Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CA's First Molten Salt Energy Plant Approved

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the high-on-sodium dept.

Power 270

An anonymous reader writes "This year we've seen molten salt power plants start to pick up steam around the world, and now the technology is heating up stateside — California just approved its first molten salt energy plant. Designed by SolarReserve, the plant uses heliostats to focus thermal energy on a power tower filled with salt, which is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold heat for an extraordinary length of time. Heat from this reserve of molten salt can then be pumped through a steam generator to provide on-demand energy long after the sun has set."

cancel ×

270 comments

TOO MANY PUNS!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578210)

We get it already, heat jokes. Knock it off!

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (4, Funny)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578294)

It took me 4 reads just to find the two puns that you appear to be so steamed over.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (3, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578442)

Yep, even I get annoyed by Slashdot summaries pretty often, but this one didn't even trip my detector. Had to go over carefully to see the two at the beginning. Sorry, lower your sensitivity, because you're making us intolerants look tolerant in comparison!

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578906)

I think M. Freak may have been talking about the combination of the summary and the article. I have to admit that I was a bit tired of them by the time that I was done with the article.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (3, Funny)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579088)

You RTFA? I’m sorry, but I’ll have to take that claim with a grain of salt.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579460)

Amazing, I didn't see any heat puns in the article itself. You say there were many? I need to have my eyes checked :(

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579714)

Well, now I look like an idiot. I would swear, when I first read through, that I identified two or three of them. Now, I can only find a mention of "savory technology." Sorry.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (3, Funny)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578464)

Way to pour salt on his wound.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (2, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578508)

Way to pour salt on his wound.

Careful, you'll make him hot under the collar. ;-)

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579204)

Or turn this into a salted battery.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579236)

If you’d add a bit of butter you’d make the bitter battery better.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579222)

Way to pour salt on his wound.

Careful, you'll make him hot under the collar. ;-)

This kind of flamebait is an assault on our sensibilities.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

O-Deka-K (1520371) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579740)

New headline: "PG&E Charged With Assault"

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

suomynonAyletamitlU (1618513) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579660)

You make a saline point.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579686)

Well, my goal was to be crystal clear. All these puns, makes you want to shake your head.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (2)

Comboman (895500) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579694)

Stop peppering him with bad puns. It's thyme for serious discussion.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578308)

You sound a little hot under the collar. Maybe you should chill out.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578474)

I'm going to have to rub salt in your wounds, which will probably just boil your blood more.

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

snooz_crash (802357) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579356)

John Stewart is onto this growing phenomenon [uproxx.com]

Re:TOO MANY PUNS!!! (1)

BBF_BBF (812493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579662)

The correct Title for your post should be:

"TWO MANY PUNS!!!

;-)

Mascot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578226)

Their mascot? The Molten Salt Girl

Re:Mascot (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578576)

Their mascot? The Molten Salt Girl

And if they do this in situ in a salt mine, then what could go wrong?

Re:Mascot (0)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578834)

Mmmm - hot salt ... and grits.

Fahrenheit? (1, Informative)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578232)

810.777 Kelvin .... nuff said.

Re:Fahrenheit? (3, Insightful)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578496)

Eliminate that make-believe accuracy, as the original was probably rounded at least +/-50 F to the round 1000 figure. 800 Kelvin is plenty accurate here.

Re:Fahrenheit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579706)

accuracy != precision

Don't know where you got that from... (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579112)

According to Wikipedia the melting point is 801 degrees Celsius (1074 Kelvin).

The boiling point is 1686 K and the specific heat capacity is 864 Joules/Kilo/degree so you can do the numbers... :-)

Re:Don't know where you got that from... (1)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579628)

According to my experience [google.com] and my digital thermometer salt melts at 800 Celsius.

Of course, my thermometer has a 0.5% +/-1 digit accuracy, so that's consistent with the 801 degree theory ;)

home use? (2)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578236)

Any way to work this out for home use? Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

Re:home use? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578578)

Home use? Sure, here's your order of molten french fries...

Re:home use? (3, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578756)

Realistically? No. The thermal mass required to keep a steam turbine running 24/7 is not something you want in your house. This is large scale industrialized energy production. The only personal scale applications are solar hot water heaters and greenhouses, and in those cases your goal is to take advantage of the stored heat directly instead of converting it to electricity.

Re:home use? (2)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578828)

You would have to get it up to a high enough temperature to stay molten throughout the night, while still providing power. It's a lot more practical to use other solar technologies for home use and keep these ones in big arrays. It's a bit like why power plants will always have higher efficiency than home generation, it's a matter of scale.

Re:home use? (2)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578894)

Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

I don't think this would be viable on a small scale.

National Geographic had a decent article sometime in the past couple years on different solar energy technologies. Part of that article was an excellent writeup (and photos) of this technology, which is currently in use in Spain.

