Solar Islands: A new concept for low-cost solar energy at very large scale

This is a guest post by Dr. Thomas Hinderling. Dr. Hinderling is the CEO of CSEM Centre Suisse d'Electronique et de Microtechnique SA. One of CSEM's most exciting projects concerns the design of a new class of large scale concentrating solar power systems, called Solar Islands 1. This article introduces the solar island design to the readers of TOD 2.

Introduction – the Problem

During the next decades, the generation of sustainable energy will become one of the main challenges of our civilization. Worldwide energy demand is expected to grow from about 10 GTep (1010 Tep [Ton Equivalent Petrol], or 5*1019 Joule) in the beginning of the century to 15-20 GTep by 2050. Some scenarios predict even levels as high as 40 GTep. An analysis of future global petrochemical consumption needs (i.e. energy needs and/or raw material for chemical industry) implies that early petrol shortages might already appear in the mid of the century.

The need for large scale renewable energy sources is underlined by the global warming due to increasing CO2 levels. CO2 is an unavoidable by-product of the energy generation process using any kind of fossil fuel.

Or, in simple terms: Not only are we running out of petrol, but the combustion of petrol causes major environmental problems. However, worldwide deployment of renewable energy in very significant quantities constitutes a huge effort of political and financial nature; incredible amounts of invested energy infrastructures are involved. In view of this, the start of this evolution is becoming even more urgent, already today.

While these facts start to be more and more accepted, there is still no global solution for renewable energy sources available. Such a solution should provide usable energy in very large quantities and at competitive costs, i.e. competitive in regard to today's energy prices. Current solar solutions are either not sufficiently scalable (they are only of regional nature), or they are too costly. In most cases, their underlying business model is based on massive public subsidies (which clearly is impossible at large scale deployment), or on massively increased energy prices (at least five times as high as today 3) which would simply disrupt the world economy.

Renewable Energy Sources

Among the many renewable energy sources, the potential of solar energy is at least one hundred times larger than any other renewable energy source (see figure 1).



Fig 1: Yearly global energy for different energy sources (logarithmic horizontal scale, source: Commissariat à l´Énergie Atomique, CEA, France)

Moreover, it can be shown that direct solar irradiation is the only source of energy that can satisfy the global long term energy demand – all other sources of energy are either too insignificant compared to the worldwide energy need (wind, CRW [combustible renewables and waste], tidal energy) or they are too costly (geothermal). Wind, CRW, tidal energy or geothermal energy can all be very interesting on a regional and local base, but they can by far not supply the necessary Gigateps of energy to satisfy the global demand. They have to be considered as auxiliary energy solutions.

Even nuclear fusion energy (should it become available soon, which is unlikely) cannot provide a global solution. Thousands of fusion plants would be needed in order to supply a significant amount of global energy; the ensuing technological and political complexity would be far too high.

Any solution for a future global energy supply must base on direct solar energy conversion at large quantities. Again, this does not mean that other forms of energy could not be interesting, but it means that a global solution can only be focusing on solar irradiation as the main supply of electric and combustible energy.

Classes of Solar Energy Converters

Today, there are four main classes of solar energy systems in operation or in development (aside from many other ideas in test):

  1. Photovoltaic panels:
    Using the principles of photovoltaic conversion, solar light can directly be converted into electricity. This principle is extremely attractive, as the conversion into usable forms of energy is very simple; using little electronics, the output of solar PV panels can directly be fed into the electric grid. The problem with this solution is that the costs of such PV panels are still quite high, and the efficiency of the energy conversion is quite low (between 5 and 15%). Even though there is high hope that the costs will come down and that the efficiency will go up, PV solutions are based on semiconductor surface layers which are inherently expensive. It is doubtful that this technology will provide large scale solutions at sufficiently low costs. Another big and unsolved problem of photovoltaic solutions is the storage of the energy – a must for supply continuity over 24 hours a day. Future solar energy must be bulk energy, available according to daily fluctuating demands, not according to the position of the sun in the sky or the weather! Solar energy at large quantities implies the necessity for energy storage.
     

