[EnergySpin]

How much will this cost? $ 1 billion would be a competitive price.

Let's see what the company's website say:
Datum 1

How much does the Stirling solar power cost?


That depends on the scale of the power plant. Based on a power plant producing 1,000 MW, the cost per kWh would be approximately six cents. Compare this with the 22.5 cents per kWh on average that customers in California paid for power is 2001.

Datum 2

One dish on an annual basis can produce 60,000 kWh of electricity.

I guess one can use the back of envelope figure of a lifetime of 20 years for the the Powerplant and the follow
60000 x 20 x 0.06 = 72000$ per dish
72000 x 40000 for 1 GW plant = $ 3 billion
I guess the capital expenditure should be anywhere from 1.5-3$ billion.
But at 6 c/Kwh this is not bad.

[EnergySpin]

More data ... on capital expenditures for Thermal Solar
From:
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/994186938_2.html

Consider the Arizona plant:
The system has an average capacity of 133 kW and a capital cost of $4900/kW.

[abelardlindsay]

More data ... on capital expenditures for Thermal Solar
From:
http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/994186938_2.html

Consider the Arizona plant:
The system has an average capacity of 133 kW and a capital cost of $4900/kW.

Well at 6 cents a KWH that's

.06 x 24 x 365 *.4 (Not producing power at night) = $210 Revenue per KW per Year which gives us

$525/$4900 gives a 4% ROI. It would be 10% except for that annoying thing about solar not working at night. Then again, we're going a lot higher than 6 cents a KWh in the future.

[EnergySpin]

EE times actually had an article on the technology.
here
the cost for the prototypes (25KW) is $150K .... projected to go down to $50K. It is very simple technology, twice as efficient in generating electricity compared to photovoltaics and has a much higher density than hydro.
At the very least it can help with emissions. Decrease the load of coal and nuclear power plants.
Perfect tool for an economy that will not grow hehehe

[Raminagrobis]

Yes, really great news. A few extra informations and thoughts :



- Construction will be in the 2008-2011 timeframe (SCE site) This
means SES will have to build a factoiy able to produce 5000 units per
year at least - unless they subcontract part of the work.

- SCE won't have to wait until 2011 to get some "juice" : electricity
will be injected into the grid as soon as the first dish is built.
This is a positive result of the modular conception.

- This modular conception is also nice for reliability. Some dishes
can be outline, this don't affect the other ones. If they have some
redondancy in in grid-connection systems, they'll get an very high
availability ratio.

- A dish stirling produce twice as much electricity as a
solar-tracking flat PV pannel of the same size, and is cheaper.

- This, except prototypes and desmo projects, is the first "real"
project for dish-strirling. And it will give 500 MW!! I think it's
the first time an energy technology starts that big. Wind power has
been around for 25 years, and grew gradually, so that the larger
projects now are also around 500 MW. Even nukes didn"'t start that
big, the first reactors were only a few MW's.

- Unfortunately, SES says it's now targetting only utility market so
nobody can buy one or two dishes "for at least two years". Too bad,
because one or two of the 25kW dishes could be nice for an hotel, a
small business, an hospital...Perharps another company could buy them
dishes in large numbers and sell them in retail?

- They promise a cost of electricity of 0.06$/kWh for large projects.
If they manage to do that, this is competitive : roughly the same
price than wind power, but production occurs at daytime (more valuable
electricity) and is quite reliable (in a desert, wheather is quite
predictable)

- Electricity is made only during daytime, but this is not a problem
because demand is lower at night. By the way, many electric plants are
stopped during the night.

- Land occupied by suuch a "solar farm" is tiny compared to hydro :
for instance, the hoover dam flooded 247 square miles, and a "solar
farm" would need only 11 square miles to produce as much energy. In
addition, the solar farm can be put in an otherwise useless desert,
while the dam flood a valley, that is often a a very rich place (both
for nature and humans).

- This new energy technology could complement nuclear reactors, dams,
wind turbine and coal with CO2-sequestration to get a zero or near
zero CO2 electricity mix.

- Being adopted by a large utility like Edison makes this technology
very credible, so that from now on, every utilities will take solar
thermal energy very seriously.

[EnergySpin]

A few thoughts on the operating costs, because something does not add up
Assume that operating costs are X% of the CAPEX.
That brings us to $150K(1+x) with the economies of scale operating today
Each unit will be generating (on average) 60000KWh/yr or over 30 years 1800000 KWh of electricity. Assume that is sold for Y $. Then to break even
150000(1+x) = 1800000 Y => 1+x = 12 Y.
If x = 10% then you should sell electricity for 9c just to break even. At 20% it is 10c and at 30% it is 11c. So unless the initial expenditure goes down I cannot see them selling it at 6.6-6.5 c/KWh and make a profit.
If the initial cost does go down to 50K per unit then the numbers change as follows:
1+x = 36 Y which means that they would have to sell at 3.7c per KWh to get back their investment even at a 36% operating cost.
Note though the pervasive power of existing infrastructure. If the price of electricity goes up in CA due to natural gas shortage they will never be able to go down at that level. This simple fact eludes all the economists; the price of renewables will always be more expensive at the beginning unless supported by subsidies

[Starvid]

6 cents a kWh?! I don't believe it! It's only twice as much as coal or nuclear!

