TNR BLOGS

January 06, 2009 | 8:49 PM
January 06, 2009 | 7:11 PM
January 06, 2009 | 6:48 PM

January 06, 2009 | 1:25 PM
January 06, 2009 | 12:16 PM
January 06, 2009 | 12:08 PM

January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM
January 01, 2009 | 12:24 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 06, 2009 | 4:07 PM
January 06, 2009 | 3:21 PM
January 05, 2009 | 4:04 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
25.11.2008
Everyone Loves Solar Thermal

Douglas Fischer of The Daily Climate has a great article about the growing popularity of concentrated solar thermal plants, which use mirrors to focus the sun's rays on pipes carrying oil or other heat-absorbing liquids in order to make steam, which can then power a turbine. Already some 60 projects are underway around the world, which would provide more than 5,500 megawatts of power—about ten decent-sized coal plants. It's a healthy start. As we've discussed before, solar thermal has the potential to provide a sizeable amount of carbon-free electricity, especially since it suffers from fewer intermittency problems than photovoltaic systems do—you basically take any excess hot oil and put it in a heat sink (say, a vat of molten salt), which can then be tapped for steam later when the sun stops shining. It's an efficient sort of battery.

Of course, there's the cost. As Fischer notes, a coal plant delivers baseload electricity for about three to five cents per kilowatt-hour, though that obviously doesn't include the considerable cost of carbon-dioxide emissions and other pollutants. Solar thermal, at least for now, produces electricity for about 18-21 cents per kilowatt-hour. But, in the absence of a price on carbon, solar thermal isn't competing with coal; it's competing with natural-gas peaking plants, which cost roughly the same amount and usually just run during the day when electricity demand is at its highest—precisely the time when solar thermal plants are operating at their highest capacity. So there's a lot of room for growth right now, even in the absence of a carbon policy framework (though, to be sure, plummeting gas prices throw a kink in the works). Plus, they look so darn futuristic.

--Bradford Plumer

Posted: Tuesday, November 25, 2008 10:19 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

EarthDayMom said:

Fischer is incorrect in comparing the cost of generating baseload electricity with that of new solar thermal, at least for the time being.  The correct comparison is between the cost of a new coal plant and the 18 - 21 cents a solar thermal plant would cost.  The cost of both plants depends on assumptions like the future cost of fuel, and the amortization period, and the location.   A new coal plant will incur a capital cost of more than ten cents per KWH, plus fuel costs which put it a lot closer to the current cost of solar thermal.  However, I doubt that either of those costs will stand still for as long as it takes to get the next whatever plant on line.  He's also incorrect about the operating cost of natural gas plants, but shut your eyes and click your heels and he could be right. 

The big trouble with this nation is that energy policy decisions are being made with the same sort of bad information Fischer is relying on.  I think, but do not know, that the real reason Solar Thermal seems to cost so much is that they are forcing it to pay for plants in a shorter number of years.  There are some solar thermal installations producing electricity at less than ten cents, and I don't know how to sort out the difference without getting into details that the producers generally don't want to make public.   

The most important point about solar thermal is that it is on a progressively declining cost track, while fossil fuels and the plants that produce them are on a rising track, with an intersection in the next five to ten years being almost inevitable.  And the most important point about energy policy is that energy efficiency is available on a massive scale at less than the price of running an old, fully amortized coal plant, today, but we're only operating efficiency programs haphazardly in some states at a fraction of the demonstrated level.

November 30, 2008 6:06 PM

Brad Plumer said:

EarthDayMom-- Those are really good points--I was mostly trying to give a rough sense of why concentrated solar made sense right now, even *if* it can't compete directly with coal, but there's plenty to criticize in those figures.

December 1, 2008 10:57 AM