  2. Low temperature solar panels (collectors):
    These panels use the direct irradiation of the sun to heat water. Temperatures of up to 100oC can be reached. This type of panel is highly efficient (heat is converted into heat). The heated water is relatively easily storable, even at large quantities. These panels are therefore ideal to generate a supply of warm water for domestic and industrial use. However, due to their low temperature, the conversion of the heat energy into other forms of energy (mechanical or electric energy) is very inefficient (see Annex 1).
     

  3. Thermo-solar high temperature panels and systems (100-350oC):
    These systems, also called CSP systems (for "Concentrated Solar Power") collect heat energy from the sun (mainly visible and infrared irradiation), typically to generate saturated (but not super heated) vapor at high temperature (up to 350oC) and high pressure (up to 60 bars). The high temperatures are needed to increase the efficiency of the energy conversion from heat to usable electric energy. To get to these higher temperatures, the solar radiation needs to be concentrated, so that the surface-specific irradiation is corresponding not only to one sun, but to "many suns". Various examples of such concentrators have been developed, but there are two main types:
     

    • Trough-shaped concentrators: The sun is focused to a centrally disposed tube, in which a liquid circulates that can absorb heat. Heat absorbents are typically water or mineral oils.
       


      Fig 2: Trough Concentrator
       
    • Extra Flat Concentrators: The same principle can be arranged in a lower cost arrangement, as in the following figures:
       


       


      Fig 3a and 3b: EFC (Extra-Flat Concentrator)
       

  4. Thermo-solar very high temperature panels and systems (>1000oC):
    There are many examples of very high temperature solar concentrators. The high temperature allows for a very efficient energy conversion, but current solutions are still by far too expensive. It is hard to understand that they ever could become cost competitive.

Cost Considerations

The costs of a solar solution for very high energy quantities need to be similar to today's energy costs, or at least not much higher, as this would have a very negative impact to the world economy.

To estimate the maximal costs that could be accepted in a competitive market environment, we have to start by considering the solar irradiation which is defining the potential revenues. Near the equator it is in the order of 1 kW (kilowatt) per square meter at noon and clear sky. This corresponds to an irradiated mean power of ~250 W (as a mean over 24 hours, i.e. day and night) , equivalent to an irradiated energy of 6 kWh (kilowatt-hours) per day and per square meter. The efficiency of the conversion from solar energy to usable energy (delivered at user's site) is around 10%. In an optimal case (365 days of sunshine, latitudes 0-20o), this mean solar power corresponds to a converted energy of 220 kWh per year and per square meter. At a price of crude oil of around 0.07 US$ per kWh (if converted to equivalent electric energy), this translates to revenues of ~14 US$ per square meter and year. Assuming that 10% of the costs per square meter are used for financing costs and amortization (amortization time of 20 years) and that 10% are used for operational costs, the investment becomes profitable if the costs per square meter are below 70 US$ per square meter (see detailed calculation below).

All current solar solutions are at least 5 times, most often rather 10 times more costly than that. Therefore, new ways and new solutions are needed to provide solar energy at truly competitive costs, so that it becomes a commercially interesting issue, not just an idealistic dream.

It is unlikely that PV panels would ever be available at costs below 200 US$ per square meter (see figure 4). This is mainly due to the fact that the material of the PV panels (semiconductor material) is process- and energy intensive. Also, the advantage of PV solutions at small and medium scale turns into a disadvantage at very large scale. The wiring, power conversion and cleaning would be difficult, and, most of all, the storage of energy is difficult, too.



Fig 4: Photovoltaic module costs of various producers (US$ / square meter, without electronics!)

CSP systems are just the opposite: They are very expensive at small scale (the conversion of vapor to electricity is complex), but they are an excellent solution at very large scale. The reason is simply that at very large scale the active panel area becomes the main cost driver, while the auxiliary systems are much less important.

The conclusion is obvious: High temperature thermo solar panels (=CSP) are clearly the lowest-cost solution at very large scale, while PV systems are the best choice for small systems.

