Vasso Massonic:
The Gemasolar plant is a joke - 19MW. Built at incredible cost, using nothing more than technology first trialled in the 90s at Solar One (also in the Mojave Desert).
A far more interesting plant under construction is the Blythe Solar Power project (also in the Mojave) - 968MW.
The only disappointing thing is that this project isn't proposing any heat storage?
As to your stupid remarks regarding the carbon permit system, then answer this.
The proposed system differs from the ETS agreed to by the Howard government, in that, in the former, the "cost" of the permits would be set by the "market", and in the proposed system, the cost will start off fixed for a couple of years, before being subject to market forces. Both put a price on carbon: one is acceptable, and the other is not. Why?
We tax cigarettes to discourage their consumption - this is done everywhere in the world - why is doing the same for the consumption of carbon "a palaver".
Bias is not logic.
Direct and indirect action
To achieve the necessary reductions in the required time frame, we will need to put a price on carbon AND directly invest in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Proposing one or other is an entirely false choice.
It *is* direct action, but with a funding model
As I understand it, "Direct Action" the policy proposes much the same sort of thing, but funded by unspecified "savings" to be found from federal budgets.
The carbon tax approach puts a tax on something that is causing harm to the environment (and, in the long-term, the economy) and spending the revenue supporting replacement activities that avoid that harm.
If you think that phasing out fossil-fuel use (and eliminating the bulk of greenhouse emissions) can be done without cost to the economy, you're dreaming. The point is that it will cost less, in the long run, then continuing to burn the stuff.
Unfortunately for us, politicians normally consider "the long run" to be the election cycle after next, compared to the century or more that should be considered when talking about global warming.
Interesting, sounds very much like Direct Action endeavours
Why go through the palaver of taxing carbon which gives rise to excess electricity charges and then compensating consumers for the excess charges - Sounds like a classic exercise in futility.
Interesting article on Spain's Gemasolar - which offers more food for rational thought.
http://www.theage.com.au/business/use-funds-for-research-on-clean-energy-20110814-1isz1.html