Concentrated solar-thermal power (CSP) is a core climate solution. It is probably the zero-carbon form of electricity with the most potential, since it can be easily integrated with thermal storage and provide power reliably throughout the day and evening in key locations around the world (including China and India), which is why it delivers 3 of the 12 – 14 wedges needed for “the full global warming solution.”
After being neglected for nearly 2 decades, CSP is finally coming of age with major new deals around the world and here at home (see “Biggest CA utility contracts for world’s biggest solar power deal — 1300 MW solar thermal“). But while we tend to think of CSP as being the most suitable for desert-like conditions, it also makes sense anywhere it is sunny.
As the headline suggests, Lauren Engineers & Contractors and Florida Power & Light Co. (FPL) signed a contract on Thursday to build a 75-megawatt concentrated solar thermal facility near Indiantown, Florida (artists’s conception above).
According to a press release, the project, christened the Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, would be second only to a 100-megawatt facility that was recently given the green light in California, and is slated to be up and running by either the end of 2009 or the second quarter of 2010 [Note to FPL: You have two different in-service dates listed on your website].
A couple of facts to note:
First, if completed on time, Lauren Engineers and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) will indeed have the world’s second largest solar plant. And according to Wikipedia, no other larger plants are under construction — see to “List of solar thermal power station” and “List of photovoltaic power stations.” The good news is that there are many much larger planned solar plants — some ten times larger. So within the decade, this will may not even make the top ten.
Second, they have packaged the new sun farm together with an existing natural gas combined cycle plant. So this isn’t carbon free power.
Still, it is very low carbon baseload power, in a non-desert region, which is an important step forward.
Here is the complete press release:
WORLD’S SECOND LARGEST SOLAR PLANT TO BE BUILT IN FLORIDA
ABILENE, TX, MARCH 26, 2009: Lauren Engineers & Constructors recently signed a contract with Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) as the engineering, procurement and construction contractor for a new 75 MW Concentrated Solar Power Plant located near Indiantown, FL.
This landmark solar project will achieve several milestones for solar power, including:
- The second largest solar thermal power plant in the World
- The largest solar thermal plant outside of California
- The first hybrid solar facility in the world to connect to an existing combined-cycle power plant
This project, named the Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center, will be located on 500 acres of land adjacent to FPL’s Martin Plant. Using Parabolic Trough Technology to capture heat from the sun, this project will include approximately 200,000 parabolic mirrors. Total power produced for this new solar plant will be 155,000 MWh of power annually — enough power for 11,000 homes or 26,000 people.
Utilizing the latest in Solar Thermal technology, this revolutionary solar project will help to advance the field of solar power by producing clean energy at a competitive price. According to FPL’s website, the Martin Facility is expected to reduce green house gas emissions by approximately 2.75 million tons over a thirty year period, which is the equivalent of removing more than 18,700 cars from the road annually for the next 30 years.
“Lauren is proud to build this project and is dedicated to a project approach which minimizes disruption to the local community and ecosystem,” said Cleve Whitener, CEO of Lauren Engineers & Constructors.
In addition to this milestone solar project, Lauren also built the Nevada Solar One Power Plant, a 64 MW solar power plant located in Boulder City, Nevada. Construction for this plant, the largest built in over 17 years, was completed in June 2007. Lauren’s key role as the only contractor to have built a concentrated solar power facility in the US in the last 17 years has helped to solidify Lauren as the premier contractor for solar power facilities in North America.
Further project details, pictures and videos can be found on Florida Power & Light’s Website:
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/martin.shtml
http://www.fpl.com/environment/solar/martin_faq.shtml
– Joseph Romm and Sean Pool
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
err, couple of things:
- Is that below or above sea level 2030?
- How do you build a solar farm to withstand big hurricanes?
(extra wedges needed for failed green projects due to extreme events caused by CC)
Oh, I think it is probably above sea level through 2100.
Looks to be 30 miles inland. Probably could survive anything but a direct hit by a major hurricane.
“estimated $688 million costs” for 110 MW(peak) according to this possibly-outdated story: FPL seeks OK for large solar plant in Martin, with 2 more in wings (Palm Beach Post, June 03, 2008). At prices like that, we’re not going to see many of these.