A New Solution

EFC (extra flat concentrators) panels, as described in figure 3, are already offering system solutions which are considerably less expensive than all other solutions. But they still suffer from two disadvantages which render them too costly. Firstly, as they need to follow the sun in its path across the sky, they have to make use of a precise and costly tracking mechanism. Secondly, they offer a large resistance to wind. They either have to be built very ruggedly (expensive), or they lose dramatically in efficiency (wind movement meaning de-focusing, therefore loss of efficiency). It does not seem to be possible at first glance to construct a panel which focuses horizontally, instead of vertically (i.e. turning left-right, instead of up-down), as the panels have to be linked to high pressure vapor lines that go from panel to panel:



Fig 5: Schematics of a line of solar panels with connecting high pressure tube

As the figure shows, it is not possible to turn the panels in this line individually; they can only be turned as a whole. This is where the idea of Solar Islands comes in: If one could put all panels on a very large platform and then turn the platform as a whole, the panels could be fixed horizontally on the platform (offering almost no wind resistance) and be focused by turning the whole platform, thus providing a very cost-efficient solution.

Floating Platforms

Based on the ideas of the author, CSEM has designed a very simple way to provide such a solution, i.e. a very large platform which can be turned as a whole. As the weight per square-meter by the loading of the solar panels is extremely regular (for instance, one panel every 10 meters), we can make use of a very simple principle: A large low-cost surface sheet (typically a plastic sheet) is fixed to a frame in an airtight manner. An over-pressure is applied below the membrane, thus exerting a vertical force. The amount of the over-pressure can be adapted to the specific weight per square meter. In this way, very considerable weights can be easily lifted (without lateral forces!). One tenth of an atmosphere of overpressure exerts a force equivalent to 100 g per square centimeter. This corresponds to 1 ton per square meter already! Therefore, it is easily possible to exert a sufficiently high overpressure to lift the membrane with the panels fixed on top of it.



Fig 6: The principle of "floating". Note: No lateral forces are occurring!

In addition to that, there are ways to turn the platform as a whole to focus the panels to the sun. CSEM proposes to do this in two possible ways:

  • Solar Islands floating on water:
    In this case, the easiest way to construct it is to design it as a spherical platform, which is formed by a swimming ring (typically made of pipeline tubing) over which the membrane is extended and which can be turned very accurately by means of hydrodynamic motors (spaced for instance every ten meters).
     


    Fig 7: Principle of Solar Island
     

    Fig 8: Turning with the sun
     

    Fig 9: Focusing Principle
     

  • Solar Islands on Ground:
    Using a special construction on land, one can use exactly the same principle as described above, as shown in figure 10.
     


    Fig 10: Solar Island on "terra firma"
     

    In this case, a channel has to be built, filled with water or oil, in which the Solar Island can float just like on the sea. Please note that the length of the channel is proportional to the radius of the island, but the surface to the square of the radius. This means: The bigger the island, the less of a problem to build the channel – the costs become soon negligible in comparison to the total costs. The bigger the island, the more the costs are primarily defined by the costs of the solar panels.



Fig 11: Solar Islands – on high sea, near the coast or in the desert

This is why the concept of Solar Island clearly provides a lowest cost solution for solar energy, as the solar panels used are simply – glass! And the focusing mechanism is very simple.


Fig 12: Computer simulation of large Solar Island

Combined Systems

The efficiency of the high temperature solar conversion into electricity is estimated to be around 10%, as mentioned in the paragraphs above. This is a very conservative value; actual experiences let us hope to achieve efficiencies nearer to 15% than to 10%. In addition to that, there is the clear and interesting possibility to combine the energy conversion to electricity with water desalination and/or district chilling. Depending on the local situation of the site of a solar island, as long as it is either on land or not far from a coast, the co-use of the electricity generation process can be used to increase the overall efficiency considerably. Values of up to 18% seem feasible. At such efficiency levels, solar islands would generate electric energy in a commercially competitive way already now.

Energy and Profitability Considerations

Efficiency can be estimated in several ways. We know that it will be somewhere between 10% and 20%, from solar energy to electricity. Let us, for the time being, assume an efficiency of 15%. As outlined above, in very sunny regions at latitudes between 20o north and 20o south, we get about 220 kWh converted energy per square meter and per year, at a mean power of about 250 W solar power per square meter (clear sky). An island with a radius of 1.5 km, covered at 90% with solar panels, having an active surface of 6.4 square kilometers, provides a maximal power of 0.96 GW (Giga Watt) and a mean power (24h/24h) of 192 MW, generating energy of 1.5 TWh per year (1.5 billion kWh per year). This is corresponding to the energy of a small sized nuclear power plant!