If this is true, solar will, for the first time in world history, be useful for generating electricity!

Even though this has zero effect on PO, it is still a great breakthrough for solar electricity.

[EnergySpin]

6 cents a kWh?! I don't believe it! It's only twice as much as coal or nuclear!

If this is true, solar will, for the first time in world history, be useful for generating electricity!

Even though this has zero effect on PO, it is still a great breakthrough for solar electricity.

Numbers pan out ... you can check the NREL/CSP site. 6.6 c per KWh for the plant that is being constructed in California.
Funny, I'd forgotten about Stirling engines ... almost high school physics stuff. Technology is so simple ... mirrors and a Stirling engine generator. Generates AC (not DC like the PVs), modular and can even store electricity for 12 hours. One of the prototypes in the 80s run for 7 days 24-7 ..generating electricity when the sun was out , storing the excess in a heat exchanger and releasing it after hours.
Energy density is amazing ... and maintenance involves cleaning the mirrors once a while. In spite of the mechanicalsimplicity managing the plant involves some complex control theory mathematics. Nothing that an embedded processor cannot handle though.
And they can work both as stand alno and in hybrid mode (i.e. gas or biogas plant). Link is http://www.eere.energy.gov/solar/csp.html

[Googolplex]

Don't overlook the simplicity either guys.

One thing I really like here is how simple and repairable this technology is. Its all basically mirrors, simple mechanical engines, and generators. We could continue to build and repair these things LONG after high-tech high-energy solutions like photovoltaics and nucular plants are no longer feasable.

[EnergySpin]

Don't overlook the simplicity either guys.

One thing I really like here is how simple and repairable this technology is. Its all basically mirrors, simple mechanical engines, and generators. We could continue to build and repair these things LONG after high-tech high-energy solutions like photovoltaics and nucular plants are no longer feasable.

I'm sorry to say that as long as we have electricity ... CSP/PV and nuclear will be feasible. If we lose the ability to make PV/nuclear plants (which we will not, I'm tired of that BS) then CSP will not be possible.
They use steel, special kind of glass (still glass) and microprocessors to start the plant in synchrony (each concentrator is fired evey 5-10 msec when the sun hits the sky)
And PVs is a technology that has been around since the 50s and 60s.
What makes you think we will lose the ability to manufacture PVs and nuclear plants?

[GoIllini]

The problem is that for the most part this technology is arriving too late to save consumer civilization. Oil is peaking right now and it will be years before just this one plant gets built. The stock market could crash next week. There needed to be a Manhatten project to deploy all these new technologies right now because now is when we need them.

Every oil trader I know is saying that oil prices are up on fears that the supply of oil flowing out of Iran will be disrupted, and not that demand is going to exceed supply. As a matter of fact, crude oil stockpiles have been increasing at a rate of around 2-3 million barrels per week.

I also find it difficult to imagine that civilization's just going to collapse when we've got so much heavy oil floating around. The other part of the reason that West Texas Intermediate Crude is trading at $66/barrel is that 3 million barrels per day of heavy oil refining capacity- heavy oil that's cheap and readily available is temporarily offline for reasons ranging from fires to maintenance to power outages.

We've still got a few years. And if anything, high oil prices are going to make for an increased interest amongst investors in energy production. I'm buying up utilities that heavily utilize nuclear and alternative energy along with my oil stocks.

[Googolplex]

I'm sorry to say that as long as we have electricity ... CSP/PV and nuclear will be feasible. If we lose the ability to make PV/nuclear plants (which we will not, I'm tired of that BS) then CSP will not be possible.

Im not sure this is the case. See below.

They use steel, special kind of glass (still glass) and microprocessors to start the plant in synchrony (each concentrator is fired evey 5-10 msec when the sun hits the sky)

What are you reffering to here? Whats getting "fired every 5-10 milliseconds"? As for steal and glass, they have been in production since long before the indestrial revolution, and I hope you don't presume that they are not easier and simpler to aquire/produce then the highly specialized equipment for putting together PV panels and nuclear plants!!!

Oh, and 'special' glass? Come on, any mirror or even shiny polished metal could be used, even if there might be less efficiency as a result.

And PVs is a technology that has been around since the 50s and 60s.
What makes you think we will lose the ability to manufacture PVs and nuclear plants?

What makes you think we will always have the massive amount of spare energy required to build/run PV factories and build nuclear plants? I think you very much underestamate the amount of energy that goes into those things.

Consider the whole supply chain, from raw materials on up, and you can see that this simple and efficent method of solar power generation does not require anywhere near the high precision, high purity of refined materials, and massive infrastructure for production that PV and nuclear do. This is steal, glass, and mechanical systems not even at the level of your car.

[Andy]

Consider the whole supply chain, from raw materials on up, and you can see that this simple and efficent method of solar power generation does not require anywhere near the high precision, high purity of refined materials, and massive infrastructure for production that PV and nuclear do. This is steal, glass, and mechanical systems not even at the level of your car.