“Construction of the plant is planned to begin during the fourth quarter of 2008 with an in-service date during the second quarter of 2010.”
Seems like even the 2010 date is questionable if they were supposed to start last year, but they just signed the contract yesterday.
Another one:
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Tri_State_And_First_Solar_Sign_Major_Development_Agreement_999.html
Bill mentioned “estimated $688 million costs” for 110 MW (peak). If you divide that by, say, three for average power that works out to $19 million per MW. Which is $19 billion for 1000 MW. A nuclear plant might produce 1000 MW and cost around $5 billion. Solar still has a ways to come down.
1) According to Wikipedia, Indiantown’s elevation is 33ft/10 meter (high ground!)
2) The artist’s conception might make you think it’s next to the ocean, but I;’d guess that more likely, that’s one of the many lakes, maybe Lake Okeechobee.
3) I think it is a great idea that it’s packaged with an existing electrical plant, among other things saving the cost and energy of building new transmission lines, and the flexibility of gas usage fits pretty well.
Wonderful news to see. Keep’em coming…(the news and the solar thermal plants)
Question for DB, regarding costs:
At what point in your cost calculations do you consider the fuel, or lack thereof?
I am worried that the 2nd largest csp plant in the world will only power 11,000 homes. This proves if (and when) we go carbon free, it will HAVE to include efficiency and conservation. Of course they have much larger csp plants planned which will power more, still a concern.
[JR: Of course efficiency. But give CSP a few years. It'll be GW scale, not MW scale.]
“At what point in your cost calculations do you consider the fuel, or lack thereof?”
The number I found was for construction of a couple of 1000MW plants in Georgia, IIRC. Fuel would be extra, although one must admit that the $14 billion difference in construction cost would buy a heck of a lot of fuel (and storage and disposal).
Solar Thermal company Ausra’s CEO Bob Fishman was at the Going Green East conference in Boston two weeks ago and was enthusiastic about the prospect for cutting Solar Thermal costs by approx. 1/3 by combining solar thermal and natural gas combined cycle in one facility. The two technologies both need a steam turbine, and the cost efficiencies would come from using the same steam turbine. He did not elaborate about operational efficiencies, however it is probable that an integrated facility could ramp up natural gas usage more gradually and efficiently (to keep the fluid at operating temperature) as the solar thermal resource cools. Right now, as a separate backup facility, the natural gas generator operates less efficiently as it has to be ready to go when the solar resource is not available, and has to reach operating temperature w/o any solar assist.
See article about this at: http://www.energyeconomyonline.com/Solar_Thermal_Electric.html
Solar facilities need natural gas generators as backup anyway, and an integrated facility makes a lot of sense both economically and operationally.
Does this mean that the coal fired plant it replaces will be shut down?
David – they started construction in December 2008. The contract came after construction began.
DB – Florida Power and Light projected a cost of $12 to$18 billion for a new nuclear plant. Prices really zoomed in the last few years.
Joe has some very good articles on the cost of new nuclear on the site. Look for the detailed analysis written by Craig Severance who posted a comment above.
“Solar Thermal company Ausra’s CEO Bob Fishman was at the Going Green East conference in Boston two weeks ago and was enthusiastic about the prospect for cutting Solar Thermal costs by approx. 1/3 by combining solar thermal and natural gas combined cycle in one facility.”
Craig – It would seem that thermal storage would be the third leg of this interesting stool. By building larger collection capability and storing the extra heat the plant could cut back on expensive gas. But the gas capability would be there in order to make the facility “100% reliable/baseload”.
Meanwhile, FPL is also proposing to add 400 MW of nuclear power by 2012, at a estimated cost of $1.5 billion (i.e. about $4.2 /W).
http://www.fpl.com/environment/nuclear/power_uprate_faq.shtml
Rather better than the $20+ /W(average) of this solar plant. (The capacity factor is only 24%.)
Bob Wallace: “It would seem that thermal storage would be the third leg of this interesting stool.”