Calculation Sheet:
Radius 1.5 km
Surface 7'068'583 Square Meter
Conversion Efficiency 15%
Active Surface Coefficient 90%
Active Surface 6'400'000 Square Meter
Cost per Square Meter (Panel) 150 USD
Cost Overhead 20%
Assumed Price per kWh (2008, no subsidies by Governments) 0.17 USD
Mean Solar Power Per Square Meter (clear sky) 200 W
Maximal Power Per Square Meter (perpendicular to sun) 1'000 W
Sunny Days per Year 330
Mean Power 192 MW
Maximal Power 960 MW
Energy per Year 1'500'000'000 kWh
Income per Year and per Square Meter 40 USD
Income per Year 255'000'000 USD
Cost 1'152'000'000 USD
Operation and Maintenance Costs 115'200'000 USD
Amortization and Interest 92'160'000 USD
Profit 47'640'000 USD
ROCE (return on capital employed) 4.10%
Break-even Price of kWh 0.15 USD

As this calculation shows, the business of Solar Islands starts to become profitable at an energy price of around 12 cents per kWh of electricity. The ROCE (return on capital employed) is already 5% at energy prices of 15 cents per kWh. Other important profitability parameters:

  • Panel costs, estimated to be 100 US$ / m2, will be quite possibly lower at high quantities
  • Efficiency levels, estimated at 10%, will be quite possibly higher, for two reasons:
    • Maturity of technology will increase the performance
    • Co-generation of cold (for district cooling) and sweet water production is increasing the overall efficiency of the process

We do firmly believe that a mixture of these three areas for potential profitability increases will allow for a very interesting business in solar energy at very high volume.

Photovoltaic and Solar Island

A special construction of concentrators allows combining the principle of Solar Island with photovoltaic panels (figure 13).



Fig 13: Photovoltaic panels combined with concentrating mirrors

As shown in this figure, the solar irradiation can be increased by up to a factor 10. This means that only 1/10th per sqm is photovoltaic material, 9/10th is of mirror material. Even at photovoltaic costs of up to 500 US$ per sqm, the mean cost per sqm is as low as 140 US$. This principle therefore not only allows for very cost-efficient PV solutions, but at the same time the fixation, cleaning and connection of the PV panels becomes much simpler. The concept of solar islands opens possibilities in CSP (concentrated solar power) and photovoltaic!

Cost Comparisons

The comparison of cost per kWh (i.e., not price – that is yet another issue!) is difficult to do. It has to base on a certain number of assumptions. Our estimations yield the following results (figure 14):



Fig 14: Cost comparison

The comparisons are made for latitudes of below 20o - at more northern sites the costs per kWh goes up in line with the reduced solar radiation (see Annex 1). It is obvious that all solar-island-type solutions are extremely cost competitive.

Next Steps

Many countries and many institutions have shown their interest for the ideas of Solar Island. CSEM has founded a company named Nolaris Inc., so as to be able to follow up on this interest. Nolaris is currently in a start-up mode, but it already pursues potential contracts in Malta, Qatar, Chile and Tunisia.

The most concrete partner is the government of Ras al Khaimah, the northern-most Emirate in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Ras al Khaimah decided to finance a prototype solar island in the desert of the UAE near Ras al Khaimah City. The construction of this prototype island (diameter 100m) has started; it should begin to operate by mid of 2008. It will prove the feasibility of the concept and give a clear idea about the achievable costs.

References

[1] Patents claimed and deposited - all ownership of intellectual property rights are with CSEM S.A. and Nolaris S.A..

[2] Disclaimer: This is a conceptual description, meant to clarify new ideas for solar technology, so that they can be discussed and analyzed. Please do not definitely rely on this data, as it is subject to detailed technical discussion and feasibility.

[3] Solar electric energy is today about three to four times more expensive than electric energy from nuclear power plants. Solar "storable" energy (like liquid hydrogen or other energy carriers) needs to be generated from solar electricity (at least, based on today's technologies). The comparison of crude oil and "solar" hydrogen is therefore even less in favor of solar energy. Yet it is this form of energy (not electric energy) which forms the bulk of the global consumption.

Annex 1: Solar Radiation Energy in Different Countries

Great article, with a promising outlook.
You mentioned that PV systems lack the ability to store engergy as needed, but I see little mention of how the CSP and solar islands overcome this problem. Does the fluid/vapor retain its heat all night generating power around the clock? One could assume the PV solar-island you mention would still have a storage problem to overcome.

