 | The Energy Return of (Industrial) Solar - Passive Solar, PV, Wind and Hydro (#5 of 6) | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat: April 30, 2008 |  |
94 comments on We're Off To See The Wizard - Storing Energy Using Ammonia
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
94 comments on We're Off To See The Wizard - Storing Energy Using Ammonia
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
This project has particular significance as Whyalla will be in the energy spotlight. BHP Billiton has said they want 690 MW for the Olympic Dam expansion presumably including a desal plant on the nearby coast. Other new mines (eg Prominent Hill) are planning transmission lines to Roxby Downs.
OneSteel has coke ovens supplied by coal ships from Newcastle. Water and gas pipelines run down the coast, water from the River Murray and gas from Cooper Basin. Santos has a gas fractionation plant about 30km out of Whyalla where LNG ships call in once fortnight I believe, until Cooper Basin runs out.
The linked news story doesn't give an electrical output for the CSP plant, but if it supplies 10,000 homes I'll infer that as 10 MW. While that seems large it is infinitesmal compared to other captured energy flows associated with the area. The article doesn't state how long this plant can maintain output in overcast weather. To me 'baseload' means the ability to supply a specified output 24/7, barring unplanned outages.
So I see this project as a David and Goliath battle of small scale renewable versus the fossil and nuclear juggernaut.
Regarding size, remember - its just a demonstration plant to trial the technology commercially.
I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity - I'm hoping someone with some more knowledge will comment at some stage.
I view the renewables vs extraction based energy sources battle as a mammals vs dinosaurs one rather than a Dvid vs Goliath one.
And unlike those Goliath's, this one could be quite comfortably distributed in the suburbs... potentially generating (most of) that residential baseload where it's needed.
Remember that the first nuclear reactor was essentially a pile of uranium covered by some graphite bricks that produced "zero" power.
And the first coal fired engines don't really stack up today either...
How many horse power was "The Rocket"?
Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND we don't have to wait for "carbon capture and storage"... I hope the trial is successful.
Anyways... David won!
Nice post Gav.
G'day mates, any chance I could have a little piece of the South Florida franchise? I promise to put a few large shrimp on the barbie for you if you come over for a visit. I'll even throw in a tour of our coral reefs.
"Here is a technology with ZERO emissions, scalable, that uses well understood standard processes AND .."
Well, just like Dr. Lovegrove points out above,
Setting it up and transport are the real real problems.
Meaning that Edison was right all the way. It has to do with breaking the bariers of collecting diffuse energy AND storing it. Right now, collecting is a tick too expensive and storing/transporting it breaks the bank. I've started the Ammonia discussion in other threads and think it will be ONE very good opportunity to store/use solar and wind being produced in Australia or the Sahara/MidEast. There are many brains working on the "problem" right now: http://www.desertec.org/ .
I have a greatly improved way to transport it, but you'll have to wait til I start my own company and publish the patents for that.
Anyone want to give me a couple million start capital for it?
All the best, Dom
SP enthuses that the technology is "scalable" but Big Gav, the author, says "I agree that there is no detail about storage capacity". So I think SP is premature. Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere. There is probably a reason.
Let's hope we can find some real, scalable solutions to the energy storage need.
What is the reason?
Yes, I am probably premature in my enthusing, and I should have used the appropriate modifier 'potentially'. But we are talking about a trial.
The argument that becuase "Technology like this has been around for quite a while and has not gone anywhere" ... can be used to dismiss anything.
Battery Technology.
Cancer research.
Fusion.