"Clean Coal" Claims that Solar can't handle Baseload power demands!

[Christ]

The chimney had a height of 195 metres and a diameter of 10 metres with a collection area (greenhouse) of 46,000 m² (about 11 acres, or 244 m diameter) obtaining a maximum power output of about 50 kW. However, this was an experimental setup that was not intended for power generation...

Sun doesn't only hit the ground, buddy. It can impart energy to anything it does hit, which means the entire chimney is capable of heating the airflow inside. It's not just about the ground. The entire chimney also acts as thermal mass, which will slowly dissipate heat as the temperature drops.

They can be built (at home) from aluminum/wood/steel/whatever frames and panes of glass/plexi. If kept clean, you still get the greenhouse effect, with bleed-through of light, so they don't even cast a huge shadow over everything they tower around.

The turbines can go at the top, in the case of a large one, or several small ones around the bottom, where the cooler air is drawn in. In the case that the turbines are on the ground, around the perimeter, the friction in the turbines helps to heat the air as it passes over them, which adds a benefit of pre-heating the air as it's entering the chimney, and cooling the turbines, keeping them at a higher efficiency.

[ai_vin]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

At what cost in efficiency, though? I've always suspected that the people selling this kind of plant are banking on the fact that very few investors are familiar with thermodynamics.

Well first you have to figure out what you mean by "efficiency" in this case. Thermodynamic efficiency doesn't mean much when the fuel is free. What matters is the cost(dollars, environmental, etc.) of collecting it. If they can deliver power to people who need it, when they need it, and at a price they are willing to pay then it's a good system. Up until now coal has been "cheap" because the real costs have been externalized; now that we'll have to pay for cleaning up the mess coal power made the cost of solar looks better.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Govt is already up yer bedroom- they (meaning, everybody else) pay people to have kids, remember? So are ya with me on the removal of dependent tax deductions and school funding based on how many kids you put in the school?

Agreed, economics is pretty much the ONLY way there is to effect behavioral change. So the subsidies for cheap energy should be stopped if we hope to curb the reckless rise in energy consumption.

I have mixed feelings on dropping the tax deductions. On one hand it enables people to have an unsustainable (talking #of family member/finance sustainable) number of dependents. On the other it lets responsible folks keep a little more of their own money.

As far as subsidies I could agree. The flip side of that coin though is that what would have been paid in subsidy should be left out of the tax burden.

In the interest of full disclosure out here (bush AK) we have PCE, other wise known as Power Cost Equalization. It's money that is paid by the state to the local power companies on behalf of the rate payers to reduce the electric bills to something near what is payed in the more developed areas. To simply cut it off would mean that folks who rely on it would be quite literally in the dark. Which this time of the year is a fair bit of day. Without a state sales or income tax all I can really say is thanks Big Oil, we'll leave the light on for ya.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

I have mixed feelings on dropping the tax deductions. On one hand it enables people to have an unsustainable (talking #of family member/finance sustainable) number of dependents. On the other it lets responsible folks keep a little more of their own money.

As far as subsidies I could agree. The flip side of that coin though is that what would have been paid in subsidy should be left out of the tax burden.

In the interest of full disclosure out here (bush AK) we have PCE, other wise known as Power Cost Equalization. It's money that is paid by the state to the local power companies on behalf of the rate payers to reduce the electric bills to something near what is payed in the more developed areas. To simply cut it off would mean that folks who rely on it would be quite literally in the dark. Which this time of the year is a fair bit of day. Without a state sales or income tax all I can really say is thanks Big Oil, we'll leave the light on for ya.

Isn't there still a land lease subsidy in AK for residents and dependents?

My Father used to live in AK, he got a check every so often just for being a resident of Eagle River, because of the oil pipeline.

[Doofus McFancypants]

"Only 2 kids?? but you will anger GOD. Every Sperm is Sacred, every sperm is great, and if a sperm is waisted, God will be irate"
and what would the Duggers do? ( the psycho's with 18 kids)
and Octo-mom would not be able to sign up for more kids

WE all know that the people who THINK through the actions will choose to limit the number of children they have - as logic indicates that more children requior more resources to raise them properly ( Including proper quaity time with parents, participation in activities and educutation)
so if the "smart" kids are being limited and the "dumb" kids are experiencing a population boom, we are going to have an interesting future..

Now i am NOT saying that SOME PARENTS are exceptional and can properly raise many kids, but for average american families raising 5 kids with 2 parents that work can spend very limited time with each child every night to instill the learning skills and life lessons and morality that GOOD parents can.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by ai_vin

Thermodynamic efficiency doesn't mean much when the fuel is free. What matters is the cost(dollars, environmental, etc.) of collecting it.

Exactly my point. If you reduce the thermodynamic efficiency, you increase the cost per watt generated, both in dollars (plant construction & maintenance), and the amount of land destroyed to build the plant.

Up until now coal has been "cheap" because the real costs have been externalized; now that we'll have to pay for cleaning up the mess coal power made the cost of solar looks better.

Isn't this just what this kind of centralized solar plant is trying to do: externalize the cost of land and all the other environmental effects such as depletion of scarce water? If they had to pay fair prices for all that, they couldn't compete.

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Christ

Isn't there still a land lease subsidy in AK for residents and dependents?

My Father used to live in AK, he got a check every so often just for being a resident of Eagle River, because of the oil pipeline.

The AK constitution makes the underground items of value (Oil, large mineral deposits) the common property of all Alaska citizens and value derived from that is to benefit Alaskans State government gets like 90% from that. The dividends are a share of the interest from investments made with that money.

[bestclimb]

What does a coal mine look like these days? Open pit or tunnel?

[oil pan 4]

It looks more certain now than 13 years ago that solar isn't going to cover base load any time soon.
Thermal solar plants are a joke.
Grid scale batteries using lithium technology are a money pit.
Looking back no wonder I didn't register here when I first found ecomodder, lot of nut jobs on here back then.

[aerohead]

I agree that it won't be anytime soon. That was the whole idea. And coal people were very good at selling delayed action.
Solar was at cost parity with coal in 1989.
As a consequence of legal fiction, standard accounting practices, 'coal' could easily make the economic argument against 'more expensive' renewables in a competitive market.
Now that a contingent of the economic community clearly understands the 'externalities' associated with 'coal', which never made it onto the 'coal' ledger sheets, they realize that coal has been the most expensive fuel all along.
And like a gift that keeps on giving, coal continues to pay losses on a daily basis.