Probably the most compelling thing for me with Solar energy on a large scale is that the best places to build them (near the equator - between the tropics) tend to be far away from the modern population centers that need the energy.

Transmission and storage will be as much (or more) of a challenge than building an affordable/profitable array.

You can see this might work well for emerging energy users like India and China, but not so much for the US and Europe.

Guessing the islands will float just offshore and will be grid-connected by underwater cable. I'd be a little concerned about seaworthiness. Big waves could mess things up. Otherwise, very cool idea.

Big waves could mess things up. Otherwise, very cool idea.

LoL Ya think?

Wonder what a tsunami would do to a floating "solar island"?

Big waves could mess things up. Otherwise, very cool idea.

LoL Ya think?

Wonder what a tsunami would do to a floating "solar island"?

If they are out at sea, probably not a lot. Tsunamis are only a problem when they come to shore. Offshore the wave height may only be inches.

If they are out at sea, probably not a lot. Tsunamis are only a problem when they come to shore. Offshore the wave height may only be inches.

Yeah, but I was responding to Barrett808's post where he said that he guessed that the contraptions "will float just offshore." On the open ocean tsunamis wouldn't be much of a problem; regular ole wind-churned waves would be quite sufficient to wreck a "solar island."

I'd be much more concerned about hurricanes. For example, I don't think anything like this could be done off the Atlantic shoreline. The Pacific would probably be okay, though.

Kinda depends on where it is floating. If your are far enough out at sea, and we're not talking hundreds of miles you might barely notice a tsumani passing by that could easily devastate a coastal village when it makes landfall. However a cat five hurricane might be another matter entirely.
Having worked as a deep sea diver on oil rigs in the past and currently living in the greater Miami area I have a pretty healthy respect for the forces one might encounter out there on the great oceans of the world. Then again if you could sail these islands out of harms way given enough warning it might not be such a bad idea. I would love to see something like that kite surfing out in the ocean.

I wouldn't discount this for the US or Europe, as they both have solar CSP systems up and running now.

http://www.erec.org/renewableenergysources/csp-solar-power.html
"In Europe around 300 MW of solar thermal power plants are either operating or under construction. The installed capacity in Europe is expected to be of 500-1,000 MW by 2010 and an amount of more than 20,000 MW by 2020 is reasonable."

You mentioned that PV systems lack the ability to store energy as needed, but I see little mention of how the CSP and solar islands overcome this problem. Does the fluid/vapor retain its heat all night generating power around the clock? One could assume the PV solar-island you mention would still have a storage problem to overcome.

Yes. PV systems have a problem because they produce electricity directly, and electric energy cannot be stored easily/cheaply. CSP systems are thermal solar systems operating at high temperature values. They can easily store their pneumatic/thermal energy (high pressure/temperature) during the night. Of course you lose some of the stored energy, but the loss is economically and technically acceptable.

Another issue is the summer/winter issue. Solar systems provide more energy during the summer months, which is luckily when you also need more of it close to the equator (for cooling). When you build a solar power plant at a location farther away from the equator, e.g. here in Switzerland, you have a problem, because the solar system produces most of its energy during the summer, whereas we consume much more energy during the winter months (for heating).

So maybe you don't use it for power during the winter. You use the solar collectors for direct heat.

We need all technologies that we can get.

One of the beauties of small-scale solar solutions (collectors or photovoltaics) is that they are incremental systems. They may not provide the most efficient solutions economically, but economical considerations aren't the only considerations to be pondered.

A small-scale solar installation is something that every property owner with a bit of extra cash can do on his or her own, whenever it is most suitable. The technology is readily available; it doesn't take much of a planning; and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. It should be possible to "convince" home owners to invest in such technologies either by suitable PR efforts or by legislation. Each installation on its own is a drop in the bucket, but together they can make a difference.

I'm also thinking that a universal power plant needs to be designed. Solar collectors to heat the working fluid, with alternate auxiliary fuel burners. No more pure fossil fuel burning plants.

Isnt's CRW and Wind a form of Solar energy?

We should not graph it separately, because they are interdependent. If we take some solar energy, we will diminish wind and CRW potential.

