! ! ! Rebuild America's Future with Clean Unlimited Energy ! ! !

Why Feed in Tariffs are better!

Get the Yes on Solar stickers here!

Solar, energy links.

Questions and Answers on CSP This page does not promote PV, however Yes on Solar does. This writing does not intend to replace the endless possibilities of PV with industrialized CSP, it's just an hypothetical alternative to PV. It answers questions about a theoritical 30 year mission to replace 90% of all fossil fuels with 4TW of Concentrated Solar Power which would generate, on the order of 8,800 TWh anually by use of 8,000   500MW plants that would retain heat for on demand electrical generation. In reality, 100% electric is not realistic since some things inherently need hydrocarbons in their manufacture or use. An example is how important diesel fuel is to the trucking industry. Only rough calculations need to be presented here. Other names include Solar Thermal Power, Solar Thermal Electricity, Concentrated Solar Energy, Solar Power Tower, Concentrated Solar Thermal, Concentrating Solar Power with Storage (and others). This is exactly what Yes on Solar promotes the most. Large mirrors reflect light onto a central reciever which pipes a very hot liquid (or steam) into a heat resevoir. From there, a conventional (or nuclear class) turbine converts steam to electric generation. There are two forms of CSP. One utilizes a central reciever from which mirrors placed all around reflect light upon. As a whole, these mirrors approximate a giant parabolic dish. The other uses either parabolic troughs or Compact Linear Fresnel Reflectors, CLFR, (which are flat mirrors that aproximate a larger trough) that reflect light onto a vaccume tube placed in the focus. Within that, a heated fluid flows and also into the heat resevoir. Each company claims certain advantages such as lower costs make up for lower temperatures for the trough design as compared to higher temps with a longer heat storage time for central recievers. This site promotes all forms of solar energy in general. Another concentrated type of solar reflects not on a heat transfer vessel, but upon a PV cell designed to withstand the intense heat. CPV achieves the highest efficiency since there is no conversion from heat required (the PV cell is designed to convert up to 41% of the light into electricity, but has no electric storage backup). Normal "single sun" PV cells are only about 15% efficient. One of the best forms of solar energy is passive solar also known as solar thermal. Although we can't convert the low temperatures into electricity efficiently, it can save a major percentage of the worlds heating bills (even cooling!) by simply building around its priciples. Large windows in front of a thick brick wall painted black and a fan will reduce or even eliminate the need for gas heating. Eves let the winter sun in, to heat the house, while blocking the summer sun. A rectangular house built east to west will let more solar heat in than if built north to south due to the higher number of windows facing south with less space to heat behind. Each window is equavent to an electric heater. Sunny windows each save about a kWh every sunny hour! Specifically, this site promotes a green grid because utility scale CSP is designed and sited for that purpose alone. Rooftop PV, on the other hand has to be placed where a home is planned and sited. Disadvantages include shade trees and cost. Advantages include independence and lesser utility scale power plants needed to be built in the future. Yes on Solar promotes all forms of solar energy use. Why is CSP better than conventional? From a power and cost perspective, nothing is better than conventional sources of electricity. However, when more people across the world demand dwindling fossil fuel supplies, the cost will go up to a point where it will be too expensive to deploy largescale solar collection systems. CSP requires a lot of conventional power to build. If CSP (or other largescale electrical generation) is not built, chances are, all people will have to learn how to live with poverty conditions once oil becomes too expensive. There would be laws against using too much gas, electricy, ect. and eventually, a shut down to modern civilization as we know it. From a nuclear perspective, there is not enough puplic support for breeder reactors or thorium reactors (search "thorium reactor" as this is another unlimited energy option!). Uranium for conventional nuclear is limited by all the radioactive waste issues and itself may not be plentiful enough to power a world without fossil fuels. These sources of electricity are currently just as expesive to build as fledgling CSP. From an eco perspective, solar is obviously better until one envisions desert destruction and Biblical dust storms caused by thousands of square miles of improper solar planning. What about emissions caused by largescale CSP? All power plants require fossil fuels to make. The energy pay back defines how long it takes for said source to make more energy than it used for creation. Solar PV is between 2 and 5 years and is expected to be production streamlined enough to lower that figure down to only 1 year. ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf ). Solar domestic hot water systems have energy payback times between 1.3 to 2.3 years. Following are energy payback times according to Schott Solar, ( http://www.us.schott.com/csp/english/download/schott_white_paper.pdf ). They describe energy amortization time as energy used for production, operation, and waste removal. They list wind power as 4 to 7 months, hydro as 9 to 13 months. They state polycrystalline in Central Europe as 3 to 5 years. And, a concentrated solar thermal plant in Morocco as only 5 months! I will assume 2 full years for largescale CSP since many sites will be far from manufacturing plants, laborers driving big trucks, larger support structures, ect. With a 30 year lifespan, they will have prevented 15 times the amount of CO2 as they produced. At the 5 month figure, over 60 times! Is there enough fossil fuels available to build such largescale CSP? If 1/10th of the worlds oil is used for CSP production, CSP would generate 1.5 to 4 times all the energy contained in said global oil supply! (Assuming 30 year lifespan). The solar and wind based electric infrastructure of the future will surely provide for self expontiation without the need for further large amounts of fossil fuels. How much land would it take to electrify 90% of the USA? Rough estimates point to 10,000 square miles of actual mirrored surface. Spacing for shadows and access could require 3 to 4 times that. This is assuming 20% efficiency and a 25% capacity factor. This sounds like an impossible amount of land, however, the amount of land used for roads in the USA adds up to over 50,000 square miles! ( http://www.earth-policy.org/Alerts/Alert12_data2.htm ). Also, once it is commonplace to build CSP, they will have become more efficient as the best possible design will be utilized, and thus less land will be used. How much would it cost to electrify 90% the USA? We consume about 97 quadrillion Btu (quads) as of '02. ( https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php ). This includes all imported and all domestic sources of energy. Close to 60% of that was wasted due to the laws of physics. In that same chart, ALL useful energy amounted to only 35.2 quads out of which, only 5.6 quads was useful in tranportation. (22.4 was wasted in that sector!) Since electric vehicals are already 85% efficient, (the 0 - 60 in 3.9 second high performance Tesla is 86%, plug to wheels), we would only need about 1.5 more quads if the Tesla was used as an average vehical. (Trucks would use more juice and non high performance cars would use less). Additional energy will be required for lithium (or better) battery production, but that would come from saved energy from petrolium distilation, ect, that would no longer be needed on such a vast scale as we have now. I further assume that diesel for big rigs will not be replaced by electricity, however, they can run on biodiesel to further reduce oil requirements. Also, less energy will be consumed as most all households convert to CFL lighting which uses 75% less electricity per lumen as compared to incandescent. Cree leds are twice as efficient than CFL! Building codes will also improve efficiency. Add to that (since this is an "almost no fossil fuels" scenario), a certain percentage of home heating would be by wood burning stove (or pellet stove), further reducing electrical requirements. Therefore, about 30 quads equivalent of electricity would have to be generated to power almost all things in the USA. That equates to about 8,800 TWh (terawatthours) a year or just over twice what we use now. CSP can store heat (for later electrical use) but still, solar energy is rated at about 25% capacity. Thus we would need about 8,800TWh divided by 8760 hours in a year times 4 (for capacity factor of 25%) for installed TW (terawatt). This equals to about 4 TW. The nature of the heat storage will require a larger mirror field but will also increase the capacity factor. A terawatt is equal to one million times one million watts. 4TW of installed CSP should cost no more than $15 trillion over a 30 year period. Electricity is divided into 3 sectors, industrial, commercial, and residential, and almost in perfect thirds. I will assume that residential has to pay twice as much as industrial, and commercial, 1.5 times as much, (just an approximation of the free market), that there are 105 million households and that 8,000   500MW CSP plants are installed within an exponential level for 30 years. That works out to be roughly $6.67 trillion for residential, $5 trillion for commercial and 3.33 trillion for industrial if all split electrical load evenly. For each household, that would be $64,000 over 30 years, or $175 a month. That's displacing natural gas and includes "electric gasoline", on top of the normal electric bill. What's best though, is the fact that we have the opportunity to stop post oil decline and global warming without having to limit our daily lives much beyond having to drive a faster (but lighter and electric) car! The costs would be lower now and be higher towards the end of this 30 year project due to the fact that the much greater percentage would be built towards the end and because said electrical generation would have to fuel the project (to meet environmental goals towards the end). For the price of a combo meal lunch for just one person of the household per day, we can beat this post oil crisis and global warming thing! How many jobs would be created with largescale CSP? At first, there would be only thousands with no noticable effect on the overall economy. Local areas will pick up due to service jobs. As tens of square miles turn into hundreds of square miles of alternating desert and mirrors, positive signs would streach throughout the nation and even the globe as other countries start to build CSP. Toward the end of the 30 year phase, literally millions of jobs would be on going! Supporting jobs would also number in the millions. This in turn may create a demand for more electricity, as the exponential numbers of structural supports and mirrors increases. Since any form of solar requires much more surface