Agreed that it is simpler technology than PV/Nuclear but that doesn't make it simple. The Stirling engine is quite a sophisticated piece of engineering, similar in complexity to an ICE where machining tolerances, seals etc. are concerned. The 5 second firing refers to the tracking servomotor and stowage mechanism to follow the sun for optimal efficiency and to initiate operations.

This news by the way is a fantastic development and another argument against the claims that only nuclear can supply industrial strength electricity. Coupled with heat storage or used with biomass fuels, this can supply 24/7 power. Better yet are the upcoming cost reductions in other concentrating solar like power towers and trough systems where storage is even more feasible with molten salts. The Solar Tres plant in Spain is estimated to be able to operate round the clock during summer months, just when the most power is required in that part of the world.

[Googolplex]

Agreed that it is simpler technology than PV/Nuclear but that doesn't make it simple.

Well, of course I meant simple compared to those other technologies, not simple compared to, say, an inclined plane.

Oh, and considering how many people work on their own cars with ease, I consider the complexity and tolerances of your average ICE to be relativly low and high repectively. Enough to qualify it as a 'simple' technology as far as power generation goes. The equipment to machine sufficient replacement parts is not exactly in every mans garage, I grant you that, but it is fairly common place really, and available to anyone should they want it. Many who restore old cars have to machine custom parts for replacement because they arn't made anymore.

Well anyway, my point is, if its no more difficult to maintain then a car, then I think it counts as 'simple'.

This news by the way is a fantastic development and another argument against the claims that only nuclear can supply industrial strength electricity. Coupled with heat storage or used with biomass fuels, this can supply 24/7 power.

Yes, yes indeed. I hesitate to be too optimistic, but if this is as good an energy source as it sounds, I have high hopes.

[Raminagrobis]

6 cents a kWh?! I don't believe it! It's only twice as much as coal or nuclear!

If this is true, solar will, for the first time in world history, be useful for generating electricity!

Even though this has zero effect on PO, it is still a great breakthrough for solar electricity.

The main source of electricity in California is neither nuke nor coal, but natural gas. And will all know what's going on with natural gas supply in north America.

Assuming that all of the plant's output displace power from NGCC's, the plant will save almost 200 Bcf of natural gas during it 25 years lifetime (assuming 1.2 Twh per year and 52% efficiency for NGCC's).

How many new, untapped natural gas fields of this size are there in California? 200 Bcf is energetically the equivalent of 35 million barrels of oil.

[Starvid]

6 cents a kWh?! I don't believe it! It's only twice as much as coal or nuclear!

If this is true, solar will, for the first time in world history, be useful for generating electricity!

Even though this has zero effect on PO, it is still a great breakthrough for solar electricity.

The main source of electricity in California is neither nuke nor coal, but natural gas. And will all know what's going on with natural gas supply in north America.

Assuming that all of the plant's output displace power from NGCC's, the plant will save almost 200 Bcf of natural gas during it 25 years lifetime (assuming 1.2 Twh per year and 52% efficiency for NGCC's).

How many new, untapped natural gas firlds of this size are there in California?

By all means, replace that natgas! If you want to do it with nuclear power or with stirling solar is up to you, but considering the gas crunch in America you might even save money if you replace nat gas plants with stirling solar plants! And you reduce global warming to.

Sadly, stirling solar is impossible in Sweden. This is not exactly sunny California (Uppsala is on the same latitude as Anchorage, I am not kidding). Also our industry is very electricity intensive (steel mills etc.), and needs cheap electricty to survive. We will continue using cheap hydro and nuclear energy.

[dmtu]

Maybe Jeremy Rifkin was kinda right when he predicted in The Hydrogen Economy that many houses could produce all of the energy required to run a household to include vehicle fuel.

He suggested that individual houses could use solar collected during the day while everyone is at work or school and convert that energy to hydrogen. The Hydrogen could then be used to power the house during the night and even fuel the vehicles. You must admit this is an interesting concept.

I suppose the only way for this dream to be realized would be to scale this system down and get the utilities to release the technology on the open market.

Think it would work?

[EnergySpin]

The Hydrogen could then be used to power the house during the night and even fuel the vehicles. You must admit this is an interesting concept.

I suppose the only way for this dream to be realized would be to scale this system down and get the utilities to release the technology on the open market.

Dmtu the system is modular ... in fact the 500MW will be build out of 20000 units. On average one of the 20000 engines will generate 60000KWH a year, which is not bad at all : between 8-10 households can share such a unit.
In any case .. we will see how it plays out

[Raxozanne]

I was wondering if California ever has really bad hail storms.
I only mention it because apparently this was a problem with solar panels in the Australian outback.

[Googolplex]

Sadly, stirling solar is impossible in Sweden. This is not exactly sunny California (Uppsala is on the same latitude as Anchorage, I am not kidding).

One of the cool things about sterling engines though is that they work off of temperature differentials, not just high temps. Sure your sterling engines hot sides might only get half as hot, but as long as the cold side, cooled by your arctic air, is twice as cold, you can still get as much energy!