The most efficient form of use of solar energy was ommited. Photosynthesis uses 80% of incoming quantum of red light, leaving 20% as waste heat.

Unfortunately, the total photosynthesis efficiency in plants is much lower due to low CO2 and low Chlorophyl concentrations. But I believe, that these obstacles are technologically solvable.

The wind energy figure will have been taken at a relatively low altitude, perhaps 50 meters, and will have other limiting assumptions.
High altitude wind if practical could amply provide all the power society needs.
Likewise hot rock geothermal.
Likewise nuclear fission.

I don't have anything against this idea, but some of the argument is a bit tenditious - for instance, PV power may make up for it's higher cost by being close to the consumer, and not requiring a very low efficiency stage of production of hydrogen.

This sound useful in some hot desert areas, but too extravagant claims need handling with care.

The wind energy figure will have been taken at a relatively low altitude, perhaps 50 meters, and will have other limiting assumptions.

Correct. The author assumed that the average wind turbine generates on average 20% of its maximum power, because it isn't constantly exposed to wind. Some wind turbines (in very good locations) may have efficiency factors that are three times as large, but on average, this is not the case.

Figure 14 was furthermore compiled for latitudes below 20o. At higher latitude values, wind energy becomes more profitable in comparison with solar energy, because at those latitudes, you experience stronger winds and less sun.

I think this concept has serious problems from the structural issues (requirements and dynamics) alone.

  1. The air-supported membrane system requires extensive mechanical structure to tie together components which must e.g. maintain optical focus.  You get this free by putting something on the ground.  You also have to make all components have roughly the same weight/area or you get dimples in the membrane.
  2. A large platform on a floating ring will still take wind forces.  These will be roughly proportional to the area, while the circumference scales as the radius; ergo, the amount of side force per unit length will increase linearly with radius.  The force on a strip of surface a meter wide and a kilometer long would be considerable, and it would have to be borne by one linear meter of floating ring at either end.
  3. Land would have to be very flat to accomodate this.  Grading land flat enough to serve is an expense land-tied systems don't have.
  4. The system is subject to flutter leading to rapid structural overload and failure.  We are all familiar with membranes and fluid boundaries with air flowing over them; we call them flapping flags and waving seas.  You are going to get wave motions induced by wind, and these will cause serious stresses in the membrane.  Preventing failure requires a surface stiff enough and damped well enough to keep the oscillations from growing, and there goes your cost advantage.
  5. One rainstorm and your freely-rotating system is grounded on hundreds of ponds sitting atop the membrane.
  6. For seaborne systems, two words:  rogue waves.

Could integrated sea power station be employed share the cost of one platform and infrastructure.

Could we have seaborne platforms, that:
- combine water colled (CSP)
- behind Photovoltaics PV,
- floating on island made of wave force generators,
- with submerged tidal turbines
- and with Wind Turbines mounted atop?

This could provide some energy at storm and during the night. Hopefuly we do not have still air with no waves at the middle of night during tidal peak at the same time.

Still, how can we transport energy to the shore? Can we dunk high voltage cable into the seawater, or do we need to build utility poles all the way to the shore?

How expensive is electricity transport from the sea?

In addition to Engineer-Poet's points the membranes dimensions will change significantly due to thermal expansion and contraction over the course of a day. I don't see how a flat (as opposed to cantinary curved) membrane can be maintained. This problem, as with many of the others, becomes more significant as membrane diameter is increased.

There are other issues as well, but this bunch need to be answered first I think...

Engineer-Poet -

We appear to be thinking along the same lines regarding structural concerns.

The first thing that struck me when looking at some of the conceptual sketches is that it shows the membrane responding in a perfectly vertical manner when subjected to overpressure from below. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work. When you subject a flexible membrane to a pressure differential, it will tend to assume a spherical shape (picture soap bubbles or balloons). So you have that problem for starters.

And if you make this thing big enough, you will indeed get wind-induced waves rippling across its surface, much like a wheat field in the wind, and this would surely throw the focusing out of alignment.

As I see it, putting one of these solar island out on the sea is totally impractical, because in addition to the problem of wave motion distorting the surface you have the little problem of it being ripped to shreds at the first big storm.

A problem, though not an insurmountable one, is that of moving the steam from the island to the power plant (assuming you're not going to build a power plant on the floating island). Perhaps some sort of steam-tight gland at the center might work.