The basics are:

A column with a salt reservoir at the top
A field of mirrors that can focus the reflected solar rays onto the salt
A heat-exchange system to drive steam to a steam turbine.

I don't think this would be a good idea on a small scale -- there are other solar thermal energy systems already used on a small scale that would be better (such as passive solar thermal used for night-time heating). Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.

Re:home use? (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579342)

Plus, I think there're huge economies of scale at play here -- steam generators are more efficient at larger sizes, etc.

Hi, I'm here to point out that efficiency means nothing when your fuel is free, and that cost is all that matters. Just like I do in every other renewable energy story.

Re:home use? (2)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579470)

Fuel is not free, since there are capital costs involved in setting up the apparatus to receive the fuel, and the apparatus does not have an infinite lifetime.

Re:home use? (1)

Just_Say_Duhhh (1318603) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579166)

it depends on how big your lot is. You're going to need enough land to construct a pretty large mirror array, and then you'll need a power tower to collect all that heat. If you can't get away with building a tall structure, you could use a parabolic trough. The main reason you wouldn't want this on a small scale is you can't shut it off. If the salt cools into a solid, you'd never get it flowing again.

For your safety, as well as the safety of your neighbors, I'd say it's best to leave that 800-degree (Celsius) salt out in the desert where it belongs.

Re:home use? (1)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579386)

If the salt cools into a solid, you'd never get it flowing again.

It's common to use simple electric heat-tracing to liquify the salts on start-up.

Re:home use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579218)

Any way to work this out for home use? Without digging too deep, sounds suitable here in So Cal, but maybe the scale is too small to provide any real benefit

How about fail in first question and fail in the 2nd statement too... Both are false and epically so.

Re:home use? (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579240)

You're stuck waiting for flywheels or redox batteries to be packaged for consumer level installations, I'm afraid. This one here is a "big boy only" toy.

However, if you are interested in space heating, look up Glauber's Salt.

Re:home use? (1)

dr2chase (653338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579710)

Whoa, cool. I had no idea. Wikipedia missed one use -- if you want to get the most intense turquoise from procion dyes [dharmatrading.com] (tie-dye, often), you use Glauber's salt instead of salt when mixing the dye (note that the referenced site sells anhydrous sodium sulfate, not the deca-hydrated form you were thinking of).

Figures... (1)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578274)

RTFA, looks like a giant penis...

Re:Figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578380)

RTFA, looks like a giant penis...

May I offer a suggestion? You need to get out more!

Re:Figures... (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578480)

Design heritage of Arnold?

Re:Figures... (2)

MrQuacker (1938262) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578586)

Re:Figures... (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578728)

A Cigar with odd proportions, judging by that picture.

Not the first... (5, Informative)

Foo2rama (755806) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578282)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert [wikipedia.org]


Only if you ignore Solar II that ran from 1996 to 1999....

Re:Not the first... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579320)

not forgetting Helios 1

You FAIL it! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578370)

mechanic5. So I'm

Really really bad idea (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578398)

Nothing from or controlled by Computer Associates should be trusted with warm water, much less molten salt.

Re:Really really bad idea (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579158)

why?

They are going lend some salt too. (2, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578530)

Any excess salt left over after building the plant will be given to Gawker to help them improve their salted password hashes.

Re:They are going lend some salt too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578734)

Any salt they don't use for that will be provided, one grain at a time, to accompany their stories.

Silicon Production (3, Interesting)

UdoKeir (239957) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578532)

Slightly off-topic (or on-topic considering the bigger picture). Can this method of heat concentration be used in the refinement of silicon. My understanding is that silicon production is expensive because of the energy needed to generate heat for the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon#Production [wikipedia.org]

Re:Silicon Production (3, Insightful)

benjamindees (441808) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579542)

Yes of course. It could even be used to create mirrors for more solar towers. The whole damn thing could be self-replicating.

It's a tower? (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578560)

Why is this thing a tower? What if the system controlling the mirrors fails and suddenly they melt the tower, causing the molten salt to crash down on everything below?

Wouldn't it be safer to have that molten salt at ground level?

Re:It's a tower? (2)

mweather (1089505) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578646)

Wouldn't it be safer to have that molten salt at ground level?

Not if you wanted to get within 100 feet of the central collector during the day.

Re:It's a tower? (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578678)

Did you look at the picture? How do the mirrors reflect the light onto something on the ground and still be able to have more than one row of the mirrors?

Re:It's a tower? (4, Informative)

arivanov (12034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578946)

Besides that it is also a "trivial geometry" case. If you assume the collector constant the more obtuse the angle of reflection requires a bigger mirror. If the receiver is low, you end up with an obtuse angle out of necessity. The higher it is, the easier to obtain that magic 90 degrees that minimises the mirror size and from there cost and everything else.

