Talk:The Solar Project

Fate of solar one and two

I visited the site back in 2005. It was deserted, "x-file like", with broken mirrors and a damaged tower which had clearly suffered an explosion. Apparently the energy storage unit exploded due to poor engineering or some other reason I'm not aware of. Everywhere I go on the web, I see that old picture of the site when it was running. The reality today is very different. I think this should be documented accordingly on the page, while reminding everyone this was an experimental, pilot project. It is associated with a large nearby solar trough plant, which is running nicely, and was showcased in the movie Gataca. User:Greg Boutin 14:40, 1 Aug 2008 (UTC)

The tower was demolished in November 2009 and the heliostats were "removed" after 10 years of non-use. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Megawatt output

The intro paragraph says that Solar One put out 10MW of power, but then later it says that the Solar Two modifications "allowed" it to put out 10MW; I'm guessing that means the initial output was somewhat less. Can someone with knowledge of this fix? -- nae'blis _(talk) 12:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this ambiguity needs to be fixed. Do does the working fluid inconsistency. In Solar Two it says One used water, tbut the One subsection implies a different working fluid, specifically oil, as do other sources. --Belg4mit 05:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solar One used oil to store excess thermal energy in a big tank filled with rock. This allowed production of electricity at a derated condition after the sun went down. The initial design created superheated steam at 960 deg F and 1200 psi to run the turbine generator when the sun was up. I worked on this project in the late seventies doing boiler panel controller design and computer modeling of the boiler panels. I left the project before it was commissioned but, I heard from coworkers that Solar One, while rated at 10 MW, had produced up to 13 MW at times and ran well into the night from the thermal storage system. I do not know about the Solar two modifications.--The1Bear 13:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the project requirement for Solar Two was to prove a new working fluid (molten salt) while still producing 10 MW. It appears from other discussions that molten salt has greater heat storage capabilities, and that is what was being proved. Just a thought. The1Bear 18:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging with power tower

solar one is a specific thing. it should not be merged to a more general idea. solar one/two/tres have plenty of information specific to itself ZyMOS 12:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar One/Solar Two/Solar Tres

I understand the relation between solar one & two, but solar tres is in a completely different country. What is the relationship between these 3 projects? This needs to be mentioned in the introduction, I feel most readers will be confused as to what the relation with solar tres??? I have tried to find out what the relation is between them but have not found out, other than solar tres builds on the ideas from solar one and two. decrease789 12:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"After the demonstration projects Solar One and Two, Solar Tres is the first commercial project of the Power Tower Technology. The Solar Tres consortium of Spanish, French, Czech Republic and US companies is promoting the 15-MW plant project with a large solar multiple of 3. The project, which has received a subsidy of 5 million Euro from the EC, makes use of the Solar Two technology tested in Barstow (California), but will be approximately three times the size. Solar Tres will make use of several advances in the molten salt technology since Solar Two was designed and built." [1] -- Johnfos 09:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what were the reasons behind the decommissioning of Solar Two?

The footnote reference to Solar Tres doesn't actually have anything to that tower-with-molten-salt-storage; it is a BBC article about the Solucar solar tower, which directly boils water to drive a steam turbine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ortmeister (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Land Use

The article says solar uses less land than "...coal plants (including the amount of land required for mining and excavation of the coal)." I think this claim should have a reference- I have long been interested in such a comparison but have yet to find good data. BCC 12:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that desert has "few other uses". A little bit anthropocentric, considering it's supposed to be discussing an environmental concern. Deserts are fragile ecosystems, and there are plenty of areas of desert that would be better used as conservation areas... --naught101 (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Participants

Having been the writer/coordinator for the Westinghouse proposals for design and fabrication of a prototype low-cost heliostat for Solar One, my memory says that Arco was a major commercial sponsor of the project. If so, its role should be acknowledged. --NameThatWorks (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Department of Energy (DOE), Southern California Edison, LA Dept of Water and Power, and California Energy Commission did not design Solar One. The concept may have originated there and they provided funding but the subsystem designs were done by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company (MDAC). MDAC was also the Solar Facility Design Integrator. Please refer to http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1978/PV1978_1750.pdf for more information or google search on "mcdonnell douglas and solar one (this appears to be the first page of a report on the project, more info if you join I guess). This follows my recollection of how the project was operated. Not saying ARCO was not involved, I just do not remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The1Bear (talk • contribs) 16:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beg to differ. Martin-Marietta (now part of Lockheed-Martin) was the prime contractor; I worked on the proposal and the software for the heliostat control system for One, as well as plants with parabolic mirrors and molten salt medium erected in Elmira, Spain and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The heliostats were built in Martin's plant in Pueblo, Colorado; the systems designed and integrated at Martin's plant south of Denver. I remember that the Martin heliostat design had the mirrors supported centrally on a tall pedestal, while MDAC's design had the drive motor close to the ground and a yoke that connected at either side of the mirror array. Arco was indeed one of the customers. It seems like a long time ago. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Information?

Hi, I have been trying to find out how much did the DoE put in for "The Solar Project." I can’t find it anywhere...Anybody? Thanks for your help. TheAsianGURU (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to know how much it cost to build the facility and what it cost for transmission lines to connect it to the grid. Johnfravolda (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found this in a 2006 article in Renewable Energy World: "Gilbert Cohen, Vice President of Engineering & Operations for Solargenix, said the project costs somewhere in the range of $220-250 million." Johnfravolda (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not have the costs of this facility as a major subhead only gives critics more ammunition. You need a section on costs broken down to both "overnight" costs per KW installed (the cost to build it) as well as O&M costs and finally the levelized cost of a KWhr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.111.9 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusual atmospheric phenomenon"

"During times of high winds, blowing dust is sometimes illuminated by the reflected sunbeams to create an unusual atmospheric phenomenon in the vicinity of the power tower. These beams of light were depicted in several scenes, and a painting, in the movie Bagdad Cafe, which was filmed nearby." This is something that could really use a picture. Are there any pictures of this phenominon under an appropriate licensing for Wikipedia? I'm guessing it's something like the beams seen in the picture at the top of solar power tower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baradys (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure about this, but I do know that when the plant was operating the air in front of the target sometimes glowed with ionization. Starting the plant up in the morning required a fifteen minute procedure called "walking the wires", in which groups of mirrors were focused on four imaginary lines from the ground to the target. The mirrors walked the wires in groups to avoid too much energy focused off the target. SkoreKeep (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links mostly dead

Very few working links left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.62.99.132 (talk) 14:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]