Having raised those concerns, I will say that in principle, I kind of like the idea of having fixed flat collectors on a large rotating 'island'. I think a more practical embodiment of this general concept might be to make these units much smaller but to have the collectors mounted on a lightweight solid structure that would rotate about its axis on a series of concentric rails. I could picture these to be about the size of some of these rotating irrigation systems that slowly turn on wheels.

The first thing that struck me when looking at some of the conceptual sketches is that it shows the membrane responding in a perfectly vertical manner when subjected to overpressure from below. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work. When you subject a flexible membrane to a pressure differential, it will tend to assume a spherical shape (picture soap bubbles or balloons). So you have that problem for starters.

This is incorrect. The bridge (membrane) would hang through (sag) without overpressurization due to its own weight. The surpressure applied is calculated to just compensate for this force, thereby removing all of the lateral forces.

Francois Cellier -

I'm not saying that one would be unable to compensate for this natural tendency for even a mildly inflated membrane to bulge (just watch a large balloon during the early stages of inflation), but it is something that will have to be taken carefully into consideration. Maybe you will be able to balance it out by careful weight distribution, but I think it will be very difficult.

The fundamental problem that I see, based on my understanding of the concept as explained, is going to be the difficulty in maintaining a sufficiently flat and dimensionally stable surface so as to ensure that all of the collectors are focused on the receiver all of the time. As it is critical to maintain the desired angle of the collectors within a fairly narrow band, any rippling, distortion, or movement of the inflated surface is going to reduce the amount of solar energy actually transferred to the receiver.

It is hard enough getting a large array of collectors all perfectly aligned even when they are fixed to a rigid support, but attempting to do this on a 'floating' membrane subject to movement strikes me as quite daunting.

duplicate

I mention this down thread but it is worth making this explicit: In the azimuthal direction of the Sun, ripples don't matter. This is clear from the design since they would only translate to an effective change in altitude of the Sun. In the direction perpendicular to the azimuthal direction of the Sun, the only ripples that matter are those that have half-wavelengths comparable to or smaller than about three times the width of a collector strip. If the collector tube it tilted at the same angle as its reflectors in this direction wrt. vertical, then the sunlight remains focused on the collector tube. You only get different tilt for the tube and the reflector if the ripple has a small wavelength. If the wavelength is large, everything tilts together. So long as you can damp the amplitude of small wavelength ripples, there should not be a big problem.

Chris

mdsolar -

Thanks for clarifying that point.

I would expect that ripples and other types of surface distortions could and would take place at just about any orientation about the axis of this thing, depending on direction, strength, and variability of the wind acting upon the surface.

You indicated that as long as the ripples have a small wavelength there shouldn't be much of a problem. Well, what sort of minimum wavelength would you consider acceptable?

Again, it's not just the transients that I would be worried about, but mainly the basic problem of trying to maintain a flat surface on a huge flexible membrane. Nor would I discount the problems that would be caused by heavy rainfall, or worse yet, snow. But as these things would appear more suited for dry, sunny locations, such as Arizona or the Middle East, that may not be an insurmountable problem.

Actually it is the other way around. If the ripples have large wavelengths then they don't matter. They leave the reflector assemblies locally flat (though tilted). The compensation is not perfect. If you tilt the refelctor the angle of the reflected light increases by twice the tilt angle while the absorber only tilts by the tilt angle, but the aborber does tend to follow the direction of the deflection of the light. So long as the aborber is wide enough to handle the amount of expected tilt and still capture the light then there is no loss. It is really only ripples in the perpendicular direction (or the perpendicular projections of arbirarily oriented ripples) that are important because the parallel ripples just slide the reflection along the absorber.

So, local flatness in one direction together with not too large a tilt should keep the light focused.

Chris

mdsolar -

I know this thread is already a few days old, and I don't want to belabor the point (or at least not too much), but it still seems to me that even small changes in reflector angle will have an adverse effect.

For example, if a particular reflector is set at an angle of say 25 degrees and if the target receiver is say 40 ft away, then even a 1-degree relative change in angle will cause the center of the light beam to move about 8 inches (40 ft x sin 1 degree) either up or down. So, if the receiver is say a 6-inch diameter pipe, you will have moved the center of the light beam right off the receiver. And that is for a relative angular displacement of only one degree.

