Ground solar storage

[Keith Henson]

This subject is related to power satellites. Ground solar in the
Mideast has reached the ridiculously low price of 1.35 cents per kWh.
The best I was projecting was 3 cents per kWh but of course that was
for steady power which is the main advantage power satellites have.

A high-efficiency, low-cost, and long-term storage method would make
power satellites less competitive. Given the topic of this group, it
is worthwhile to keep up on the subject.

More to come.

KeithH

[willdcomstock]

Keith,

These costs for ground based solar are not realistic. In order to compare ground based solar to space based solar you need assume solar and energy storage to maintain an equal capacity factor which is baseload. This page goes into some estimates of a realistic baseload system using battery energy storage and ground solar. 

https://energypointresearch.com/blog/archives/13178

I'm going to run my own baseline cost estimates based on the recent DOE/NREL cost estimates but that website article appears to do a good job giving a sincere analysis.

-Don

[Paul Werbos]

I am amazed at how industry lobbyists get away with murder in US and EU, assuming versions of ground solar which are unnecessarily wasteful and stupid. YES, such assumptions have become standard in the literature... but..

It reminds me of how my first tenured job in USGOV was in 1979 in a new high-level group ("OEIV/EIA/DOE") created specifically by Jimmy Carter to probe deeply into the inconsistent

numbers on energy and energy technologies, clearly biased and deceptive, output by "authoritative" sources. (I even cc my old office mate Gary Oleson, who also helped negotiate the creation of NSS.)

The IEEE Power and Energy book program (under Kumar) asked me a few years ago to probe all the very best front-line sources of real information  on climate and new solutions. 

I owe you at least the condensed popular version:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14JNhumdUGzAkoOadlXiR1fqE79WPOLsL?usp=sharing

Bottom lines:

1. There really is a kind of "silver bullet" now for well over 90% of the electricity we use on earth:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/14JNhumdUGzAkoOadlXiR1fqE79WPOLsL?usp=sharing

IF we use the most advanced "power tower" solar thermal farms now proven on a large scale on earth

(as in the Atacama desert, studied by Rodrigo's national Solar Energy Research Consortium of Chile SERC,and in Dubai https://www.mbrsic.ae/en/about/mohammed-bin-rashid-al-maktoum-solar-park/),

and COMBINE that with the most advanced proven Brayton technology to convert heat to electricity

(as from GE, Heliogen, Brayton Energy), we easily beat all forms of nuclear electricity on real-world cost and time. (See werbos.com/NATO-terrorism.pdf for a very deeply reduced discussion of severe risks on the nuclear side, for all earth-based electricity.) 

2. Under 1, we are actually BETTER for electric power grids than the usual "best baseload" sources. 

In other words, the extra cost which comes from switching to renewables is actually NEGATIVE if we use the right renewables in the right way. There are two key technologies: (1) THERMAL storage, well-tested by SERC, showing much lower cost than batteries, which allows LOAD FOLLOWING and real-time control; (2) modern neural based grid control, solving timing problems and allowing power converters to become net assets in power conditioning, proven in Kumar's big demo plants and industrial links, but allowing even further improvement with quantum RLADP (which applies to other aerospace uses, like "seeing the sky" and vehicle control).  

There is more, but this email is long enough. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/4e720c0e-3dd1-46a5-8d69-7218042c6f1an%40googlegroups.com.

[Robert Poor]

Don't overlook NREL's SAM tool (System Advisor Model).  It is a comprehensive simulator that takes into account historical insolation data, system cost, panel type (zero, one or two axis), etc.  Well worth checking out.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgd9k55w2O5a_0%3D45uvVnCeiz%3D3T9%2BuUVJHhCPHfqUt7jQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Keith Henson]

On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 7:36 AM willdcomstock <willdc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Keith,
>
> These costs for ground based solar are not realistic.

ADPower’s subsidiary records world’s lowest tariff for solar park in Abu Dhabi

The Emirates Water and Electricity Company, a subsidiary of the Abu
Dhabi Power Corporation (ADPower), has received the world’s lowest
solar tariff at AED 4.97 fils per kWh US $ 1.35 cents per kWh) for the
2 GW Al Dhafra solar photovoltaic (PV) project. A consortium,
comprising French energy group EDF and Chinese solar company Jinko
Power is the winning bidder. The bid, submitted on a levellised
electricity cost basis, is about 44 per cent lower than the tariff set
three years ago on the 1.2 GW Noor Abu Dhabi project – Abu Dhabi’s
first large-scale solar PV project and a world record tariff-setter at
the time. Once operational, the Al Dhafra solar PV project will lift
Abu Dhabi’s total solar power generation capacity to approximately 3.2
GW.

https://powerline.net.in/2020/05/23/adpowers-subsidiary-records-worlds-lowest-tariff-for-solar-park-in-abu-dhabi/

This has been online for a couple of years. Is there a reason I
should doubt the cost?

> In order to compare ground based solar to space based solar you need assume solar and energy storage to maintain an equal capacity factor which is baseload. This page goes into some estimates of a realistic baseload system using battery energy storage and ground solar.

Batteries won't do it. This is an entirely different approach, using
electricity for heat and any carbon source to make syngas. You can
store the syngas in an empty gas field and burn it as needed in
turbines or use it to make synthetic jet fuel or diesel.

> https://energypointresearch.com/blog/archives/13178
>
> I'm going to run my own baseline cost estimates based on the recent DOE/NREL cost estimates but that website article appears to do a good job giving a sincere analysis.

