Talk:Solana Generating Station
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
info requested
editCould anyone add :
- what salt is used ? (Ideas at Thermal_energy_storage#Molten_salt_technology)
- what oil is used ? 'synthetic' ?
- how the plant avoids cooling towers to re-condense the steam ? (or how much water used by the site)
Moved information about Abengoa insolvency not relevant to SGS
editI moved and saved here, the following information about Abengoa insolvency, not relevant to Solana Generating Station:
As of February 2016, Abengoa, the company that built Solana is on the brink of bankruptcy. Solar and transmission line projects in Brazil are in default, their biofuels plant in Kansas is up for sale.[1]
@Yukon3472: if you feel, you could insert that information in the relevant article Abengoa (edit this section, find and copy the above text). SGS is completed and fully operational, so the parent company Abengoa possible demise would not have any effect on the plant production.--Robertiki (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Abengoa revenue (2014) could be split in €4515 million in Engineering and construction, €2137 million in Bioenergy, €335 million in running Solar plants, €41 million in Water plants, €91 million in managing Transmission lines, €32 million in Cogeneration and others. And Abengoa builds also photovoltaic plants, like this 30 MW in California. The builder of SEGS, Luz Industries, also went bankrupt in 1992, but the plants are still profitable, producing 7,065 GW·h of electricity in about 30 years. So, stating that the Abengoa bankruptcy revolves around the successful Solana installations is misleading. It is true that the projected full production for Solana was 994 GW·h, but find me a 280 MW photovoltaic plant that delivers 720 GW·h/year and works also after sunset. --Robertiki (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Moved considerations about CSP not relevant to SGS
editI moved and saved here, the following considerations about CSP, not relevant to Solana Generating Station:
Solar Concentrating Power stations have proven themselves to be significantly more expensive to build and operate than photovoltaics. However, PV installations are coming in on budget and seem to have no trouble meeting nameplate output specifications, something CSP seems unable to do.[2]
@Yukon3472: if you feel, you could insert that information in the relevant article about Concentrated solar power (edit this section, find and copy the above text). A natural resource has no annual nameplate output production value. Neither photovoltaics. You have a theoretical value, not controllable as in the case of fossil power station. For your information, I would suggest reading Gemasolar Thermosolar Plant, which describes a now tested plant. --Robertiki (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Estimated versus planned versus real data production
editI just made some changes, comparing the planned generation to 900 GWh as per actual data in the owner filing to the grant office, instead of the 944 GWh NREL estimated data (a abstract theoretical estimate ?). The change lowers the real data production mismatch to 13.8%. --Robertiki (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)