area in parts, more jobs per MW of installed capital are created. This is seen as negative from an efficiency (and eco) point of view. It is definately positive from a jobs and unlimited energy point of view. Lots of credible people are against largescale solar, why? Those environmentalists and economists who point out the negative aspects (which are eco disturbance, highly labor intensive, and of course, competition) do not see the overall negative effects caused by not doing this. They do not spend all of their internet time researching all the various forms of solar energy and post oil crisis. They may not know about peak oil, and do not seem to care about the fact that the icecaps are melting. Others tout global warming but stick to the same old policies of trivial greenie-isms. When they say "no to solar", they are only thinking about their own jobs and higher ups. Or, they have been misled by scare tactics promoted by business as usual. They are only correct about saving a few bucks only at the start. Even though largescale CST will cost more than current fossil fueled electricity, they forget to mention how much more than that it will cost (not just monetarily either) to rely upon fossil fuels in the end. The EIA says "Assuming that the world’s production of crude oil in 2006 of about 26.8 billion barrels continues at the same level into the future, then the estimated world proved oil reserves at the end of 2006 of about 1,317 billion barrels of oil will last about 49 years". ( http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp#oil_needs ). They also mention that production is likely to increase with growth. The nay sayers fail to research the fact that an (almost) all electric world is far more efficient and will have profound and far reaching effects upon possitive growth and even social structure into the future. Others promote "just" PV because that is their choice as it does not require any extra transmission, etc. Even though, in theory, PV is unlimited, it can not possibly supply the planet with even half of its electriciy until electrical storage becomes much cheaper. How would so many mirrors affect the planet? The more, the better! They are made of glass, and metal. During decommisioning, the mirrors should all be faced skyward to reflect sunlight back into space. 10,000 sq mi of mirrors per large country could actually help reduce negative albedo caused by melting glaciers! Better yet, this concept can be used with any very cheap reflective material when the need arises (which could be now). As for native species, they will experience a little more shade, and possibly, the deserts will be a little cooler. Only during initial construction will distruptive actions be possible. These would include having to relocate some animals to nearby locations. Since thousands of individual CSP plants would be built, it would be best to isolate them between large patches of desert so as not to fence off the deserts and more importantly, for wide distribution needed to overcome local weather conditions. The deserts are dotted with hills and mountains. Only in some of the flatlands would CSP plants be built. Major environmental issues will have to be dealt with because not very many people want to "ruin" the deserts with fields of mirrors. Bulldozing may have to be required for the least expensive site development. That is something that I think we all are against! A compromise would be such that only 5% of the site be bulldozed. This would be for the buildings only (and not the much larger space needed for mirrors). In this respect, parabolic trough CSP will not succeed since it is almost impossible not to build such without perfectly level ground unless accompanied with excess vegetation. What about water? Water is needed to cool the steam that turns the turbine. Air cooling is also available at a higher plant cost. In the deserts, (on a large scale) it would be best to pipe in ocean water which would turn to steam upon cooling the closed steam cycle and become a second major commodity, fresh water! I think it would be profitable to do so especially since much of the worlds water tables are being depleted faster than they can be replenished. Some areas of the desert are actually lower than sea level and sea water piped in could possibly generate a small amount of electricity before being used in the cooling process. What about solar PV? Solar PV which at this time is not the way to electrify the world because PV does not offer electrical storage and is more expensive. (Feed in tariffs should change all of that!) From a residential point of view, PV is great because the homeowner can incrementally increase PV panel collection area. This way, it would be easier to obtain a larger system for less. PV is also great for remote lighting. This alone will reduce the number of utility scale plants needed in the future! PV, however is also on the verge of becoming a utility scale option, but it can not store its energy into the night. Eventually, supercapacitors (which store actual electrons instead of using electrons to change a chemical, as in a battery) may be developed hundreds of times energy denser than now. If so, the entire planetary grid could be all solid state with no moving parts! Supercapacitors do not wear with charge/discharge cycles and would last the lifetime of the project. However, there is no hint of such energy dense supercapacitors being invented, even into the future. Right now, they take about 100 times more space than a battery and are close to a thousand times more expensive! What about wind turbines? Wind power is a little less expensive than any form of utility scale solar, but