• pedz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I know this is a meme community but I was curious about this. It seems some birds do get burned, but not blasted. It varies a lot depending on the installation and it can also be mitigated. Also, the amount of birds dying from this is significantly lower than just the amount of birds hitting windows. For the benefit of other curious people, I’ll try to condense the relevant information from wikipedia and the sources.

      In more general terms, a 2016 preliminary study assessed that the annual bird mortality per MW of installed power was similar between U.S. concentrated solar power plants and wind power plants, and higher for fossil fuel power plants.

      How it was calculated for fossil fuel

      Sovacool estimated avian mortality from fossil fuel power plants across the United States as a result of collision with infrastructure, electrocutions, pollution and contamination, and climate change. In addition, Sovacool estimated climate change-induced avian mortality (in terms of habitat loss and changes in migration) predicted to be the result of fossil fuel power plant operations.

      A preliminary assessment of avian mortality at utility-scale solar energy facilities in the United States: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148116301422?via=ihub

      Review of Avian Mortality Studies at Concentrating Solar Power Plants: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1364837

  • humanspiral@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    This is old technology that is more expensive/complicated/maintenance-ey than PV. An economic falacy is that if you have oil/fossils you should use that instead of solar. It’s always better to use cheapest energy. Export the fossils, import solar. It is more jobs to have solar as well, and in fact most of the deployment costs are local work/materials (wiring/support structures).

  • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 days ago

    I really like the concentrated solar systems that use molten salt, where rather than heating water directly, molten salt is heated and stored In large insulated tanks and tapped off to a heat exchanger to run the turbines, thus allowing power generation to match demand and continue at a constant rate even when light level very (such as at night).

    One interesting idea is to use a concentrated solar system to run an Einstein–Szilard refrigerator, or some other absorption refrigerator cycle.

    • rothaine@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      What are the tanks made of? “Molten salt” sounds like it would fuck up most materials

      • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Various common steels with a bunch of insulation around it usually, sometimes with a thin coating. The potassium/sodium/calcium nitrate mixes that are used with concentrated solar systems operating in range between 200 C and 600 C. So like, yah you don’t want to touch it, but it’s not gonna do much to steel. It can be somewhat corrosive, but, this is fairly easily mitigated by design.

        Molten salt for heat transfer and thermal storage is a pretty mature technology that goes way back before we started using it in concentrated solar systems.

        • how_we_burned@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Molten salt for heat transfer and thermal storage is a pretty mature technology that goes way back before we started using it in concentrated solar systems.

          Isn’t the core problem with anything that uses molten salt is that when the heat sauce source (thanks autocorrect, really, the context in that sentence means you should suggest “sauce”?) fails you just end up with a huge lump of solid salts that clog every part of your system?

          The Russian Alfa class had a similar problem due their use of lead-bismuth heated into a liquid.

          When they lost power for whatever they’d essentially end up being written off as reheating them was incredibly difficult and very tricky.

      • I_am_10_squirrels@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        As a first guess, I would use glass fused to steel tanks. I would need to do a detailed look at material compatibility, talk to vendors, and run some bench scale studies before I moved forward with anything.

        Source: am licensed engineer

    • megopie@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Yes, super critical CO2 turbines can work in such a system. As can sterling engines. Or thermoelectric solid state couples.

      Any system that uses a temperature differential to generate power can be used. It’s just a matter of what you care about in a given situation. Upfront cost, mechanical reliability, noise/vibration, and availability of needed components play in to what makes the most sense.

    • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      Another thread I read said that photovoltaics have an efficiency of around 45%, while turbines are somewhere in the 40% range. Source: I dunno.

    • marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 days ago

      No, neither will it be cheaper.

      People stopped building those some years ago.

      (But those incredibly expensive concentrators with a single tower are more efficient. Nobody is building those anymore either.)

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Generating electricity by boiling water used to be the cheapest option, but nowadays it’s a bottleneck that itself is way more expensive than the alternatives that people actually build.

          It only got cheaper with time, though. It’s the alternatives (PV, wind, batteries, gas) that improved a crazy amount.

        • marcos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 days ago

          Turns out that sunlight is very cheap. You need a lot of efficiency to justify any extra cost.

          • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 days ago

            Plus, you get a lot of lag when heating water with concentrated solar. Overnight your water cools down, so you need time to get it back to boiling temperature before it can generate any power. That lag gets worse during winter and cloudy days

            • marcos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              6 days ago

              In some ways, that lag is good. You can cheaply replace batteries with just a thermal mass.

              But it’s not good enough to make up for the cost difference.

              • mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                6 days ago

                The sunlight spent just to get the water up to temperature is also wasted, so the maximum extractable energy per day gets kneecapped