|
|
|
|
|
by Retric
1766 days ago
|
|
Solar parabolic isn’t close to cost effective vs PV. It costs more for less dependable power. What companies like about it is it’s a thermal power plant so they can run it 24/7 by burning fossil fuels while selling “green” power. |
|
There's a recent proof of concept plant using bauxite particles instead of a liquid or gas as the thermal mass. It should help quite a bit in cost and reliability. Rather than a bunch of high-pressure tubing for liquid salts and such, it works with grain lifts.
One nice thing about using solar thermal for hydrolysis is that much hotter water is much easier to split with electricity. So if you use some of the heat mass to heat water steam to 600 or 700 C, you can use a lot less of the power post-conversion.
A CO2 heat loop might be more efficient than a water steam one, so if the plant isn't dedicated to hydrolysis it might end up with two generation loops.