So what is it that I'm misunderstanding or not seeing about this?

These are very good questions indeed that deserve an answer, an answer that I cannot provide. I alerted the author to these questions, and I hope that he'll be able to provide satisfactory answers to at least some of them.

What Engineer-Poet demonstrated clearly is that size matters. Not all technologies scale up equally well, and the scaling problem needs to be looked at very carefully.

I am also inclined to believe that the "terra firma" (desert) solution may be simpler to work out than the ocean construction. I am also concerned that any technical problems with the platform will take the entire power plant off-line until the problem has been fixed.

A possible solution might be to build a ring of 20-30 individual Solar Islands of 100 m diameter each around a single thermal power plant built in the center.

In this way, if there is a technical problem with one of the platforms, the others will continue to produce steam (high pressure) for the turbine.

Also, grading the terrain would become much less of a problem, because not all of the individual Solar Islands need to be at exactly the same altitude.

The prototype that is currently being constructed in Ras al Khaimah has a diameter of close to 100 m. We'll know soon enough whether all of the potential engineering glitches have been worked out in its design.

If the results are positive, more money will be made available to replicate the design either on its current or on a somewhat enlarged scale.

One rainstorm and your freely-rotating system is grounded on hundreds of ponds sitting atop the membrane.

It is perfectly feasible to raise the center part of the platform a bit so that water can flow off on its own. The angle of the mirrors can be calculated to compensate for the difference in height. Alternatively, you can adjust the location of the pipe to the focal point. The pipe carrying the liquid (water or mineral oil) to be heated doesn't have to be on a straight line throughout the platform.

It is perfectly feasible to raise the center part of the platform a bit so that water can flow off on its own.

You need a minimum pitch, or a random wind- or flow-generated variation will create a local low spot and water will immediately flow into it from all directions.

Your best bet is probably to forget the idea of a flat mounting surface.  Forget the idea of rotating a mile-wide collector system too.  Cylindrical inflated reflectors aiming onto pipes have none of the wind-oscillation or water-handling difficulties of a large flat membrane, and only have to be rotated on one axis.  IIRC Daniels describes this experiment being done in the 1950's in Egypt.  We can use fast, cheap and easy; maybe it's time to dust that one off.

Your best bet is probably to forget the idea of a flat mounting surface. Forget the idea of rotating a mile-wide collector system too. Cylindrical inflated reflectors aiming onto pipes have none of the wind-oscillation or water-handling difficulties of a large flat membrane, and only have to be rotated on one axis. IIRC Daniels describes this experiment being done in the 1950's in Egypt. We can use fast, cheap and easy; maybe it's time to dust that one off.

It is not a question of one or the other. We need everything that we can get ... and this includes the best (i.e., most economical) designs for CSP systems.

At the current time, there are several CSP projects being under construction (or recently completed) as prototypes, i.e., primarily for experimentation, but simultaneously also for usage.

Some of them are cylindric/parabolic designs (similar to the Solar Islands, but with tracking devices associated with the individual mirrors). One such plant that I am very familiar with is the CESA-1 1 MW plant being built in Almería, Spain. I sat on the committee of a Ph.D. student who wrote his dissertation on creating a mathematical model of that plant.

Another design is the Solar Tower design, whereby sunlight is being focused on a single point rather than a line. This leads to higher temperature values, and thereby to a higher efficiency of the Carnot cycle (conversion of heat to work). An 11 MW plant of this type that I am fairly familiar with is the solar tower constructed recently outside Sevilla.

Solar Islands are a third contender that already proved itself sufficiently well to attract several million Dollars of funding for a prototype that is currently being built in Ras al Khaimah. As not much had been published on that third design in the past, I invited Dr. Hinderling to present his design to the readers of TOD, thereby placing it prominently in the open literature.

Which of these designs will ultimately win out remains to be seen, but until this judgment can be made, we should welcome this and any other potentially promising new designs with an open mind and with enthusiasm.

It is not a question of one or the other. We need everything that we can get ...

(emphasis added) Which implies "workable" and "not too expensive".  I question whether solar islands fall in this class.  What works in and around the sheltered Persian Gulf is going to face a very different environment in open ocean, or even the