In this case there’s no point in adding storage; they’ll just dial back on the gas. The Martin plant already has a capacity of 2,800 MW, and they’re adding 800 MW more.
http://www.fpl.com/environment/plant/martin.shtml
This is a hybrid plant – the first of its kind. The solar farm will not replace the current power plant. Instead, it will augment its power supply during the daylight hours, meaning they will have to rely less on gas-fired steam during the day. Here is an excerpt from an article that explains the bebefit of hybrid technology:
The Martin plant is considered the first hybrid because steam heated by the mirrors will help run existing generators. By running its existing generators on steam from a solar field, the plant can rely less on conventional gas-fired steam to produce electricity.
“When the sun comes out, we’re able to take our foot off the gas,” said FPL spokesman James Ratchford.
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2008/dec/03/worlds-first-hybrid/
Tropical Cyclone Probabilities – Annual Major Hurricanes
Looks like it’s about a 3% a year chance, or about a 78% chance of at least one major hurricane in the next 50 years. (1944 to 1999 data. Remarkable seasons such as 2004 and 2005 not included. AWG affects on hurricanes not included either.)
But that’s the point llewelly, CC included.
Logic error.
That’s perhaps the odds of somewhere in the state being hit by a major hurricane. But it’s not the odds of that particular site being hit.
Furthermore, this site is 30 miles inland and if you’ll remember hurricanes drop energy very quickly once they make landfall.
Well, 30 miles inland at current sea levels….
“Furthermore, this site is 30 miles inland and if you’ll remember hurricanes drop energy very quickly once they make landfall.”
IIRC, Andrew still had winds of 125 mph after crossing over all of Florida.
Check out rasor technology’s new thermal generating systems, they use no water and will operate on waste heat, geothermal, stored solar thermal from CSP, and even heat from hot sun baked road surfaces collected with plastic pipes in the road surface.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/3/24/4131706.html
Forget trough CSP like this design, it’ uses water and is already obsolete.
*Sigh* A good thing, one supposes.
And yet so inelegant. I truly hate moving parts with a passion. Steam…blecch.
Moura went on line last December at 46 MW, for about 260 million Euros. Pure PV.
We need to devote more research dollars to large-scale superconducting capacitors for energy storage. The portable units are already reliable and safe.
We can do so much better than steam, however generated.
Superconducting capacitors? don’t you mean superconducting electromagnetic storage, the first utility scale system was installed a few years back here in n wisconsin.
Every early morning at 3 am the power would fkuctuate, it was a paper mill system kicking in, an extra peak plant had to be fired up. Wisconsin Public Service installed an SMES system, no more fluctuation, no more extra peaking plant wasting fuel.
DB – Andrew was one of three “super huricanes” to hit the US in the 20th Century..
From Wiki -
“Andrew hit near Homestead with a slightly lower pressure and winds of 150mph.[3]
As the eye moved onshore, the convection in the eyewall strengthened owing to increased convergence, and Hurricane Hunters reported a warmer eyewall temperature than two hours prior. However, Hurricane Andrew weakened as the eye continued further inland, and after crossing southern Florida in four hours, the eye emerged into the Gulf of Mexico with winds of 135 mph (215 km/h).[3] ”
Now if you want to talk about the probability of storm of that strength hitting a CSP, a storm carrying enough power to maintain extreme wind speed 30 miles inland, then you’re going to have to drop your original number to something like 0.03 and then fine tune it to strike one specified spot rather than the entire area from Texas to the Carolinas.
“Forget trough CSP like this design, it’ uses water and is already obsolete.”
X – we don’t want to forget CSP. We want to build CSP as fast as possible.
We’re like a guy in a sinking boat, too far from shore to make it in time. What we’ve got is a bucket.
What we need to do is bail as fast as possible and holler for help as loudly as possible. Maybe we can keep ourselves afloat long enough to survive.
CSP, wind turbines, PV, conservation – maybe they will be enough to save our butts, maybe they won’t. But at a minimum they may be enough to postpone the worst climate change until we have time to invent something better that *will* save our butts.
If something better comes along we can stop building less efficient techniques and switch to whatever is better. But we can’t “forget” what we’ve got right now that works in hope for something better that might or might not be available sometime later.
In the meantime, Florida ought to be a good palce to grow algae. Put the algae in an anaerobic digester to obtain biogas, probably about 70% methane by volume. If their existing steam makers acann’t handle burning the biogas, use amine process (or a later more efficient method) to seperate the methane from the acid gas. Store the methane against cloudy weather; clean the acid gas to produce industrial grade CO2 to sell or begin a pilot CO2 sequestration project.