again, does not store its energy into non windy periods. We would have to excavate large areas for resevoirs to be used as pumped water energy storage. When utility scale batteries or superconductors become available, then wind power would be of unlimited potential (converting electricity to heat and then back again is far too inefficient). However, with wide distribution, wind and solar PV will be very helpful, thus it is best to promote these sources of renewable energy too. CSP is the only renewable source aside from geothermal that can store energy for later. If a cloud comes, no problem. If multiple large storms persist, then wind turbines dotted throughout the country can supply at least 20% of needed power! This is another reason why it is almost impossible to phase out fossil fuels completely. What about clean coal? Even though (at greater expense than CSP), it is possible to bury the CO2, it is far more damaging to the land from where it came. The EPA states "More than 7 percent of Appalachian forests have been cut down and more than 1,200 miles of streams across the region have been buried or polluted between 1985 and 2001". ( http://www.ilovemountains.org/resources ). There is no reason to build a giagantic clean coal infrasructure when CSP is less expensive and can create more jobs (making up for fewer coal jobs). There is a need to continue with that program to a certain degree because we will have to rely upon some coal throughout the solar age. Why tax credits? It is vertually impossible to get any largescale project up and running without help from the government. In fact, conventional powerplants recieve help too! It would not be fair to say that renewables can't recieve tax credits when the nuclear ( http://a4nr.org/library/nuclearrenaissance/01.2007-publiccitizen ), coal industries ( http://www.foe.org/energy/coalfact.pdf ), and oil industries ( http://www.foe.org/pdf/FoE_Oil_Giveaway_Analysis_2008.pdf ) industries all do. However, it is not fair to ask for more than marginal support from the government as CSP should be able to compete with already existing technologies. All fossil fueled powerplants need to be phased out and it appears that carbon taxes will be added to them. As a result, little or no help should be needed to build large CSP. So what can I do! Get involved with largescale renewable energy. This site promotes concentrated solar thermal because this almost perfect form of potentially unlimited clean energy has been left in the dark and has been overshadowed by lesser environmental concerns like "Kill a watt". Even though it is good to kill a watt, it is best to... Mega watt! The more wind and PV power, the better, however, they get most all the attention. With heat storage and the ability to generate electricity for many hours later, CSP should become the number one source of renewable energy. All you have to do is say Yes to Solar ! Research the links, talk about how it is possible to overcome post oil crisis, mountain top removal, pollution and global warming. When you see a message against renewable energy, tell 'em that they need to do more research! Promote ambitious renewable energy sites. Please don't waste time with trivialism (unless your focus is to point out a concern and to do detailed analysis). Most trivial actions will just barely put a dent into America's huge trade deficit for overseas oil. Figure out how much the average American "wastes" on junkfood, (and healthcare?) and see if it is possible to displace just a part of that money instead for clean energy. Tell someone, talk to your friends about this serious issue. Tell your kids (I'm sure they will care later). I have actually emailed letters to members of Congress. I have told them both about feed in tariffs for PV and the need for CSP. I have clicked the "Take Action!" parts of many other sites hoping to let Congress know that there is an environmental awareness that goes beyond 32 mpg. I have talked about renewable energy to many people in town. And now, I have started this website. And I continue to say Yes on Solar! The Pickens plan is already over a million members strong. Even though he's for NGV, natural gas is better than imports (on a per CO2 and national security level) and he builds wind farms. Al Gore's plan is also over a million strong (although 100% fossil free is quite impossible). Also promoted by many sites is the path of conservation (it helps in the meantime). Who are you? I am Robert Bernal, a house painter gone mad about promoting the best form of solar energy. I have spent at least 90% of my internet and computer time learning about renewable energy, promoting it, and writing in other websites comments sections. I am fireofenergy and I like to question environmentalists that are against big wind and solar! No matter how persistant they are, I continue to spell the doom and gloom without all forms of solar energy! Summary Concentrated Solar Power is the best energy source as long as a large enough heat storage resevoir is utilized by each plant. CSP will only cost a fraction more than building new conventional power plants. There is plenty of space on Earth to provide many current global populations by use of CSP without pollution and CO2. CSP will build the worlds economies by creating millions of much needed jobs. And CSP will strengthen America's economy by making it possible to mass produce electric cars further displacing the need to import oil. No longer will solar energy be laughed at when the sun goes down! Without unlimited clean energy, the people will be without... fireofenergy

! ! ! Rebuild America's Future with Clean Unlimited Energy ! ! !

fireofenergy@gmail.com