I don't know why you're trying to turn this into an "obviously govt can't do anything" point. There are plenty of very well-run governments who would have ably foreseen and solved these problems. And no doubt there's any number of private companies who would have screwed up just as badly.
Trying to tar the entire idea of government with Pakistan's performance is pretty bad faith IMO.
You're mis-quoting me. Is this intentional?
I understand paraphrasing, but there's better (and more accurate) ways of doing that.
> I don't know why you're trying to turn this into an "obviously govt can't do anything" point. There are plenty of very well-run governments who would have ..
FWIW it wasn't a 'no government can do anything' claim.
I have no doubt that there are a number of government agencies that can do things.
The fact that this particular project delivered a measurable 20% of projected outcomes is the point.
If you have some alternative interpretations of this outcome, they'd be very welcome.
> And no doubt there's any number of private companies who would have screwed up just as badly.
Are you suggesting I can't claim something is bad -- because something else would be just as bad?
> Trying to tar the entire idea of government with Pakistan's performance is pretty bad faith IMO.
This is a bold leap, and no faith is involved.
> this sounds like a traditional government project problem -- susceptibility to corruption, vanity, hubris etc.
said the person on a web forum (the web comes from CERN, a gov project) over the internet (the internet comes from DARPA, a gov project) on a computer (ever heard of the ENIAC? a gov project)
Tech bros mouthing off off-topicly about the government is the most tedious and boring thing ever.
https://techpinions.com/its-not-just-the-internet-how-govern...
Referring to GP's wikipedia reference, can you explain the two 'for unknown reasons' on a) why the original (Canadian) contract was not engaged, and b) the Turkish project was not engaged.
What precisely was ashistorical about any of my post?
> > this sounds like a traditional government project problem -- susceptibility to corruption, vanity, hubris etc.
> said the person on a web forum (the web comes from CERN, a gov project) over the internet (the internet comes from DARPA, a gov project) on a computer (ever heard of the ENIAC? a gov project)
I really am bewildered.
Are you claiming that because I'm using the Internet I am not authorised to claim that any government project in any country at any time is beyond questioning?
> Tech bros mouthing off off-topicly about the government is the most tedious and boring thing ever.
Goodness.
I'm sorry you're bored, I'm not a tech bro, claims of poorly run projects within the land of the pure isn't off-topic to the claims made.
Reading about some of the missteps of CSP, much like the above, they seem to be share similar traits of government mishandling, bureaucracy, dodgy dealings, etc.
EDIT: In any case, a naive interpretation of the Pakistan project cited -- if it truly is getting ~20% of anticipated power, cost per unit is 5x forecast, at which point a CSP would have been better value for money.
I suspect that solar thermal is in more than a lull; I suspect that it's been obsoleted by PV and we aren't going to be seeing many new installations at all.
I also suspect that mirrors are less sensitive to dust than PV cells. And that it's cheaper to just install more mirrors (flat reflective surfaces) to compensate for anticipated dust build-up, than photovoltaic panels (per unit of area or per unit of power generated).
But, really, I expect there's a fair bit of research on this subject already out there.
As I intimated, it's probably not so much an obsolescence issue, as one of pushing the storage question aside. CSPs address generation, with some ephemeral (cloud, evening, etc) storage capabilities. As per the standard observation - it's going to be a blend of power generation and storage technologies that sees us through.
The storage issue is interesting, but doesn't matter so much to most plants since they tie into a larger balanced grid, and battery storage is coming down in cost at the same exponential rate as PV. These same advantages are not accruing to solar thermal. So I do think we are seeing the death knell for solar thermal, even when energy storage is desired alongside peak production.
Storage can't be ignored - and the 'balanced grid' that we're all part of relies heavily on burning fossil fuels for both baseload coping with peaks (sun goes behind a cloud or the horizon, or the wind stops for a while). As we decom more of the fossil fuel systems, a more robust & scalable storage system, even a relatively ephemeral one, will become more compelling. (my prediction : )
>improves magnificently with high temperatures
Thermal solar is a solar heat energy source + classic steam turbine. The efficiency of a thermal->electric converter (turbine) is largely governed by the difference between the hot and cold side.
Increasing both the hot and cold side temperatures equally would not increase efficiency, AFAIK it would actually decrease efficiency, and without lots of water, they can't use evaporative cooling either.
Hence the C in CSP.
Contemporary molten salt CSPs operate at ~700C, so the difference between the concentrator and ambient air temperature would be 3% (at 25C) and 6% (at 45C).
In other words, a 3% difference. Perhaps measurable at the output, but certainly not significant.
New CSP designs are coming along that are working around 1000C, which would render that delta even more negligible.
In contrast, while PV cells vary, I believe max power temperature coefficients of around 0.4% / 1C is a standard figure.
That means at 25C your panels are losing 10% of max capacity, but at 45C that number goes up to 25%.
A massive reduction in capability.
As an aside, your calculations are improper, even though results are close enough. 0℃ is merely 273.15K and the temperature at which water tends to freeze. E.g. PV efficiency is usually quoted at 25℃ (or 300K), so at -20℃ they could generate cca 120% of "max" (rated) capacity.
A valid example of what can go wrong when you pick the wrong technology, don't do small scale trials first, and rely on government oversight. (Refer the Background & Operation section of the wikipedia article -- toe-curlingly alarming, yet ultimately unsurprising.)
They almost definitely should have pursued concentrated solar thermal. It partly solves the 'storage problem', provides power well into the evening, doesn't need more water than they have to clean it, and improves magnificently with high temperatures (the wikipedia article cites the problem of regular 45C days, which are above the 25C optimum temperature for PV panels).
Given all this was known and understood before they broke ground, this sounds like a traditional government project problem -- susceptibility to corruption, vanity, hubris etc.