Avoid burning natural gas this way, at least partially.
Shouldn’t we be working toward methane digesters in every municipality? Think of all the sewage and trash we now process/dispose of.
All that gas could be fed back into our existing natural gas system and leave natural gas underground where its carbon would remain sequestered.
(Not that we can quit using NG, but every little bit adds to the bottom line….)
Well of course Bob build CSP, I’m just saying that mirror fields that concentrate the solar light on a receiver/furnace are more efficient.
And that use the Rasor Technology refrigerant gas turbine closed cycle generation don’t need water. A primary cycle could use a higher temperature gas, then the waste heat tapped with a lower temp one. suit the gas to the temp, feothermal, waste heat, or in the case of solar furnace/mirror CSP, molten salt heat storage.
The beauty of individual plastic tracking mirrors is that they are inexpensive and can be mounted over parking lots and roads and on factory rooftops. A whole industrial site or building like a mall could concentrate all the solar power on one central receiver.
Trough concentrators with fluid in tubes waste a lot of the energy and cost a lot. one central got storage generating source that these turbines could tap onto would be much cheaper per kwh. It’s easier to melt storage salt in the furnace than pipe all that steam around and use a lot of water.
X –
We’re moving the discussion from “what we can do right now” to “what we might be able to do soon”.
Here’s another “soon” idea that I find interesting.
Put a large block of carbon(?) in an insulated hole in the ground. Suspend a large concave mirror over it. Use a lot of small tracking mirrors to send sunlight to the heat absorbing block. (Sun -> tracking mirrors -> collecting mirror -> heat sink.)
This system wouldn’t have to move large amounts of water/salts while it was running. By placing the storage medium (solid or liquid) in an insulated box, all we have to do is close the lid when the sun goes down and then suck out the heat when the grid needs it.
—
Build lots of CSP right now using the techniques that are ‘tried and true’ but continue working on better ways to get the job done. It’s going to take a few decades to totally replace fossil fuels.
another step in the right direction. solar thermal energy is catching on around the world. Spain are building something like 60 plants in the coming years as well
Solar thermal is the most promising industrial sized solar electrical idea out there, in my opinion. Since the wires are in place, and we’re stuck with them for now, we simply have to replace coal fired steam generating power plants. Every last one of them as soon as possible. And no emerging industrial country should be building new coal plants. What I would like to see is the same idea adapted to individual home heating. Is it less efficient in some areas? Sure. But it’s solar and the fuel is free. It can be as inefficient as can be, as long as at some point it actually works to heat a house and keeps the oil tanker away. So, two different ways the same solar thermal idea can be used. We’ve got to stop rearranging the deck chairs here and spend whatever it takes. War in the Middle East is also expensive, so count ALL the costs and see how good solar anything looks after that. If you’ve ever seen a gas drilling area or mountain top removal, you know absolutely we must stop that behavior. If we don’t control ourselves, we take the planet down with us.
That’s it Bob, move the sunlight instead of fluids in pipes. The beauty of storage salts is the phase change, it store many times the BTUs in the same volume (making insularion easier, even vacuum insularion possible?) and a gifger temperature. Merely heating a storage media like water or rock produces a wide range of temperature, making efficient feneration problematic.
Storage salt or wax at the solar furnace focal point doesn’t need a lot of fluid transport, just some circulation.
I also think that PV could be placed around the furnace receiver to harvest the inevitable scattered solar radiation from the tracking mirrors. Just imagine assembley lines with plastic mirrors, complete with computer controlled trackling systems, coming off the line every few seconds. Mass production!!! That should be the goal now. bring the per kwh cost down, way down, below the cost of combustion based energy.
[A comment of mine seems to have been lost in moderation limbo, so I'm reposting with only one URL.]
Meanwhile, FPL is also proposing to add 400 MW of nuclear power by 2012, at a estimated cost of $1.5 billion (i.e. about $4.2 /W).
http://www.fpl.com/ environment/ nuclear/ power_uprate_faq.shtml
Rather better than the $26 /W(average) of this solar plant. (The capacity factor is only 24%.)