Re:It's a tower? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578686)

Because mirrors are easier than a ginormous magnifying lens.

http://inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/12/Rice-Solar-Project-CA-2.jpg [inhabitat.com]

Re:It's a tower? (1)

Xaositecte (897197) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579116)

God, that thing looks like it's going to be used to power ARCHIMEDES II

Re:It's a tower? (1)

RaboKrabekian (461040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578720)

The salt isn't kept in the tower, that's just the thermal energy receiver.

Re:It's a tower? (4, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579024)

Yes, lord knows the solar energy people don't want to literally make a pillar of salt.

It would drive the Fundies nuts, that they could then equate solar energy with Sodom and Gomorrah.

Re:It's a tower? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578750)

Because mirrors can't shine through or under each other very well.

Re:It's a tower? (2)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579428)

I assume that with the target being higher off the ground, the mirrors can focus the sun on it when the sun is closer to the horizon, allowing for more hours of heating per day.

Heat retention for how long ? (4, Interesting)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578584)

Does anyone know exactly how long the reservoir tanks will keep the molten salt at a high enough temp to be useful? It says it can run for 24 hours but should an abnormally long string of cloudy days occur would this inhibit its usefulness? I realize it's California so it should be fairly sunny year round but I'm not familiar with the area it's being built at. Looked up the salt as well. (Had a hard time thinking it would be sodium chloride...) It's a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate. I was a bit worried as nitrates tend to be violently reactive/explosive but this would only be with reducing agents. (so it should be relatively fairly safe if there was a leak.) However when potassium nitrate is heated above 560C (as it would in this plant) it turns to potassium nitrite and gives off oxygen. I'm curious if this would be an issue or if the sodium nitrate or something else in the mixture inhibits this. I imagine the oxygen would either stick in the solar collector part as a gas bubble or just be dissolved in the molten salt mixture. Anyone know? (My expertise is more in biochemistry than inorganic/industrial chemistry)

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578854)

It could, but I don't know how cloudy it would have to be or for how long. If the designers were wise, they might have a backup system using natural gas or hydrogen to keep the boilers hot in case of emergencies.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578864)

The duration of energy storage depends on how large the container is and how well it is insulated. Wikipedia claims [wikipedia.org] : "the thermal energy can be usefully stored for up to a week."

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578962)

A lot of that wouldn't be so much to try to cover cloudy days, but to not waste good days. If you have to turn off the mirrors more than x percent of the time because you can't store more thermal load, you've probably under built for the conditions you're in.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (2)

BJ_Covert_Action (1499847) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578922)

I realize it's California so it should be fairly sunny year round but I'm not familiar with the area it's being built at.

As a Californian, let me *facepalm* over such an asinine comment for the rest of my Golden Coast brothers and sisters.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (4, Interesting)

corbettw (214229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578948)

It's being built in the Mojave Desert. Anything capable of causing sufficiently cloudy days for long enough to prevent solar collection is going to be a bigger problem by itself that not being able to pump out heat from the now-cooled salt. An eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera, comet impact, nuclear attack, something on that order is what we're talking about.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578956)

Actually, What you really need is a physics dude and a few numbers. The maths to do phase transitions are pretty easy. We know the current temp (~>560C), and we know when it goes from a liquid to a solid (300 or 400 c?).

I could do it, but I unfortunately spent all of my time in my physics class playing on my TI-83 calculator.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (5, Interesting)

Biogenesis (670772) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579074)

I've been doing some research into renewable energy in an Australian context at the University of Newcastle. The most commonly thrown around figure is 1C/day of loss at operating temperatures.

In doing some simple simulations (using real world demand, wind farm output and direct solar irradiance data) I've found that 50GW of wind farms (peak, scaled by 50x from Australia's current ~1GW peak wind capacity) and ~42GW of concentrated solar thermal (roughly 53x53km square area, spread across Australia on 12 sites) with 24hrs of storage is able to supply all of Australia's current electricity demand. The thermal storage dropped to ~10% capacity at it's lowest point.

The simulation tried to closely model the Beyond Zero Emissions Zero Carbon Australia 2020 [beyondzeroemissions.org] plan. Their modeling uses a different demand profile, one scaled to a proposed 2020 level after compensating for growth, electrification of cars etc.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (2)

shermo (1284310) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579732)

Electrical systems for heating ... can have significantly higher efficiency

Huh? Burning gas to produce heat is pretty damn efficient. Whereas if you convert it to electricity you'll get 60% efficiency at best and then lose 5-7% in transmission. Perhaps the article has a different definition of efficiency.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579208)

I'd love to see them expand to a system with enough salt that they'd have a week or more of reserve heat capacity. This is an elegant and simple way to solve the time of use/time of generation issue.