A change in technology trashes a lot of analysis.

Keith

> -Don
>
> On Monday, May 5, 2025 at 6:36:12 PM UTC-4 hkeith...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> This subject is related to power satellites. Ground solar in the
>> Mideast has reached the ridiculously low price of 1.35 cents per kWh.
>> The best I was projecting was 3 cents per kWh but of course that was
>> for steady power which is the main advantage power satellites have.
>>
>> A high-efficiency, low-cost, and long-term storage method would make
>> power satellites less competitive. Given the topic of this group, it
>> is worthwhile to keep up on the subject.
>>
>> More to come.
>>
>> KeithH
>

[Keith Henson]

On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:13 AM Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>

snip

> IF we use the most advanced "power tower" solar thermal farms

It might be worth considering Ivanpah, which is shutting down.

> we easily beat all forms of nuclear electricity on real-world cost and time.

That's a low bar. Current nuclear power is around $10 B/GW, or
$10,000 per kW, or a bit over 12 cents/kWh. (Ignoring fuel cost and
using 80,000 capital to cost.)

If you have intermittent power at 1.35 cents per kWh, 3-4 MWh makes 13
MWh of gas. Combined cycle turbines will make about 60% of the fuel
energy into electricity. You need to account for the capital
equipment, but the cost to produce power this way is less than a cent
per kWh.

Keith

>
>
>
> On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 10:36 AM willdcomstock <willdc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Keith,
>>
>> These costs for ground based solar are not realistic. In order to compare ground based solar to space based solar you need assume solar and energy storage to maintain an equal capacity factor which is baseload. This page goes into some estimates of a realistic baseload system using battery energy storage and ground solar.
>>
>> https://energypointresearch.com/blog/archives/13178
>>
>> I'm going to run my own baseline cost estimates based on the recent DOE/NREL cost estimates but that website article appears to do a good job giving a sincere analysis.
>>
>> -Don
>>
>> On Monday, May 5, 2025 at 6:36:12 PM UTC-4 hkeith...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> This subject is related to power satellites. Ground solar in the
>>> Mideast has reached the ridiculously low price of 1.35 cents per kWh.
>>> The best I was projecting was 3 cents per kWh but of course that was
>>> for steady power which is the main advantage power satellites have.
>>>
>>> A high-efficiency, low-cost, and long-term storage method would make
>>> power satellites less competitive. Given the topic of this group, it
>>> is worthwhile to keep up on the subject.
>>>
>>> More to come.
>>>
>>> KeithH
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/4e720c0e-3dd1-46a5-8d69-7218042c6f1an%40googlegroups.com.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.

> To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CACLqmgd9k55w2O5a_0%3D45uvVnCeiz%3D3T9%2BuUVJHhCPHfqUt7jQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Paul Werbos]

On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 3:02 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, May 6, 2025 at 8:13 AM Paul Werbos <paul....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
snip

> IF we use the most advanced "power tower" solar thermal farms

It might be worth considering Ivanpah, which is shutting down.

> we easily beat all forms of nuclear electricity on real-world cost and time.

KEITH:

That's a low bar. 

I certainly did not mean to disagree with you on this point!!!

I just wanted to make a point which, while an understatement, is both true and important.

[Keith Henson]

On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:35 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

> More to come.

This is about making synthetic fuel from trash and coal using
renewable energy. The key reaction, dating back to the 1850s,
involves heating carbon in steam to produce hydrogen and carbon
monoxide. This endothermic reaction requires heating, traditionally
done by alternately burning coke and injecting steam. Using
intermittent renewable electricity for heating is now feasible.

A metric ton of carbon requires about 4 MWh of heat to produce 13.1
MWh of syngas; a 3 to 1 energy gain. The gas can be stored, burned,
or converted into methane, jet fuel, or diesel. The water-gas shift
reaction can be used to increase the hydrogen at the expense of CO.
The resultant CO2 (about half) can be sorted out of the gas stream and
sequestered.

Following the water-gas shift, the Fischer-Tropsch (FT) process
converts syngas into hydrocarbons, typically wax which can be cracked
into diesel or jet fuel.

An example design uses 9,000 tons of trash daily from the Sylmar, CA
landfill supplemented with coal or used tires, to produce syngas. The
project would need significant power and infrastructure, including a
4-GW vaporizer and new high-voltage DC lines.

The venture could generate over $600 million annually from the sale of
fuel, with costs for coal and power totaling $241 million. The
project addresses landfill overuse and methane leakage, and provides a
renewable energy solution for synthetic fuel production, though it
requires substantial investment and the development of a 3-GW
gasifier.

Background/History

In the early days of the Industrial Revolution, “gas works” made “town
gas” by heating coke (burning it) then shutting off the air and
blowing steam into the white-hot coke. This made CO and hydrogen.
The proposal here is to heat any carbon source in steam with renewable
power and then feed the syngas to a FT plant to make liquid fuels. It
takes 3 MWh to vaporize a ton of carbon in steam. (Making the steam
takes 0.94 MWh/ton of carbon.) This avoids burning the carbon to
provide process heat.

> KeithH

[Keith Henson]

On Wed, May 7, 2025 at 4:42 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 5, 2025 at 3:35 PM Keith Henson <hkeith...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > More to come.

https://htyp.org/Trash_to_fuel

The current state of the write-up. Comments are welcome here or on
the Wiki page.

KeithH