First Concentrating Photovoltaic power plant gets government loan approval

txlibdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 10:17 AM
Original message

First Concentrating Photovoltaic power plant gets government loan approval

Cogentrix became the first developer to be offered a federal loan guarantee to build a type of solar power plant that marries features of the conventional photovoltaic technology with concentrating solar thermal, which uses mirrors to concentrate the light, heat up fluid and generate steam for electricity production. The U.S. Department of Energy announced the conditional commitment of the $90.6 million loan guarantee earlier this week, and Cogentrix expects to close that loan guarantee � along with the actual loan from the Federal Financing Bank -- in about two months, said Jef Freeman, Jr., vice president of development at Cogentrix.

The company�s contractor, Mortensen Construction, already has started work at the 225-acre project site in south central Colorado, Freeman said. The goal is to complete the $140-$150 million, 30MW Alamosa Solar Generating Project by the second quarter of 2012 to start delivering electricity to Xcel Energy, he added. Alamosa will use Amonix�s concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) panels, which will be mounted on dual-axis trackers to follow the sun�s movement.

... http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/05/cogentrix-solar-thermal-tech-a-tough-sell

I'd call 30 MW a proof of concept rather than a full scale solar farm but I wish them well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yo_Mama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 01:15 PM
Response to Original message

1. Isn't 30 MW pretty high yield?

There was an article about one in Texas not too long ago in the Latest forum, and they expected to get 2 MW off 20 acres. This one is yielding considerably more per acre than the other because of the tracking/concentrating tech used.

Solar plants aren't ever going to be high yield per acre.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 01:34 PM
Response to Original message

2. $5 billion (+) per GW label?

And of course the government gurantee "proves" that the markets are unwilling to loan money to these money pits.

Wait... we're not talking about nuclear?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

intaglio

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. And how much per Gw did the first nuclear plants cost?

Remember to convert to 2011 dollars.

And the clean up from accidents is going to makes these plants totally uneconomic ...

Oh sorry that's nuclear I'm thinking of.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Oh... I don't have any problem spending the money.

I'm all for it.

I was just pointing out that similar arguments are just as irrational when applied to other clean options.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txlibdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. I guess GigaWatts don't come cheap

The 1GW Solar Millennium power plant should be completed in 2013 or 2014 at a cost of $6 Billion. The cost was significantly increased due to delays as I recall.
... from http://www.pv-tech.org/news/solar_millenniums_blythe_secures_us2.1_billion_loan_guarantee

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #5

6. The first few of a thing are likely to cost more than later versions

I think we can expect the inflation-adjusted cost to come down fairly rapidly if this variant catches on.

It would be pretty silly to pay this much otherwise.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txlibdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. If fossil fuel plants had to pay even a portion of the cost of their pollution that would change

Here's the cost comparison with a paltry $15 per metric ton CO2 charge:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_cost_of_electricity_generated_by_different_sources#US_Department_of_Energy_estimates

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-15-11 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #10

11. Paltry?

At $15/ton how much would the averagefamily have to pay for driving their cars and heating their home?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

txlibdem

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun May-15-11 07:13 AM
Response to Reply #11

12. Not germain to the discussion

But to answer your question: the average family will be driving an electric car long before we have a government that is progressive enough to force the fossil industry to actually pay for its pollution.

The proper cost of CO2 pollution alone should be $30 per ton, at minimum. Then there is the cost of Mercury pollution, one single drop of which is enough to make the fish in a 25-acre lake too toxic for human consumption. Then the cost of Arsenic, Lead, or any of the dozens of other toxic chemicals that spew out of a coal smokestack.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yo_Mama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. That's a different technology, though

It's a solar thermal parabolic trough plant. Solves the issue of energy storage and in some sites can create more power than PV, but more goes into building the plant:
http://www.solarmillennium.de/upload/Animationen/andasol_blue_engl.swf

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FBaggins

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 07:08 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. I don't think that they're including storage there.

The design could lend itself to some amount of storage, but the fluid involved doesn't have the ability to hold as much heat (1/4-1/3 as much per pound) as something like a molten-salt tower design. So it wouldn't be ideal.

It also may not be necessary at this point, as there are peak power needs that appear on hot sunny days anyway.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yo_Mama

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat May-14-11 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8

9. That particular plant is just parabolics and turbine?

Admittedly you have peak power needs, and in the warmer climes it definitely is for AC, but without the ability to even out the power, solar's contribution is going to be limited.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Mon May 13th 2024, 10:31 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.