I don't think that oxygen outgassing would be an issue, since the salt is going to be in a pressurized system.

-jcr

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579638)

I don't think that oxygen outgassing would be an issue, since the salt is going to be in a pressurized system.

Don't count on a pressurized system staying pressurized. I'm sure they've figured how to deal with the issue, but it is a risk.

Re:Heat retention for how long ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579316)

Pressurized container?

Honestly a wild guess - I am neither biochemist or industrial chemist.

Approved, but when is it actually implemented? (0)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578648)

The summary says approved.. I.. didn't read TFA. When will it actually come online?

Re:Approved, but when is it actually implemented? (2)

NoKaOi (1415755) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579564)

From TFA: "SolarReserve is hoping to begin construction toward the end of 2011." Doesn't say when they plan to actually have it functioning. From their own press release on SolarReserve's website, they still have to get environmental approval from BLM and Wester Area Power Administration and "anticipates concluding financing arrangements by mid-2011 in order to begin full on-site construction in the third quarter of 2011."

jamie and adam said "busted" (1)

fred fleenblat (463628) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578662)

I though mythbusters proved that this was impossible.
They even reported their findings to the president.

Re:jamie and adam said "busted" (2, Informative)

Raptoer (984438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578754)

They didn't have the desert sun pouring onto a thousand large mirrors perfectly aligned on something for hours on end. Their test was more about the ability to align all of these mirrors without technology. These kind of things are dependent on energy going in vs energy going out. A thin sail surrounded by cool damp sea air only being shone upon from one side is going to have a lot less energy going in, and a lot more energy going out than a desert solar array.

Re:jamie and adam said "busted" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578826)

Hehe, Mythbusters and "proved" in the same sentence. Although entertaining and good in that it encourages interest in science, their approach is hardly methodical, completed with enough samples, nor independently verified enough to use the word "proved".

Re:jamie and adam said "busted" (1)

skids (119237) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579680)

This will use heliostats.

Not twitchy third graders.

Over 1000 (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578744)

...over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

Wake me up when it's over 9000.

Re:Over 1000 (0)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579248)

If it's hot enough to boil water, it's hot enough to get useful power out of it.

-jcr

Re:Over 1000 (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579474)

Whoosh.

Re:Over 1000 (1)

Yetihehe (971185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579476)

Actually why do they have to use water? Wouldn't some liquid with lower boiling point be better?

Re:Over 1000 (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579534)

Water holds a lot of calories per degree, relatively speaking.

Re:Over 1000 (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579270)

Wake me up when it's OVER 9000!?!?!!!?

FTFY

Re:Over 1000 (2)

LanMan04 (790429) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579330)

Meh, it's just a broken scouter, nothing to wake yourself over.

Mythbusters (1)

kehren77 (814078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34578770)

Didn't I just see something about this on the Obama episode of Mythbusters?

an extraordinary length of time? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34578954)

How long is that actually? A few hours? Ten hours? Four furlongs? Less than twelve parsecs?

I hope to see more of these soon (1)

MerceanCoconut (1145401) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579106)

I hope to see more and more of these solar plants built in the desert. They don't use arable land, don't burn fossil/organic fuels, and don't take food and make it into fuel. It could also be a major game changer for countries with a lot of desert land turning them into energy exporters.

Re:I hope to see more of these soon (2)

oatworm (969674) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579282)

Seems to me there are more than a few countries with a lot of desert land that are already energy exporters. Now they can just export their energy in something other than liquid form.

Someone Will Sue (1)

JonBuck (112195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579308)

And like so many other solar energy projects in California someone will sue to prevent it from being built because it's on "pristine desert habitat".

Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579346)

What happens when a bird flies too near to the tower?

Re:Question (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579430)

Roasted bird for lunch.

Other than that, I like this technology. Good old fashioned boiler plate technology with virtually no strategic metals involved. There's been some discussion about the temperature at which the salt melts but the article didn't say, or I missed seeing, which salt they were proposing to use. There are many different salts besides plain old sodium chloride and they'll all have different melting points and heat capacity.

Re:Question (1)

Lilith's Heart-shape (1224784) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579642)

Extra crispy.

Fai7zors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579366)

Global Warming (0)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34579418)

power tower filled with salt, which is able to reach very high temperatures (over 1000 degrees Fahrenheit) and can hold heat for an extraordinary length of time.

Sounds like a great source for Global Warming. Why worry about a lousy 1C increase when they have 1000F right there!

FLAT OUT LIE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34579602)

I was researching the Solar two power plant that is now shut down in the Mojave Desert.
I have actually been out to the site and knew the former owner.

It was a molten Salt plant.

http://thegreentank.blogspot.com/2009/09/solar-power-plant-links.html [blogspot.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...