Talk:Solar power tower

message: 11:00, 29 January 2006 Dalf m (this is probably a disambiguation page not a stub but I am not sure yet so I have not changed it)
: This looks like a disambiguation page to me as well. There are articles/stubs on each of those subjects. However, the real problem is the confusion about Solar Tower and Solar tower: one is supposed to be a power station, while the other is equipment used in astronomy. Historically the astronomical equipment takes precedence; the use of the term "Solar Tower" for a power station is confusing and probably inappropriate. I wouldn't know how to fix that though. JDH 14:00, 32
It appears the article has been corrected as there is no mention of "solar tower" The link to Nevada One is very helpful, even though it uses parabolic solar troughs instead of a tower, as Nevada One has some information on solar power tower etc.
The megawatt hours per week or per month would be helpful especially for December when the Sun is lowest in the sky in the North Temperate Zone. I'm suspicious that the designers sacrificed early morning and late afternoon power to get the rated power at noon local time.Ccpoodle (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenFrantzDale (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 May 2007
:The article has several photos now. More photos may be available on Flickr:
:*
:And see Commons:Category:Solar energy. --Teratornis (talk) 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  photo 

message: I am aware that, when viewing the picture for this article, there appears to be some humidity that is made apparent by the concentration of the solar energy.  How much energy is wasted by heating the ambient humidity?  I would argue that, if the humidity were removed using a recirculating draught in proximity to the tower, then the overall efficiency could (arguably) be increased as less light would be diffracted away (as always with these things, some poor soul would have to do the mathematics).
:Dust and windblown sand might be even greater problems in the desert, where these things would usually be sited. I think the dew point temperature is pretty low most of the time in deserts. You might be seeing dust rather than humidity getting lit up near the beam focus. --Teratornis (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Picture/Humidity

message: Would it be worthwhile for people to point out that (at a naive level) there is no reason for why light should heat up objects (surely it is infrared radiation which is responsible for heating up objects?).  Perhaps there is some process that could convert the higher frequency light radiation to Infra-Red.  Is this what causes the Solar Power towers to actually heat up the focal points of the reflected radiation?  If that latter assertion (cunningly masked as a question) is correct - then would it not be possible to modify mirrors so that any incident UV radiation could be transformed into IR so as to be reflected onto the focal point?  Not forgetting that 99% of incident UV radiation is UVA (with energy per photon of about .493-.616eV for non ozone depleted parts of the globe) would florescent mirrors not translate into a higher intensity of radiation being focused onto the central focal point than might be possible with normal mirrors (ie: metallic mirros - or, even worse from the point of view of UV, glass-based mirrors).  
Perhaps my reasoning is flawed.  I'm quite sure that the above is not original research - I am, in effect (naively) asking how mirrors that reflect light can heat up objects in a way which one would expect to correspond to infrared radiation.  
ConcernedScientist 20:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An object reflects light according to its albedo i.e. reflectivity. Any light the object does not reflect, it absorbs. Absorbed light generally turns into heat and warms the object. The exception would be any light that drives a chemical reaction as in photosynthesis or generates an electrical current as in photoelectricity. Presumably the design of the power tower collector maximizes its absorption of incident light (or actually, as much of the incident radiation bouncing off the heliostats as possible). Optical mirrors reflect infrared radiation quite well, as you can verify experimentally by bouncing the IR beam from a remote controller onto a television set. You can stand behind the television, and as long as you can see the front of the television in the mirror, you can beam the remote right at the television's reflection in the mirror, and operate the television without difficulty. I'm not sure how well the heliostats reflect ultraviolet. I'm pretty sure glass absorbs a lot of UV, so if the heliostat has a glass face with a silvered backing, all the light it reflects would make two trips through the glass, which might attenuate the UV. For faster response on these kinds of questions, try the Reference desk, as few people will check the talk page of an infrequently-edited article like this one. --Teratornis (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Does light actually heat?

message: I am no engineer, but to store the heat in sodium seems it would be less efficient than to use the solar generated electricity to perform electrolysis in tanks stored in deep water. The deepness of the water would provide the compression of the hydrogen/oxygen needed to store large volumes. The energy could be recovered either by pipe or fuel cell technology.
71.127.17.39 (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have information on how efficient Deep water Electrolysis is for energy storage? i.e. how many kWh is recovered for each kWh stored? The key issue of energy storage is its efficiency, and AFAIK electrolysis is not very efficient JdH (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest assured that the people who design power plants are engineers, and they know what is more efficient. Despite the hype about the hydrogen economy, it's still mostly a nonstarter for grid energy storage, other than in a few small demonstration projects. Electrolysis is inefficient (only about 50%-60% of the energy in electricity gets converted into chemical energy of hydrogen and oxygen) and fuel cells are still expensive. See Grid energy storage#Hydrogen. However, solar power plants might someday be able to generate hydrogen by thermochemical means, which could potentially be more efficient than electrolysis, since any type of thermal power plant has a larger thermal power than its electrical output (see Carnot efficiency). Hydrogen also allows for the possibility of long-term (years) energy storage in underground caverns, whereas molten-salt thermal storage schemes typically only store heat for a week or so. That would be great for smoothing out the seasonal variations in wind and solar power. --Teratornis (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with Deep Water Electrolysis?

message: Cander0000 keeps removing important links under the argument "spam". That's plain silly; just the fact that these are links to commercial companies doesn't make it "spam" The important issue is whether is adds to the article, and it clearly does. Recently, there has been a renewed interest in Solar tower power technology, as is evident from the fact that there are several companies involved in planning, designing and building utility size power plants. Clearly, that is an important development, as it is an important step towards the ultimate goal of developing commercially viable plants. It is important to take notice of those developments, and the best way to avoid bias is to make sure that all enterprises active in the area are covered. If we choose to link only to some companies, and not others, how could we be sure that we were unbiased? Clearly, the best way to ensure an unbiased coverage of the subject it to link to as many of the relevant companies as we are aware of JdH (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I was brash about the label "spam" - the ones removed though are at least on the boundaries of WP:EL.  I'd like to see the content incorporated into the article, with those links as references perhaps - even your paragraph above is good info that should be in the article (ideally, w/ sources).  do any of the companies have their own wiki article already?  you could start somethign like a :Category:Solar power companies to list notable companies.Cander0000 (talk) 01:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-insert relevant links 

message: Perhaps  can be added to the article.
91.182.118.210 (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Are there no stirling engine-powered solar power towers. These have higher efficiencies, and do not require water.
91.182.132.58 (talk) 11:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Stirling engine solar power tower ? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Esolar 13.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: solar power tower 27.109.114.142 (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  solar power tower