Bob Wallace — By all means encourage every village, town and city to have anaerobic digesters to produce biogas from the municiple waste stream. Every little bit helps.
Two leaders are Dayton, Ohio, and San Diego, California, by the way.
Bill Woods
“At prices like that, we’re not going to see many of these.”
The NREL research report on CSP says that the first few plants will be expensive, but they expect rapid cost reduction as the industry grows, with economy of scale and experience gained.
Their numbers are similar to those from the Western Governors Association study that saw power prices from CSP at less than 10 cents/kWh when there are 4 GW of installed capacity and 5-8 cents kWh when the industry is up to scale, which should be by 2020. The 4 GW will probably be installed by 2013, based on the over 3 GW already underway or soon to be. The NREL projected 4 GW by 2015, so the pace is ahead of that.
The WGA thought 13 GW was possible by 2015.
Jody Lee
“This is a hybrid plant – the first of its kind.”
Not exactly. The Mojave pilot plants that were built in the late 80s were hybrid plants.
From NRELs CSP report
“All of the SEGS plants (the 9 pilot plants in the Mojave, built between 1985 & 1991 ) are ‘hybrids,’ using fossil fuel to supplement the solar output during periods of low solar radiation. Each plant is allowed to generate 25 percent of its energy annually using fossil fuel. With the use of the fossil hybrid capability, the SEGS plants, during Southern California Edison (SCE) on-peak hours, have exceeded 100 percent capacity factor for more than a decade, with greater than 85 percent from solar operation.”
They had heat storage for a while too, but it was removed later to accomodate design changes in the plants.
“Thermal storage, along with an enlarged solar field, also allows the CSP plant to operate at a higher annual capacity factor, about 40 percent with 6 hours of storage versus 28 percent for no storage. This gives the plant the ability
to generate higher revenues to off-set the additional cost of the storage system. The levelized costs in Table 6-2 reveal this, as the trough plant with 6 hours of storage and
without storage have roughly the same cost of energy ($157/MWh vs. $154/MWh)”
In other words higher prices for the more valuable dispatchable power would offset the added cost of storage.
“CSP Potential in California on comparably flat land outside of environmentally sensitive areas”
Parabolic Trough, no storage < 1 % slope
Capacity Potential, MW 661,000 Generation Potential, GWh 1,614,000
Parabolic Trough, six hours storage < 1 % slope
Capacity Potential, MW 471,000
Generation Potential, GWh 1,640,000
Power Tower, six hours storage < 1 % slope
Capacity Potential, MW 342,000
Generation Potential, GWh 1,233,000
Note: This is net summer capacity.
up to 3% slope is considered usable
California’s total generating capacity from all sources is now 58 GW.
“A comparison of the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) revealed that the LCOE of $148 per MWh for the first CSP plants installed in 2009 is competitive with the simple cycle combustion turbine at an LCOE of $168 per MWh, assuming that the temporary 30 percent Investment Tax Credit is extended. The LCOE for the CSP plant is higher than the $104 per MWh LCOE of the combined cycle combustion turbine plant.”
“As shown in Table ES-2, CSP plants installed in 2015 are projected to exhibit a delivered LCOE of $115/MWh, compared with $168/MWh for the simple cycle combustion turbine and $104/MWh for combined cycle plants. At a natural gas price of about $8 per MMBtu, the LCOE of CSP and the combined cycle plants at 40 percent capacity factor are equal.”
Delivered Levelized Energy Cost and Economic Impacts for CSP and Gas Technologies in 2015 ($2005)
Delivered Energy Cost
Simple Cycle* $187/MWh
Combined Cycle* $119/MWh
CSP with 6 Hours Storage** $115/MWh
*The 2015 MPR natural gas price of $8.00 per MMBtu escalating at 2.5 percent annually was used.
**CSP assumes permanent 10 percent ITC.
“Investment in CSP power plants delivers greater return to California in both economic activity and employment than corresponding investment in natural gas equipment:
- Each dollar spent on CSP contributes approximately $1.40 to California’s Gross State Product; each dollar spent on natural gas plants contributes about $0.90 – $1.00 to Gross State Product.”